Rolling Stones Hyperbole vs. Goldman Sachs Reality

17 May

The May 26th Rolling Stone article “The People vs. Goldman Sachs” claims, in clever and entertaining prose, that Goldman execs should go to jail because they: 1) participated in “the most destructive crime spree in our history…”, 2) sold crappy CDOs to unwary clients, and 3) lied to congress.  I’d like to take this opportunity to add a little bit of what I like to call “reason” to each of these “claims.”

Lying to Congress 

Let’s start with simplest charge: Of course Goldman execs lied to Congress. Everyone lies to Congress. Congress lies to Congress. Who outside of Charlie Sheen wants to air dirty laundry in front of the whole world? Yes I believe Goldman lied but not in they way RS thinks they did. Yes, GS knew these bonds were crappy. Yes, they could have done a better job disclosing all the risks. But as a former CDO manager and investor, I know to review, research, and analyze CDOs independently of Rating Agencies.

Selling Crappy CDOs to Unwary clients

Goldman sold CDOs they knew to be crappy to investors who took the opposite side of the bet. Rating Agencies blessed these structures with AAAs. And why is this a crime? Isn’t the motto on the street “Buyer Beware”? The deals would perform or underperform based on the underlying bonds making up the CDOs. Is anyone claiming GS hid which bonds were included? No. Despite RS’s assertion GS knew these bonds were crap, this does not constitute a crime or a failure of disclosure. These bonds were not sold with a guarantee nor did Goldman ever say these bonds had no risk. Heck, even the rating agencies blessed these structures by allowing 75% of the cash flow to be rated AAA.

To further the car analogy favored by RS, imagine you want to buy a fleet of 100 cars from GS Rental Company. You also have at your disposal the repair (i.e performance) history of each and every car from a variety of third party vendors named Intex, Core Logic and Lewtan. However, you rely on Moody’s Auto Rating service to tell you that only 15 cars are likely to go bad in the worst case scenario. You decided to buy 75 cars with GS Rental company keeping the first two cars that go bad. Crime or out-and-out stupidity?

Further, doesn’t anyone remember all the other products investment banks have sold which blew up shortly after origination? I do. Ask me someday about 125% Mortgages, Manufactured Housing, Airplane Lease ABS, Tech Stocks, and so on. Investment banks only sell what investors are willing to buy. Same with the CDOs. Good salesmen know how to sell. GS has very, very good salesmen. Frankly, any investor who trusts a Wall Street salesman and doesn’t ask the tough questions should go work for a feel-good non-profit. Buying investment products you don’t understand should be a crime.

Crime Spree and Key Stone Cop Regulators

Lastly, cutting through RS’s massive hyperbole, I’m trying to figure out what constituted the biggest crime spree of all time. Fraudulent subprime mortgage backed securities issuers? CDO managers? Fraudulent mortgage originators? Fraudulent borrowers? Fraudulent Rating Agencies? Incompetent and toothless regulators? Lazy investors?

Every part of the business created the housing meltdown. Borrowers who over levered or lied to get access to housing  they couldn’t afford. Real estate agents over sold housing to drive up commissions. Home appraisers inflated valuations at the behest of mortgage brokers. Mortgage brokers, paid on commission, forged or instructed borrowers to lie to get access to as much money as possible. Loan officers, paid based on production, ignored problems in loan origination files. MBS issuers ignored prudent underwriting standards and due diligence with no regulatory oversight. Regulators didn’t have the authority to stop this train wreck nor the poltical backbone to do so. Rating Agencies relied on outdated models and Wall Street pressure. Investors didn’t do the work necessary to understand the risks.

This “crime spree” wasn’t a drive by a Moriarty-esque criminal mastermind but a Confederacy of Dunces.

RS says the “banks were closely monitored by a host of federal regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, and the Office of Thrift Supervision.” I call bullshit. The OTS actively sought more regulatees by stating to them “we are the kinder gentler regulator”. The biggest blow-ups were OTS governed (Washington Mutual, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Indy Mac, and Countrywide). The OCC wasn’t much better and the FDIC was busy laying off personnel because the world was going well. The Fed’s chief drug lord (Greenspan) was pushing housing as the great engine of the US economy.


I’m sick of Rolling Stone’s hyperbole. If GS had a $6B bet on the housing market then they were a little more than 1/2 a percent of the total investors in the market. They were small potatoes, and because they were small they survived the meltdown like cockroaches in a nuclear winter.


9 Responses to “Rolling Stones Hyperbole vs. Goldman Sachs Reality”

  1. David Mason May 18, 2011 at 11:16 am #

    One of the worst pieces on Goldman Sachs to date

  2. Crusher May 18, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    You sir, are getting ROASTED over at zero hedge.

    Apparently the ‘everyone else was doing it’ and ‘buyer beware’ defense loses hands down to ‘fiduciary duty’ and ‘unethical is unethical regardless of size’.

    • The Analyst May 18, 2011 at 11:57 am #

      That the bulk of the comments are of that character simply proves the point: Taibbi and the vast majority of people don’t have any clue what they’re talking about. What fiduciary duty? GS has one to their shareholders to maximize profits, and to many people’s chagrin, they are very good at it. They may have (had) some to certain clients in certain situations, but that is for the courts to decide. As yet, the matter has not proven in any way, shape, or form that Goldman did anything wrong, criminally or otherwise. That is not to say they did not, of course, just that screaming something at the top of your lungs does not make it so, contrary to the belief held by the majority of commentors on ZH.

      • Terry May 18, 2011 at 12:48 pm #

        I thought the purpose behind the RS rants by Taibbi, were because of the bail-outs, not that these guys were screwing each other over.

        Am I wrong?

        • The Analyst May 18, 2011 at 12:57 pm #

          The purpose of Taibbi’s rants are to spread gross overgeneralizations and mistruths so he can make himself look brilliant while making an easy-target look even worse than they make themselves look, all while fattening his wallet.

      • Crusher May 18, 2011 at 1:21 pm #

        Analyst: I am having a hard time following your logic, so let me try to distill what I am hearing:

        Goldman did nothing wrong criminally (or otherwise!) b/c they have not been convicted in court. Period.

        And to expand:
        • GS did not violate a fiduciary duty to clients because they did not have one. Well, maybe they did have one or two fiduciary responsibilities, but those clients are no longer clients and beside, nothing has been proven in court.
        • GS did nothing criminal, except, when they perjured themselves under oath before congress. But everyone does that– it’s practically expected. I mean, is that even illegal anymore?
        • And finally, GS has shareholders, and their primary responsibility is to to maximize profits. And since GS hasn’t been convicted of anything, they did nothing ‘wrong’.
        • (Oh, and that $550M settlement with the SEC over misrepresenting mortgage products to clients, well they only admitted that they gave out ‘incomplete information’, and besides buyer beware, and all that.)

        Perhaps the best way to respond to your contention that GS did nothing wrong criminally (OR OTHERWISE!) is to quote directly from the GS Code of Ethics, under the heading Business Principles:
        • Our clients’ interests always come first. (page 7)
        • Integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business. (page 8)

  3. Dave Harrison May 26, 2011 at 12:05 am #

    A Confederacy of Dunces? Possibly. if you consider that a definition of confederacy is “An alliance formed for an unlawful purpose” or “a conspiracy.” I’ll give you that one. Dunces? Let’s see. That definition would be “A person who is slow at learning; a stupid person.” That’s partially correct. Slow at learning that front-running your customer is stupid? That’s true. They did that and they were slow to respond. So I guess you are right.

    Here’s a few more things you may want to consider in your assessment of 1/2 percent of the housing market as being small potatoes. Once you write a CDO and cut some tranches through the potato field, it’s no longer accurate to describe them as individual potatoes (small or large). At that point, the potatoes become mashed potatoes and tracking your individual potato is no small task. It’s so lost in the gravy that even the State’s Attorney Generals aren’t sure they want to undertake the Humpty Dumpty meets Mr. Potato Head task of unmashing when it’s easier to just accept campaign contributions in 43 states.

    You can read more here:

    Dave Harrison


  1. Morning News: May 18, 2011 | Crossing Wall Street - May 18, 2011

    […] Stone Street: Rolling Stones Hyperbole vs. Goldman Sachs Reality […]

  2. Liar, Liar Pants On Fire « Trade With Dave - May 25, 2011

    […] Here’s a link to the rest of the story: […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: