iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Janet Tavakoli

Janet Tavakoli

Posted: April 7, 2010 07:51 AM

Goldman Sachs: Spinning Gold

What's Your Reaction:

Goldman Sachs claims great risk management skills, while it shirks responsibility for its role in the near collapse of the U.S. economy. The former is a myth, and the latter is a dodge. [1] As taxpayer wealth was destroyed, Goldman exploited the financial crisis it helped cause, while the U.S. was (and remains) at war.

Goldman Sachs released its 2009 annual report today showing it made net revenues of $45.17 billion with net earnings of $13.39 billion. In its shareholder letter, Goldman says it repaid TARP money, but did not mention the massive new taxpayer subsidies it continues to enjoy.

"Goldman did not and does not operate or manage our risk with any expectation of outside assistance."

Yet due to the influence of highly placed Goldman Sachs former officers, Goldman received--and continues to receive--enormous assistance from taxpayers.

Goldman cleaned up at the expense of average citizens. For example, hard-working U.S. taxpayers bailed out Goldman Sachs, Goldman's trading partners, and AIG. Goldman grabbed new status as a financial holding company, FDIC debt guarantees, access to near zero-cost taxpayer-subsidized borrowing, new lax accounting standards, and more. Now Goldman is making a killing as the Federal Reserve keeps interest rates near zero. Goldman reaped windfall profits to replenish its capital, and paid bonuses of over $16 billion to its employees.

Goldman's Cover Story

Goldman claims it did nothing wrong. ("Goldman Sachs: Don't Blame Us," Business Week cover story, April 14, 2010.) There is a lot to discuss about Goldman's actions prior to the financial meltdown, but this commentary will focus only on the largest part of the U.S. economy, the housing market.

When Goldman created collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), it was obliged to perform thorough due diligence. Previous securities frauds (unrelated to Goldman) were public knowledge, and there were multiple multi-year reports of predatory lending and fraudulent loans (Ameriquest, FAMCO, and many more). Despite self-serving denials by former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, there were many studies in the public domain that showed that even new non-fraudulent loans had a higher likelihood of default when zero or slim down payments were made, including a March 2005 report from the St. Louis Fed. Separate from this, lending standards slid, which made the problem even worse. In addition to that, newly created loan products posed greater risk to borrowers, even when other factors such as lower lending standards and fraud were absent.

Goldman failed in its duties as a creator (underwriter) of these CDOs. Goldman's excuses that others were doing it or that Goldman was only providing a "customer" service do not relieve Goldman of its own responsibility.

Goldman tries an evasive maneuver when it says it sold CDOs to "sophisticated," investors. The damage was so pervasive that retail investors were caught in the web. Moreover, taxpayer money bailed out the financial system and bailed out investors in Goldman's CDOs. Caveat emptor no longer apples. The unsophisticated public ended up being an unwilling investor.

Built to Fail

There was fraud by borrowers and speculation, but there was also massive widespread predatory lending. Most victims were the least sophisticated borrowers. Mortgage lenders engaged in a variety of frauds including phony appraisals, altered documents, hidden fees, lies about the type of loan, and lies about the maximum payments. As for CDOs, the SEC dropped seminal investigations.

Many of Goldman's "investments" crashed like an airplane made from faulty components. Some of the CDOs Goldman created--including some sold to French banks that traded with AIG--ended up in money market funds (as asset backed commercial paper) bought by retail investors.

Imagine that Goldman packaged a herd of cattle for sale. Industry standards require it to investigate the herd. (Rating agencies do not perform the inspections; it was Goldman's responsibility.) Cattle had a history of health problems, so Goldman had all the more reason to perform thorough due diligence on each herd. A sample would have revealed that, say, 60% of the healthy-looking herd tested positive for hoof-and-mouth disease, and the disease could possibly infect the others.

Goldman claims it did nothing wrong when it slapped good labels--via complicit rating agencies--on its loan packages, and then sold them. Goldman claims to be good at risk management, yet despite public red flags, it now claims it didn't know any better.

Beyond the original problems with Goldman's CDOs, some appear "built to fail." ("Congress Exposes Potential Profiteering in AIG's Deals." - Huffington Post, January 28, 2010.) I wrote about the danger of these types of structures in a book published in 2003. Goldman cannot claim competence and also claim it didn't know any better.

(See also "Wall Street Wizardry Amplified the Crisis," WSJ, December 27, 2007, "Goldman Pays Junior CDOs Before 'Junk' Senior Classes," Bloomberg News, Nov 12, 2009, "Goldman Fueled AIG's Gambles, WSJ, December 12, 2009, and "Banks Bundled Bad Debt, Bet Against It and Won," New York Times, December 23, 2009.)


Billions of Taxpayer Dollars for Corrupt Finance

The Fed abused the taxpayers' trust when it bailed out AIG's trades for 100 cents on the dollar. The Fed claims its loan for purchases of the CDOs may be paid back, but that is only 40% of what taxpayers are owed. The loan was only for the 40 cents on the dollar that remained after Goldman (and others) already took billions out of AIG. The purchases should be reversed, and taxpayers should be paid 100 cents on the dollar--the original principal amount (less interim principal payments). [2] The proceeds can be used to pay down AIG's public debt.

Goldman's CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, quipped to a reporter that he is doing "God's work," yet Goldman participated in the transfer of wealth from hard-working taxpayers to fee-seeking agents of corrupt finance. Then Goldman accessed taxpayers' funds to protect and enrich itself, as did other banks. That's not only a self-serving interpretation of "God's work," it's a perversion of capitalism. Goldman Sachs has become a symbol of the aristocratic tyranny from which our Founding Fathers sought to protect our Republic.

The following video (C-Span, April 2009) explains how cheap money, wide-spread bad (often predatory) lending, phony securities, credit derivatives, and Wall Street banks' massive over-borrowing led to our current financial crisis. Yet there is still no meaningful reform.

Janet Tavakoli's book on the causes of the global financial meltdown and how to fix it is Dear Mr. Buffett: What an Investor Learns 1,269 Miles from Wall Street.


  1. Prior to AIG's September 2008 collapse, Goldman had more than 22:1 leverage (it had less than $5 for every $100 it borrowed), and it increased its Level 3 accounting (black box) assets by 27% to more than $96 billion. That meant it could "mark-to-myth" or make up the prices of these hard-to-value assets. Yet in its just-released shareholder letter, Goldman states its "rigorous commitment to fair value accounting" before the financial crisis. Goldman had more than any other investment bank in the black box ($18 billion more than troubled Merrill Lynch, which had just increased its "black box" assets by 70%). If the government hadn't bailed out the financial system, Goldman would not have been able to get short term funding, and it would have collapsed.

    Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein told the Wall Street Journal he "never had reason to suspect" AIG was in trouble. That doesn't seem plausible. I publicly challenged AIG's accounting and brought AIG's risk to the attention of Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffett in August 2007, as Goldman pressured AIG for billions. Goldman extracted $7.5 billion in collateral (of $10 billion Goldman sought) on trading positions of more than $22 billion from AIG for more than a year before AIG's September 2008 meltdown. As of September 2008, Goldman demanded $2.5 billion more, which the bailout provided. [Of the original $22 billion plus trading positions, the Fed's $5.6 billion loan for purchases of CDOs plus $8.4 billion only settled up $14 billion of the original $22 billion. Another $8.2 billion of Goldman's deals--including synthetic Abacus deals--remained with AIG with $1.6 billion in collateral applied to them. Taxpayers also bailed out this remaining position of $8.2 billion of credit default swaps.] At the time of the September 2008 bailout, the CDOs' market value was rapidly deteriorating.

    In addition, Goldman created deals that other banks, including French banks Calyon and SocGen, protected with AIG. Either through its own trading or its underwritten deals, Goldman Sachs was the largest contributor to AIG's positions. If AIG had gone bankrupt, Goldman may have faced disputes with the banks to which it sold its products. In other words, the bailout of AIG, bailed out banks to which Goldman sold deteriorating CDOs. [Goldman also held $4.8 billion AIG's "agency" securities that would have required funding in a difficult market, if taxpayers had not bailed out AIG. AIG had invested the cash owed to Goldman in deteriorating mortgage-backed assets (of unclear origin), and it was unlikely AIG would have had sufficient cash to buy back the securities.] If AIG had not been bailed out, a reasonable liquidator would have clawed back most of AIG's collateral from Goldman Sachs (and others).

    In January 2010, several bank CEOs expressed regret to Congress that they underestimated the steep fall in housing prices. They didn't mention that banks were a key cause through excessive leverage, funding of widespread predatory lending, and phony securities. Bank CEOs expressed no regret when they thought the losses would be limited to "homeowners" and outside investors. To add insult to injury, banks now perpetrate what Elizabeth Warren calls the "myth of the immoral debtor," and blame hard-working taxpayers, while most of the media covers-up for the banks.

    Blankfein also told Congress that Goldman kept the equity ("first loss") investments of some CDOs, as if this indicates Goldman assumed risk and had good intent, yet that is no evidence whatsoever. Structures can be gamed so that the "first loss" holder has little risk and can actually benefit due to the way the deal is set up. Based on information already in the public domain, Goldman's deals had a lot of unusual features, so Blankfein's testimony should not be accepted at face value. ("Goldman Pays Junior CDOs Before 'Junk' Senior Classes," Bloomberg News, Nov 12, 2009.)

    Goldman's current and former officers were influential in varying degrees in AIG's bailout. Hank Paulson was then Treasury Secretary. He was Goldman's CEO at the time Goldman put on its trades with AIG and underwrote CDOs bought by some of AIG's counterparties. Lloyd Blankfein was (and is) CEO of Goldman and was influential in the bailout discussions. Stephen Friedman, then Chairman of the NY Fed, concurrently served (and continues to serve) on Goldman's board. Friedman was also the Chairman of the President's (Bush) Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

  2. The more than $22 billion of Goldman's trading positions with AIG should be negated as follows. The $14 billion in Goldman's sales to the Fed's Maiden Lane III vehicle should be reversed. Goldman should buy back all the CDOs at original value (less interim principal payments). In addition, Goldman's approximately $8.2 billion of synthetic CDOs that remain with AIG should be canceled and any collateral paid from AIG to Goldman should be returned. Other bond insurers cancelled similar contracts for a fraction of what the Fed cost taxpayers, often for as little as ten cents on the dollar, not the 100 cents on the dollar for which the Fed ultimately settled, and this can be rectified now by making a final payment of only ten cents on the dollar (unless further investigation is deemed necessary) after the transactions have been reversed.

 
 
 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 119
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
03:30 PM on 04/16/2010
Maybe Americans are starting to realize that companies like Goldman are parasites sucking the blood out of the economy. They might never have been caught if they hadn't gotten EXTRA greedy.
01:52 PM on 04/16/2010
Thank you Janet. Your articles, past and present, should be required reading for every citizen in the United States of America.
01:05 PM on 04/16/2010
and bring back Glass Steagall!!!
01:03 PM on 04/16/2010
I want these people PROSECUTED! Forget these ridiculous civil suits. I want prosecutions and convictions and JAIL TIME. These are criminals!! Even with the Savings and Loan scandal (which was so much smaller in scale than this) there were people who went to jail. Why can't the Obama Administration get tough and start prosecuting the gangsters. They are criminals, nothing more.
photo
collettethehedgehog
My micro-bio is So running on empty
01:09 PM on 04/16/2010
Amen!!!!
09:59 AM on 04/16/2010
The bailout incident is usually framed as a discussion of the bad investment decisions that Goldman made or about how errors made by banks this large can have a detrimental effect on the whole economy. But why is no one addressing the fundamental issue at the heart of the financial meltdown? It was fraud, which is a crime with a definition and a set of penalties that include jail time. Why is this incident always assumed to be a matter of bad judgement rather than a crime? It is as if it is impossible to conceive of a company that perpetrates a crime even though our history is rich with thousands of previous examples of just this kind of behavior. In this case the crime was complex and its complexiity was one of the things the criminals hoped would allow them to get away with it. But given enough time everything can be figured out. (A good explaination of the fraud between Goldman Sachs and the credit agencies is given in the Michael Lewis book "Short".) Until the justice system respects itself enough to prosecute criminals whose crimes have now been detailed in a number of investigations there will be no solution to the problems in our financial system and no hope for the law abiding citizens who must still use this corrupt financial system to survive.
08:18 PM on 04/10/2010
HERE !!! We can ALL Withdraw our money from the banks put it in a CREDIT UNION and STOP PAYING OUR TAXES !!! Let the banks collapse and force the Gov to wisely BUDGET the MONEY WE ALREADY GAVE THEM !!!
schatsie
Wall Street is Worse than Vegas
09:45 AM on 04/08/2010
Brilliant artlcle, I have been thinking that the 100% settlement rate was just atrocious...that would be like me demanding Retail Replacement value for a new Camry for my 10 year old Camry...There is no quid pro quo...It is time to claw back the taxpayer dollars and settle these issue based on the original transactions....
10:12 AM on 04/16/2010
No. It is time to prosecute criminals, take over the banks, clean up the financial system, and provide laws that protect law abiding citizens from large scale fraud. Law enforcement is one of the basic functions of government, a function that both liberals and tea partiers can agree on. It is not a question of getting the money back (we should recover as much as possible but a good portion of it is lost forever) it is a question of jailing the criminals who took over these old banks and used them as a criminal enterprise. Without laws and policemen to enforce them, any socierty will degrade into lawlessness. But that is exactly what happened on Wall Street. Starting with Reagan the laws regulating Wall Street were repealed. Starting with Bush the policeman on the beat was called off. We had Dodge City on Wall Street but there was no Wyatt Earp to keep order. The criminals ran wild and stole the savings of 300 million Americans, a robbery whose magnitude has yet to be understood and whose effects will be felt for a generation. Without penalties this will happen again. Are we afraid to hunt criminals in 2010?
07:42 AM on 04/08/2010
What kind of country do we have when a comment is made about raising the feds interest rate from essentially 0 and the stock market drops. What we have is a spoiled child watching over our retirement funds and if that child does not get to make big money, we do not get to make small money. The truth is that they are borrowing our tax dollars (as they do not pay taxes) for essentially nothing and lending it to us for 7-20 per cent and they throw a tantrum when we ask for a 1/4 point more. This is America's deficit getting larger by the fact we do not gain interest on our tax dollars from the banks that caused the financial market's meltdown.
schatsie
Wall Street is Worse than Vegas
09:46 AM on 04/08/2010
spot on!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
ErnestineBass
No longer a cog in The Machine.
01:02 PM on 04/08/2010
Rather like an abused child demanding hush money from daddy, the abuser.

Bottom line, Daddy Fed is the source of the problem.
07:02 AM on 04/08/2010
Since the 2008 meltdown we've witnessed a great deal of reporting about the inside hatchet jobs with Wall Street, bank regulators, etc.... As a result, we've grown to dislike the Wall Street crowd. However, many of us are in a Catch-22 situation. We generally loathe the Wall Street wrecking crew, but on the other hand we really want them to boost our gains in our 401Ks, pension funds, Individual Retirement Accounts, Thrift Savings Plans, etc... on a quarterly, bi-annual and yearly basis. In my opinion, what we need is a way to break away from giving our job/work related money to Wall Street and come up with a sound plan that keeps our money locally. We've witnessed the great response with Move Your Money, but does it really move all of our money? If we can't move ALL of our money then we are stuck with the Wall Street cronies and all the bad stuff that comes with it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:06 PM on 04/08/2010
Yes, Undercover...Tell it like it is. Americans must wake up to this ruthless reality.
10:36 AM on 04/16/2010
Correct. The idea of "moving our money" out of Wall Street control is ridiculous. A popular movement can only move a tiny fraction of money, a fraction that will make no difference. But more importantly, that is not where the money is. The real money on Wall Street is in the institutional bond market which is 1000 times larger than the entire stock market and which is untouchable by the the individual. This is the money that moves the world and it is the money that the recent meltdown threatened. Wall Street makes money by churning these accounts and taking fees. Wall Street does not "boost the gains" of any investor, those gains come by accidently as Wall Street manipulates the bond market for its own good. And over time the gains of Wall Street for the individual investor have been small. The real inflation adjusted return of the stock market over the last 50 years has been only 4.9% and has produced periods of extreme volatility that have caused many small investors to lose everything. Some lucky people might have made more, some unlucky people might have made less. The people who make the money are the people who sit at the top of the casinos. But gambling is not the same thing as producing value and Wall Street gamblers are not needed to run retirement accounts or do any honest business.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:25 AM on 04/17/2010
Although my comment was an overstatement, it's still possible, a long shot, to achieve an independent financial system away from the current financial system. The U.S., or the world as a whole, has been so dependent and so intertwined to it. Those in control, or on top, know pretty well that money moves money. They entice Us with their monies through all sorts of gimmicks to keep the machine we know as Wall Street running. That Machine has many invisible/abstract layers, as Bobotheclown mentioned above, only the initiated understand, not even the sophisticated. No surprise that Goldman Sachs, especially, may be that institution for the initiated. It is there where the "masters of the world" decides the fate of the world. Look at the bankers who have worked at that bank (if you may call it that). You don't have to go that far back in U.S. financial history to see any coincidence of where they have worked; iIt's a long list of familiar/unfamiliar banks and government agencies. More than 99% of their employees with MBA's, or less, who work here and there are there to put the grease on the machine. Thus, it sucks that to hurt those financial monsters it would take a financial revolution
06:09 AM on 04/08/2010
No lovely Janet,
there you're probably wrong: As soon as everybody wants to withdraw all of his money, not 250'000 $ are guaranteed for everybody, but only 1$. We will see. Happy future ;)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lowfiron
02:58 AM on 04/08/2010
Here's the Bottom line. Who needs Goldman Sachs?? Unless they put together financing on Real investment that creates a enterprise that produces goods and services. Let’s go with Glass Steagal and breaking up of overly large banks.
10:49 AM on 04/16/2010
How on earth did any government ever conceive of repealing Glass Steagal to begin with? The most important piece of financial legislation ever conceived, a bulwark of our economy and a protection for all the investors in the world. What were they thinking? This was done under a Democratic President. This was carried by both houses of Congress with very little debate. It was not talked about on cable TV and it did not make the front page of the New York Times. What happened? Wall Street does not have enough lobbyists to tear down the entire ediface of the New Deal which is what Glass Steagal was. Yet it went out with not even a whimper as if all of our government was sleep walking. The first crash happened three years later (2003), the second happened four years later (2007, and was larger), the third crash is anticipated in five years (2012, and it will be larger still). We can wait for the ultimate destruction of everything we hold dear or we can re-institute Glass Steagal and start to rebuild an honest financial system. I wonder how bad it is going to get before the factions stop fighting and start working together against the common enemy: financial destruction of our country?
photo
collettethehedgehog
My micro-bio is So running on empty
01:16 PM on 04/16/2010
At the time the theory that the stock market fundamentals had changed and it would never truly fall again was taken seriously. Old friends who'd worked as brokers and in finance their whole careers were fired because they pointed out the silliness of that. You could not at the time say ANYTHING against the free marketers. Afterall they could point to their obvious succcesses. Right up to the day they destroyed their world. You know that giant mosquito and leech on Will Farrells back in Land of the Lost. I keep seeing that everytime I see these guys.
01:16 AM on 04/08/2010
Yeah, there was fraud in the rating, but the big fraud was the CDS credit default Swaps: investment insurance without assets ownership and without reserves.

And CDS is still legal, and Greece is the next victim.

Outlaw all derivatives, force investment back to main street.

If you want to hedge you bets, diversify your main street holdings.

The Banksters have managed the greatest heist in human history. they have sucked all the money out main street for their gambling games.

charge them with fraud.

FDR'em
ThoughtShaman
Compassion is the highest virtue
12:18 AM on 04/08/2010
This will continue to happen as long as there are people who think that they can get rich by investing instead of working. Stop buying their junk paper by withdrawing from the stock market and big banks, and instead invest in local communities.

The stock market including these worthless paper games is nothing but gambling. We need to treat it as such - but this will not be possible unless people actually quit believing they can make money by investing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
amleth
big fan of humanity - very often disappointed
11:29 PM on 04/07/2010
The men running these large banking institutions without any real oversight have caused widespread human disablement and misery, disasters for individuals and families, even deaths by their literally criminal activities.

The corporate structure insulates and protects them to an unbelievable extent.

It is highly unlikely that any of them will face any prosecution for their crimes.

They will walk on, not losing a moment's sleep.

Look in the Current Rolling Stone article by Mike Taibi about how JP Morgan almost singlehandedly destroyed the economic structure and stability of Jefferson County, Alabama.
schatsie
Wall Street is Worse than Vegas
09:48 AM on 04/08/2010
That is a great article about how the original cost was 250 million but after all the banksters fees were added, the cost went over 2 billion dollars.....Where can I find fees like that?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
ErnestineBass
No longer a cog in The Machine.
01:06 PM on 04/08/2010
Behind a desk at JPMorgan?
11:00 AM on 04/16/2010
There is no corporate structure that protects one from fraud if the government chooses to pursue an aggressive prosecution. But that prosecution will be a political act and no current justice department has been given the political OK to take these crimes on. But it is not the corporate structure that protects anyone, corporations can be dissolved and banks can be nationalized. It is a question of will and the dedication to the rule of law and the idea of justice for all. As long as our justice department is held hostage to the political whims of groups who do not know what they are talking about (like the Tea Party) there will never be justice in America and the financial crimes will go on and on. It is not important whether criminals do not lose sleep, criminals have never lost sleep, that is why they are criminals. The issue is when will the American public decide they do not want to take this anymore and demand that their government protect them from these predators. It happened in the 1930's after the pain of the Great Depression. It has not happened now because the public has not yet suffered a great enough pain to demand recourse. But without justice the problem will not be solved and that pain will most certainly come. It is what we all have waiting for us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
amleth
big fan of humanity - very often disappointed
03:30 PM on 04/16/2010
I wish it were not the case, but actual criminal wrongdoing on the part of corporate officers is seldom prosecuted, and even less often results in a conviction.

There are some recent exceptions, such as Enron, but the rule remains that the curtain of corporate protection is thick and wide.

Excellent observations, Bobo. Faved.
11:21 PM on 04/07/2010
thank you janet for continue to speak truth and help educate us about the perpetual day light robbery of all hard working american people. there is no crime gs and alike will not commit to make a dime...