Goldman Sachs: A Pattern of Organized Criminal Behaviour?

Chris Whalen provides some excellent commentary on the Goldman Sachs fraud inquiry by the SEC at the beginning of his weekly newsletter, The Institutional Risk Analyst.

In addition to the information he provides about other deals, including those that specifically targeted AIG, he puts an interesting twist on this. He intimates that at times the Hedge Funds were acting in concert with the Big Banks as off-balance-sheet accomplices in crafting these complex frauds. And the Paulson - Goldman scandal may only be one of a type, and not perhaps the best or most flagrant example.

A reaction from many is that this is just the tip of the iceberg, a single point in a much larger picture of calculated fraud involving many more deals and significantly more money up to and including the bailout of AIG.

It is not enough to throw a few token fines on some selective deals, and then dismiss them as outliers, and then suggest we 'move on' to reform the market. The spin will be that what Goldman did was 'legal' but immoral. And for many today, morality is simply a matter of taste. And Paulson will be served up as the fall guy. It will take a serious investigation to uncover all the facts, and make the case stick. And the SEC is not competent to do this, for a variety of reasons.

And the reforms that the Congress will create as a result of this, at the least the ones permitted by Jamie and Lloyd, will quickly be circumvented with new fraudulent devices and it will quickly be business as usual. Its hard to say that the business has never stopped, even now. The Big Banks continue to manipulate markets and abuse derivatives as instruments of financial fraud.

The absolute worst place to conduct a serious investigation will be in front of the Congress is a show trial, designed to give some of the Senators and Representatives an opportunity to create sound bytes of anger, to be played in commercials for their re-election, and then at then end of the day, continue to collect fat campaign contributions, and then do nothing.

It does not require Republican permission for President Obama to direct the FBI and the Justice Department to begin a serious inquiry with an eye to RICO violations in what may be one of the largest financial frauds in history, dwarfing the Madoff Ponzi scheme in terms of value and number of victims.

Oh, and by the way, we hate to say we told you so, but please fire Larry Summers now that Bill Clinton has thrown him under the bus, and have him take Rubin's other protégé, Turbo Timmy, along with him.

My concern is that the American people even now do not understand how serious this crisis is. They are quickly distracted into ridiculous partisan spirit and frivolous diversions. This is the freedom and the welfare of their country that is at risk, and it is time to put aside childish things, and begin the serious work of reforming their financial system, the ownership of their media, and the political campaign process.

Institutional Risk Analyst
Goldman SEC Litigation: The End of OTC?
By Chris Whalen
April 19, 12010

Last Friday's announcement by the SEC of a civil lawsuit against Goldman Sachs (GS) for securities fraud did not surprise us. Nor were we surprised to see the markets
trade off large on the news, evidence to us that there is a certain lack of conviction in the financials.

Q: How can you have "normalized earnings" in an abnormal industry?

No, what surprised us about the SEC action is that it took as long as it did. Maybe surprised isn't precisely the right word, but you know what we mean. The inertia in the system seems to dampen reactions to extreme outlier behavior to a far too great a degree. This week in The IRA Advisory Service we discuss the implications of the SEC action and the likely impact on the OTC dealer community in the months and years ahead.

Readers of The IRA will recall back in 2004 when were started to talk about the regulatory focus on complex structured financial products and the perceived reputational risk to the big firms arising from these unregulated, OTC instruments. Big thank you to Chuck Muckenfuss at Gibson Dunn for the heads up. The "advice" issued by all of the regulators ("Interagency Statement on Sound Practices Concerning Complex Structured Finance Activities") was focused almost entirely on protecting the dealers from reputational risk and not on protecting investors.

The fact of the 2004 notice by the SEC and other regulators illustrates the problem. Regulators clearly knew that a problem existed back then, yet the SEC waited until April of 2010 to actually do something constructive to rebalance the equation, to lean just a bit more in the direction of investors and abit less in favor of the dealers. Keep in mind that it's not like the games played by GS and the Paulson organization were remotely unique. Just about every OTC dealer worthy of the description has at least one deal comp to this thing of beauty.

On March 31, 2010, Bob Ivry and Jody Shenn at Bloomberg published a very important article on American International Group and its losses from insuring collateralized debt obligations structured by, you guessed it, GS. Entitled "How Lou Lucido Let AIG Lose $35 Billion With Goldman Sachs CDOs," the article outlines the process whereby AIG was left on the hook for billions in losses on CDOs sold to TCW Group in Los Angeles.

Whereas in the trades with Paulson GS was helping a client create and then sell short a CDO that was being sold to another client, in the case of TCW the GS firm was helping a client buy toxic loans to be contributed to a CDO in the knowledge that doing so would cause losses to a regulated insurer, AIG. The activities of GS to harm AIG make the subsequent payments by AIG to GS, using money from the US Treasury, seem all the more outrageous.

But the other thing that really bothers us about both the TCW transactions and the more recent revelations about GS and the Paulson firm is the fact that the SEC apparently still does not fully understand the symbiotic relationship between the dealer and the hedge fund. In our view, the funds that were involved with these
transactions and many, many more examples in the OTC marketplace, did not have an arm's length relationship with the dealer. Hedge funds exist at the sufferance of the dealers, who finance and execute and act as custodian for their various strategies and use the funds as short-term storage for inventory.

In the case of Paulson, the information provided by the SEC makes it seem as though Paulson was the party which initiated these transactions and, according to the SEC, paid GS $15 million to arrange and market these CDOs to investors. Paulson was also apparently working as an advisor to GS and collaborating with GS regarding investment strategy. A spokesman for Paulson told The New York Times that all of their dealings with GS and other parties were on "an arm's length basis." We believe that reasonable people can differ on this issue. We also suspect that the nature and the extent of the relationship between GS and Paulson will be the subject of extensive legal and political inquiry in the weeks and months ahead.

But for us, the bottom line is that hedge funds often times are merely extensions of the dealers with which they interact. It is often difficult if not impossible to tell where the dealer's interests end and those of the hedge fund begin, especially when the dealer and the fund seem to be working in concert to create securities that are being sold to third parties. This episode is a terrible mess and, to us at least, illustrates why the OTC markets for securities and derivatives need to be regulated out of existence -- or at least into compliance with norms of disclosure and fair dealing that would render such strategies impossible. If the global financial markets have been reduced to nothing more than beggar thy neighbor, then we all have a big problem.

JP Morgan Responds to Calls for Goldman Investigation By Warning Germany on Banking Regulation, Asks for More Influence On European Politicians

'"When profits fall too sharply then capital will move somewhere else, where there is more money to be earned, for example non-regulated markets," Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said in the German mass circulation Sunday paper Welt am Sonntag. "The question is, is that what regulators want?"... he also said the banking industry could do with more influence on politicians." Reuters

In response to calls for an investigation of Goldman Sachs and tighter regulations on the Wall Street Banks, the CEO of JP Morgan has delivered fresh promises of financial damage if the Banks are restrained in their derivatives dealings by government regulation, and even more arrogantly, demanded greater access to European politicians.

Germany would do well to send a strong message that the European government will not be intimidated by financial threats and manipulation by foreign banks, no matter how powerful in both size and political connections.

Appeasement does not work against unbridled greed and pervasive fraud. It picks its victims, one by one, but none are safe.

The solution to this is simple. Take away the power of the large Multinational Banks to sway markets with their enormous derivatives positions.

They seek to control you by controlling your currencies and the issuance of debt. This is nothing new, except for the scale and power of a few Banks, most of which are US based.

This interview could be the result of a cultural misunderstanding. The New York Bankers are accustomed to threatening the US politicians and people if they do not get their way. This is what they had done when they received their trillions in public money with much secrecy and little accountability

Break the Banks up, and put them to the traditional task of allocating capital to commercial markets. If the US will not reform the financial system, ban them from any banking activities in your region.

Change the dollar reserve currency system which is firmly in the hands of the Wall Street money center banks, their friends at the Treasury and in the Congress, and their employees at the Fed.

Do it now while you still can.

Reuters
JPMorgan chief warns of overregulation
By Vera Eckert
April 18, 2010

(Reuters) - The head of JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) in a German newspaper interview on Sunday turned against the possibility of stricter bank regulation and asked for better access for bankers to politicians.

"When profits fall too sharply then capital will move somewhere else, where there is more money to be earned, for example non-regulated markets," Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said in the German mass circulation Sunday paper Welt am Sonntag.

"The question is, is that what regulators want?," said Dimon who heads the second-largest U.S. bank.

Dimon has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration's proposed financial regulatory reforms, particularly of a proposed bailout fee on big banks which he has called a "punitive bank tax."

In the German interview, he also said the banking industry could do with more influence on politicians.

Both the industry and government wanted what was best for their country and the economic system but there were areas where the banks lacked possibilities to demonstrate their arguments to politicians and supply them with the right facts, he said.

A Modern Tale of Financial Loss

A developer (Goldman) built houses that looked well built, but were in reality designed to be firetraps, using plans provided by an architect (Paulson). They were sold as conforming to code with certain characteristics represented and endorsed by the building inspectors (Ratings Agencies) and overseen by fire inspectors who did spot checks (the SEC).

After the sale, the developer and the architect bought huge amounts of fire insurance on the homes from a friendly insurance agent (AIG London) who was eager to collect the commissions. The amounts that were insured were sometimes well in excess of what a home might actually be worth. They even took out policies on nearby homes that they had not even built or sold.

The developer had also encouraged the city government to allow the firetrucks and safety equipment to fall into disrepair, and for too few inspectors to be hired to do spot safety checks. So when the houses inevitably burned, the fire department was unable to adequately respond. The fires became so bad that they destroyed entire neighborhoods and threatened whole sections of the city.

The developer and architect were able to submit their insurance claims for sums that were so staggering that the insurance company for which the London agent worked was itself facing bankruptcy. This would have placed at risk the holders of its other policies in completely unrelated areas such as life and auto insurance, and retirement annuities.

So the developer had government people, whom he had helped to elect, provide government backing for the insurance company, for the good of the public. The people who had lost their homes and those who were forced to help to pay the developer were very upset.

But the developer was a large advertiser in the local newspaper, and a old school friend of the owner, so it ignored the complaints, and reported on the story from every perspective except what had really happened. It blamed the people who had lost their homes for being foolish and not inspecting the homes more closely, and taking the developer and the housing inspectors at their word, and trusting the fire departments and its inspectors to do their jobs.

And anyone who complained too loudly was at first ignored, then ridiculed, and finally threatened with arrest. After all, the developer was one of the most important and influential people in the city, and had many powerful friends. Any suggestion that they had done anything wrong was simply unbelievable.

After all, it is inconceivable that an upstanding member of the commuity would ever endanger so many people's lives and homes like that just for personal profit.

The End (for now)

Slick Willy Rewrites the History of the Financial Crisis and Regulation, Blames His Advisors

The hypocrisy of the oligarchs knows no bounds.

Bill Clinton conveniently forgets the hundreds of millions of campaign contributions that he and Hillary so famously raised from Wall Street for the Democrats. They taught their party, always a bit chaotic but left dispirited after the Kennedy assassinations, that 'greed is good.,' and it certainly pays well. You can put up $1000 and obtain a return of $100,000 in a futures market of which you know nothing, and do nothing, if you know the right people.

The price of their perfidy was the overturning of Glass-Steagall and the planting of the seeds of the bubbles and financial crises that the US is still experiencing today.

There is no doubt that George W. Bush hatched the egg, and nurtured it into a ferocious buzzard of fraud and greed. But Bill Clinton laid the egg. And Obama continues to feed the beast, and maintains the very same advisors that Clinton blames in the Rubin proteges Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.

Americans embrace the "CEO defense." Hey, everyone makes mistakes. All you have to do is say, "Oops, I made a mistake" and all is forgiven, from Greenspan to Clinton.

When you make a big enough mistake, or a series of mistakes, and profit by it, and your actions have the stench of corruption, you should be sacked, disgraced, and shunned for a decent period of time.

The elite media is in a panic. I had the opportunity to watch "The Chris Matthews Show" and the comparisons of Tim McVeigh, Ruby Ridge, and Waco to the Tea Party Movement went way over the top, suggesting the possibility of imminent crisis. I can almost see the over-reaction and paranoia coming over the horizon.

There is a tremendous temptation for the old media, and even the bloggers, to go along to get along, to deal only with the 'safe subjects' and reforms, and to play the party line for the status quo. It provides the admittance to the powers, and the venues where they pose for the press. It brings connections and praise from those in power. All you have to do is say thing, or deal with this legitimate problem but in the way we suggest. And ignore these other things.

It does happen. It is not always obvious, but it is there. And if you say 'no' you are attacked or shunned. And being your own person, not taking 'sides' in distorting the facts in one direction or the other, puts one is in the 'grays' always caught between black and white. It sounds noble, but it is a lonely watch.

I am absolutely no follower or even admirer of Sarah Palin. I think she is a shameless opportunist playing to the crowd, saying whatever will deliver money and power. She is the Bill Clinton of the right, or even worse, a Huey Long. And the Tea Party crowd is badly in need of adult supervision. And Fox News is too often blatant propaganda, and pandering to and inflaming extremism for commercial gain. I often suspect that they are part of the Hegelian dialectic, the means of defusing legitimate reform into ineffective noise.

Bear in mind I was a conservative before 'conservatism' was cool, going back to the Goldwater movement and the traditional and principal conservatism embodied by Edmund Burke and James Burnham. These Fox conservatives for the most part are the worst of breed. But such is the quality of discourse and action in the States as it declines.

But having said all that, the grievances are legitimate, the Congress is corrupted by the current campaign contribution laws, the US financial system is rife with fraud, the economy is dysfunctional as a price discovery and capital allocation system, and the inequality of power and wealth is a significant obstacle to progress and domestic tranquility.

Obama is leaving a leadership vacuum by his indolent style of leading by indirection, trying to build a consensus to do the right thing, teaching the Congress to fish. I have great sympathy for the challenge he faces. The problem is that the Congress cannot even find the stream for hitting one another with their poles. There are serious and fundamental flaws in the political and economic structure in the US that become more acute and systemically threatening with each false recovery.

How all this resolves is difficult to see. A new financial crisis will almost certainly bring things to a head, but it remains to be seen how America will react to the realization that they have been badly used, and are expected to suffer, in some cases greatly, for it. But before America the jackals appear to be descending on Europe. And Europe, and especially the UK, may provide us with some insight into the future of the world's greatest but declining superpower.

Bloomberg
Clinton Says He Had Bad Advice on Derivatives
By Joshua Zumbrun

April 18 (Bloomberg) -- Former President Bill Clinton said he should have pushed for regulation of financial derivatives when he was president, rejecting the advice of top economic advisers Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.

The argument was that derivatives didn’t need transparency because they were “expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of people would buy them,” Clinton said on ABC’s “This Week” program. “The flaw in this argument was that first of all, sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”

“Even if less than 1 percent of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges, so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect 100 percent of the investments,” Clinton said. The show was taped yesterday for broadcast today.

Tighter regulation of derivatives trading is part of a package of financial reforms being pushed by the Obama administration against Republican opposition. The Senate is debating a bill introduced by Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd that would also give the federal government the authority to unravel institutions whose failure threatens the financial system.

Bush Blamed

Clinton also said the Bush administration contributed to the financial crisis with lax regulation.

“I think what happened was the SEC and the whole regulatory apparatus after I left office was just let go,” Clinton said. If Clinton’s head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur Levitt, had remained in that job, “an enormous percentage of what we’ve been through in the last eight years would not have happened,” Clinton said.

Levitt is a director of Bloomberg LP, parent of Bloomberg News.

Clinton also said that Republicans who controlled Congress would have stopped him from trying to regulate derivatives. “I wish I had been caught trying,” Clinton said. “I mean, that was a mistake I made.”

"Do you think he is so unskillful in his craft, as to ask you openly and plainly to join him in his warfare against the Truth?

No; he offers you baits to tempt you. He promises you civil liberty; he promises you equality; he promises you trade and wealth; he promises you a remission of taxes; he promises you reform. He promises you illumination, he offers you knowledge, science, philosophy, enlargement of mind.

He scoffs at times gone by; he scoffs at every institution which reveres them. He prompts you what to say, and then listens to you, and praises you, and encourages you. He bids you mount aloft. He shows you how to become as gods.

Then he laughs and jokes with you, and gets intimate with you; he takes your hand, and gets his fingers between yours, and grasps them, and then you are his."

John Henry Newman, The Antichrist