One wonders about the real purpose for this week's Congressional hearings about the alleged misdeeds of Goldman Sachs. Taken at their worst, they amount to claims that the firm failed to disclose to buyers (all in the securities business) of mortgage-backed securities issued by it, all material information concerning their origin and character. Whether or not this is true, the national implications - i.e. rationale for Congressional involvement - are doubtful. The same can be said for the SEC civil suit.
If anything, this is a private matter between Goldman and its customers, for which customary civil claims under the securities laws would suffice. Securities law experts are divided as to whether disclosure of the involvement of John Paulson - a noted bear regarding the housing market - in the structuring of the securities was legally required. While the author, a corporate attorney having some experience in securities law, would have advised Goldman to disclose such information to avoid this sort of second-guessing, this is beside the point. The point is that if these investors believe that they were defrauded, they can sue or arbitrate under existing law for recission of the transaction (refund) or other damages. Such claims by the sort of indisputably sophisticated investors who are involved here, are commonplace, and the firm is obviously capable of satisfying any judgment which is awarded. This is not a Madoff situation where victims of a fraud have no redress and involvement of the SEC or Congress is needed.
The spectacle of Senators and commentators so vehemently denouncing Goldman's business practices, as though they caused the Great Recession, is unseemly and absurd. Whatever it thinks of the business practices of Goldman or any other private company, Congress should not be involved in private disputes, absent some broad-based implications for Americans in general. That is, whether the practices at issue are causing loss to consumers in general.
Despite the superficial attempts in the Senate to tie Goldman and other investment banks to the economic downturn, this is simply not the case. They had little or nothing to do with the ultimate cause, namely the origination of low quality mortgage and other debt which could not be repaid. Once such debt had been incurred, losses were inevitable and the only question was how such losses would be allocated. Whether they were to be borne by Goldman, John Paulson, Goldman investors or someone else, had nothing to do with macroeconomic consequences. These investors have the resources, incentives and knowledge to fend for themselves.
This is also not a case where proposed legal reforms are at issue. All agree that existing securities law bars material misstatements and omissions of material facts. The issues in this case are strictly factual - i.e. was the information about the manner in which the securities were structured genuinely material to the investors. As Goldman points out, such materiality must be judged by reference to all of the circumstances which existed at the time of the transaction, including its role as a market-maker, which inherently means that a transaction requires parties to have opposite views about the valuation of the securities.
These hearings and the SEC action are nothing more than a naked political ploy to rally support for the Administration's so-called "financial reform" efforts by demonizing Wall Street and big business. This is not a case of Congress and the SEC looking out for the "little guy" who can not look out for himself. It is simply a cynical effort to cause the unsophisticated public to look for bogeymen to blame for all of our economic dislocation. Even assuming the worst about Goldman's business practices vis a vis its clients, they are not the cause of our problems. They are strictly a private matter.
We would be much better served if rather than take sides in private disputes, Congress and the SEC would look in the proverbial mirror and consider their own actions in cases such as extreme, unwarranted encouragement of homeownership through Fannie and Freddie (and their campaign contributions) and the Community Reinvestment Act and ignoring express warnings about Madoff and Stanford.
The author is a (small) securityholder in Goldman Sachs.
CDS grew to ten time the value of the world GDP.
Outlaw ALL derivatives,
force investment back to Main Street.
the world economies always do better without derivatives.
Mr Robins,
When a congressional committee holds a hearing, it is not (or at least should not) be interested in determining the guild or innocence of those testifying before the committee. Nor should they limit themselves to issues of fact. The purpose is to gather information to assist congress in enacting (or not enacting) future legislation.
So, when Sen Snowe asks a GS executive about what that executive sees as GS responsibility to its clients, she is not (and should not) be interested in only what the law is, or only in what the facts are, but also what the law should be, based on the opinions, and on her opinion of, those who are testifying. In this case, any response from the executives which shows, for example, that they don't think they have any responsibility, under the law or under the moral strictures of our society, is reason to consider whether or not the law should be changed; and changing the law is one of a Senator's most important jobs.
Please, keep this in mind.
Thanks for your interest!
MBR
1. "This is a private matter" [involving] "indisputably sophisticated investors" who "have redress" [unlike Madoff victims].
The problem seems to be so complex and interlocking that it does in fact involve "the origination of low quality mortgage and other debt" and is well beyond the scope and means of suits by even wealthy institutions, and that is why we are having a high level congressional and SEC investigation. This would make the matter a very "public" one requirig an army of investigators.
Others have expressed disbelief that your "sophisticated" players did not know better than to avoid this dog pile. Even GS is claiming to be a victim. Suppose all of the big players are colluding while small customers lose--this seems to be a reasonable supposition, again hence a high level investigation.
GS's CEO is shuttling between the White House and the SEC, the administration and GS are in effect swapping high level employees. "Too big to be touched" may be the actual "grandstanding" issue here.
Thanks for your interest!
MBR
This is fraud on such a massive scale that only the RICO statute, not grandstanding hearings, can solve. Hundreds of the Tony Sopranos of Wall Street, plus Greenspand, Bill Clinton, Rubin, Gramm, Gingrich, Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner, etc. must go to prison, most of them for the rest of their lives. Nothing less will match the enormity of their crimes or discourage future Tony Sopranos from ordering their employees in the House, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court etc. to lock the Wall Street sheriff and his deputies in the jail so that the Jesse James Gang, the Hole in the Wall gang, etc. could rob the good citizenry of the town, the ranchers, the farmers and so on of all their possessions.
The objection that people have with this stance is what has been aired in Congress. If Goldmans have clients, then they should be acting in those clients direct interest.
Instead they have been acting exclusively in their stockholders interest.
If a firm engages in business, they obviously they do so to benefit the firm's owners. However they do so by representing to their customers that they can provide goods or services that will benefit the customer. This writer has failed to demonstrate who, from Goldmans perspective, is the customer who benefits.
The accusation by the senators is that Goldmans basically sided with one customer against another. In effect they were behaving like a biased stock exchange.
They seem to have acted like a shopping centre's food court that allowed retailers to sell food unfit for human consumption to diners after it had been heavily spiced. It tastes good, but it makes you ill.
The fact that direct questions were not met with clear direct answers does show that there is some form of case to answer.
Perhaps as a stockholder Marty Robins desires Goldmans to be exonerated. However the cold presentation of the facts seem to condemn them loud and clear, unless most of the moral and commercial theory spouted by the mass media is to be contradicted and we actually live in a society without rules.
It is also essential to recognize Goldman's role as a market-maker, which inherently means that there is someone taking both sides of the transaction, as well as the extensive disclosures of high risk which are always made in institutional deals of this sort.
Thank you for your interest!