Jump to Navigation
Home

Main menu

  • Home
  • Latest Stories
  • Markets Map
  • Trends and Sentiments
  • Leading Topics
  • News Search
  • Comments and Analysis

Secondary menu

  • Latest News
  • Top Rated
  • Most Popular
  • Archive
  • About Us
  • Svenska Handelsbanken's (SVNLF) Management on Q1...
  • Donald Trump will reportedly visit Britain in July
  • Adidas just opened a futuristic new factory — and it will...
  • Memo: VA pick Jackson said to have crashed car while drunk
  • MarketWatch First Take: Facebook appears to be...
  • Sirius XM Continues Growth Trajectory With Q1 Results
  • Canada sees progress on NAFTA auto rules; steel tariffs...
  • The 'Riverdale' actor who plays Chic says...
  • With details of Canada’s deployment to Mali murky,...
  • Qualcomm profit tops estimates on higher modem chip sales

    Why SEC Has Strong Case Against Goldman, Part 2

    Fri, 04/30/2010 - 17:39 EDT - Seeking Alpha
    • DB
    • GS
    • MCO
    • Suna Reyent

    Suna Reyent submits: << Return to Part 1The “But They Were Big Boys” DefenseThis is the defense that Goldman, while acting as a broker-dealer, did not act in a fiduciary capacity in this deal, a fact that sophisticated investors are well aware of. Touché. But fraud is still fraud regardless of who the victim is. In other words, the laws that Goldman is charged with violating apply to qualified institutional buyers under Rule 144A as well.The senate grilled Goldman executives on having made money at the expense of clients. This is bound to provoke outrage in the constituency, although betting against clients in and of itself does not a legal case make. But it does assist in establishing the bigger picture that shows purposeful actions on the part of the firm to push the aforementioned CDO deal onto the customers in an inappropriate and misleading fashion.Besides, it does not hurt to spice up the case with insider details on how Goldman made money via selling “cats and dogs” to sophisticated clients. Not to mention that the deceived “big boys” may have been taking care of individual savings and retirement accounts of ordinary folk.The “But The CDO Would Have Performed Poorly Even Without Paulson’s Involvement” DefenseSo, that’s why the firm was so anxious to dump the “cats and dogs” remaining in its inventory, right? And that’s why the firm was trying so hard to find a counterparty to sell its remaining investment in the Abacus CDO as soon as the deal was completed.Whether a certain misrepresentation or fraud changes the final outcome of a deal or situation does not excuse the fact that a material misrepresentation as well as fraud has been committed.This is intellectually equivalent to saying that a person you poisoned died because of an earthquake so what you did to them prior to their death is not punishable by law.The “But Others Were Doing What We Were Doing” DefenseNormally I would contain my sarcasm, but really, how solid is it to try to explain away material misrepresentation and fraud by saying that there were others out there who did what Goldman did as well? Since when did pointing fingers to others become a legitimate defense?But did others do exactly what Goldman did?There were plenty of other CDO deals done on the street. In fact, SEC and Goldman seem to have engaged in at least one conversation regarding which deal on the street included what kind of disclosure throughout the 18 months of this investigation.Deutsche Bank (DB) sold similar CDOs without notifying customers who was on the other side of the trade, and Paulson was taking short bets on these deals as well. Here is how Deutsche Bank’s head of communications argued that its deals were different from Goldman’s Abacus deal:What distinguishes Deutsche Bank's CDO transactions is that both long and short investors were given the opportunity to select the specific collateral to which they were seeking exposure and mutually agreed on the CDO portfolio. No third-party collateral manager was utilized for these deals, which eliminated the potential for deception with respect to the role of such a manager.Complete Story »

    • Original article
    • Login to post comments
     

    Related

    • Why SEC Has Strong Case Against Goldman, Part 1

      Suna Reyent submits: I have stated in an earlier article my belief that SEC has a very strong case. I also believe that the Goldman Sachs (GS) defense I’ve read thus far is inadequate. So what is wrong with the Goldman defense?

    • The Case Against Abacus Doesn't Add Up

      Goldman (GS) continues to dominate the news. An editorial by the Wall Street Journal's, Holman Jenkins, makes the argument that Goldman and Paulson are being made an example because the winning side of the bet was the short side. I think there may be something to this, After all, it was the short sellers who were blamed for starting the financial crisis in spite of the fact that many institutions were in fact in trouble and bordering on insolvency. Firms such as Bear Stearns, Lehman (LEHMQ.PK) and Wamu were in fact insolvent.

    • John Paulson Needs A Good Lawyer

      By Simon Johnson, co-author of 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and The Next Financial Meltdown

    • Going for Goldman

      There's been a lot of indignant chatter about how Goldman Sachs had been selling investors long positions that they were short on, and how this represented a conflict of interest, or something.  This rather fundamentally misunderstood the role of a market maker, which is, after all, to take the other side of the trade.

    • SEC Lawyer on Goldman CDO Case Describes How the Agency Wimped Out

      Susan Beck at American Lawyer (hat tip Abigail Field) has managed to get an inside view of what was going on at the SEC when it launched its case against Goldman and a Goldman vice president, Fabrice Tourre, over a Goldman CDO called Abacus that went spectacularly bad. At the time, the reaction to the filing was explosive; this was in the pre-vampire-squid days, when Goldman still enjoyed a stellar reputation.

    • The Best Thing I Have Read on SEC-Goldman (So Far)

      By James Kwak Actually, two things, both by Steve Randy Waldman.

    • SEC Charges Goldman with Fraud

      By James Kwak Press release here. Complaint here. The allegation is that Goldman failed to disclose the role that John Paulson’s hedge fund played in selecting residential mortgage-backed securities that went into a CDO created by Goldman. Here’s paragraph 3 of the complaint:

    Latest

    Donald Trump will reportedly visit Britain in July
    Donald Trump will reportedly visit Britain in July
    Adidas just opened a futuristic new factory — and it will dramatically change how shoes are sold
    Adidas just opened a futuristic new factory — and...

    Markets Map

    Markets Map

    Follow Us

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS
    S&P 500: 2579.37 0.16% FTSE: 7487.96 -0.07% Nikk.: 22420.08 1.82% DAX: 13465.51 1.75% HSI: 28594.06 1.22% FX: EUR/GBP: 1.1401 USD/EUR: 1.1618 JPY/USD: 114.1510 Commodities: Gold: 1276.1000

    Bullfax.com - Market News & Analysis 2008-2011
    Contact Us | About Us | Terms & Conditions

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS .

    Secondary menu

    • Latest News
    • Top Rated
    • Most Popular
    • Archive
    • About Us