Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Newsweek - "Goldman Wasn’t Alone" - Imagine Being Allowed To Buy Fire Insurance...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
TomCADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 11:48 PM
Original message
Newsweek - "Goldman Wasn’t Alone" - Imagine Being Allowed To Buy Fire Insurance...
Edited on Sat Apr-24-10 11:52 PM by TomCADem
On a house you did not own, but you were hired to help build. You build the house with the most flammable stuff that you can find. You get a fee for helping construct the house. But, you really get a windfall when the house catches on fire, and you are allowed to collect on the insurance.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236937


Goldman says it lost "in excess of $100 million" on Abacus, and may lose a lot more. The SEC is alleging that Goldman, whose near-mythic status on Wall Street has suffered a series of knocks, knew a critical detail the others did not: that hedge-fund manager John Paulson had helped pick the toxic assets that served as collateral for Abacus. Paulson had always planned to bet against the risky vehicle, and his fund made about $1 billion when Abacus blew up within a year of its creation. Two other investors, German bank IKB and Dutch bank ABN AMRO, together lost more than $1 billion. In other words, in exchange for a fee, Goldman allegedly assembled a house using subpar materials so one of its clients could bet on its collapse—and then sold the house to other customers.

Goldman says all investors knew exactly what was in Abacus. It has vowed to "vigorously defend" itself against the SEC charges and has hired former White House lawyer Gregory Craig. So it could be many months before we know who's right or if the bank broke the law. What we do know, however, is that as the housing market peaked in 2006 and 2007 several other big banks, including Merrill Lynch and UBS, did deals very similar to Abacus. The charges against Goldman provide a window into the nature of these arcane financial instruments, which were integral to Wall Street's meltdown.

Abacus is what's known as a synthetic collateralized debt obligation. A CDO is a financial tool that repackages individual loans into a product that can be chopped up, repackaged, and sold on the secondary market. They are "collateralized" in that they are backed by loans, bonds, or other real assets. As interest rates plummeted after 9/11, investors worldwide were eager for the cash flow being generated by millions of new American mortgages. Soon there weren't enough mortgage bonds to satisfy demand, so bankers hit on the idea of the synthetic CDO, basically a bundle of credit default swaps (or insurance contracts) that mimic, or reference, the performance of real bonds. By 2005, the CDO market in the U.S. hit $200 billion, twice the 2004 level. By then, housing prices were sky-high and the Fed had begun raising interest rates. A few smart investors believed the market was overheating and that CDO volume would drop.

Instead, it nearly doubled in 2006, to $386 billion in the U.S., and more than $520 billion worldwide, as banks grew more creative in the way they assembled and marketed the instruments. Some allowed favored clients, often hedge funds, to help choose risky assets, and then bet against the whole thing.

The Chicago-based hedge fund Magnetar Capital was allegedly among the first outfits to employ this strategy. Named for a type of neutron star that crushes anything that gets near it, the fund launched in spring 2005. Magnetar would agree to buy the riskiest piece of a CDO, which helped Wall Street firms draw in other investors. Next, according to an investigation by journalists at the nonprofit ProPublica, Magnetar pressed Wall Street firms to include junky bonds in the CDOs (Magnetar has denied this) so that it could bet against them. When the CDOs defaulted, Magnetar lost the small amount it had invested but made much more on its short bets. The strategy became known in the industry as the Magnetar Trade. From 2006 through 2007, Magnetar sponsored 30 CDOs, most of them synthetic, worth more than $40 billion. By the end of 2008, 95 percent were in default, according to ProPublica.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. Note to Goldman Sachs: Go fuck yourselves, douchebags.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Dragon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
2. Jail and pay back investors
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
3. It continues to amaze me that these people haven't been lynched.
It is absolutely stunning how much the abuse the general public will put up with. These people have deeply wounded our economy and our country just to shovel more money into their already bulging pockets. They really are traitors. Worse than traitors, in fact-- because they've done these things in service to their own greed and nothing more.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
4. Seeing how this also had negative effects in other countries, what is to
keep those other countries from going after the perpetrators? With the amount of money involved, it might be well worth it.
I'd like to see some foreign governments file suit against all who were knowingly involved in these frauds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC