Skip to main content

Goldman Sachs, Simply


What they did:

A client (Abacus) came to them with an idea. They wanted to take a pile of bad mortgages and bundle them into a bigger pile. Packaged, and with the reputation of a major investment banker (Goldman) behind them, They wanted to sell them to investors and bet their own money that they would fail.

Playing with loaded dice makes it Wall Street, not Vegas.

The mortgages were selected to fail with Goldman's help. Goldman was brought in to both help in the selecting of the bad stuff, and to make the sales to the unwitting -- people who felt that Goldman was acting as a fair broker -- as a  "Banking Investment Firm."

After Goldman et. al. found the worst of the worst, they bundled them into a package, then sold the package to investors. And, this is key, when the package was sold, there was no mention to the investors of the certainty they would lose all of their money.

And when the mortgages failed, the client would collect the insurance money (CDO's and shorts.)
That's the money shot of the thing – the collecting of the insurance money for the client, all else just the  incidental mechanics of a scam.

So -- Three months after the sales, the package failed and the investments became worthless – just as planned. The people who bought them lost all their money. The client who set the scam up with Goldman collected the insurance money.

Goldman made its money from the fee it charged to set this up. It was a big fee.

So, fraud? scam? business as usual?

It's also interesting to note that the big ratings agency, Moody's, gave a triple A rating to the package. No one would have bought the package if the rating wasn't high. Rating agency's evaluate risk -- that's their job. And remember -- this package's value went to zero shortly after it was sold and rated. (What a scum bag job they did -- I mean, how awful can you be and still be in business kind of scum bag job?)




Put another way:

I want a house built for the purpose of it burning up as soon as possible. I arrange for a contractor to build it -- using full gas cans for the framing, and then painting it with a colored napalm. The contractor charges me for the building costs -- he's a good contractor, with a great reputation, so he charges a lot. I then take out an insurance policy that will pay me when the house burns down. 

I sell it to a person after I build it -- but keep the insurance in my name. The house burns down a week after I sell it. I get my money when the insurance pays out. 

The difference is:

What I did is a pretty straightforward crime. I would go to jail, and the contractor would go there as well. No one would argue that the person who bought my house should have known better and it would not be a case where I could say  that they did not do due diligence. I framed the fucking house with gas cans.

"We didn't set the fire," they say.

What Goldman did is now being argued on Business TV. Hours of excuses are being forwarded – “Yes, what they did might have been TECHNICALLY wrong, but not LEGALLY,” and, “It’s business, and the people who bought the big pile should have known better,” and, “Goldman was just doing what was best for their client and there is no crime in that,” and, "They (democrats -- but you knew that, didn't you?) are trying to demonize and destroy America's financial industry."

If the  crime is not clear – what they did is. Goldman  is considered to be the best of the investment banks. They have a written code of ethics that is a model of the industry – everyone says so. They roared  out of the last recession like no other. They did it for their investors and for their bonuses -- not for the good of anyone or anything else. (For how -- see the link below)

Used car salesmen have more ethics, and they certainly have more regulation. Maybe car dealers just  need to get a better lobby, or they need to give more money to their regulators.

Most of the TV talking heads, and all of the experts they bring on, say that what Goldman did is the common practice.

Wow, who would have thought -- wealthy people using their money to manipulate the system by buying smart people without internal ethics, and politicians that are seeking to keep themselves in office at any cost. Huh --Wealthy people gutting the system that tries to regulate them by buying the people who set the regulations, or, using their own in house help to write the damn things if they have to (lobbyist's are very helpful to overworked congressional staff.)

As if we didn't know. 

For more, and more complete, information about how they have done this, read Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone article, (below.) It's about Goldman Sachs’ and their business practices. When this article first came out, it was poo-pooed by the mainstream media, but now, just a few months later, it's almost scary real in how accurate it shows things.

And, never forget, eat the rich.







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wedding and Funeral

Went to a wedding and a funeral this weekend with Mary. Sacramento, Santa Rosa, then home– a whirlwind trip through weekend bay area traffic. The traffic was horrible – life changing horrible, but not unusual.
As with most things, it’s a balance of an the unnamed terror and an easy chair in a padded room that rocks. 
The wedding was delightful, part of an interconnected strong woman’s club that marries off their daughters to provably weaker men. And so, the cycle continues, but the company was nice and I’m too old to wonder at the process anymore.
The funeral was for another interconnected strong woman, who, by hinkey or dinky, was a scary woman that I used to work with as a nurse. She would have been surprised that I outlived her, much as Charles the cat was. Please pay attention out there – this is how life works.
(To be fair, she didn’t put up with shit and I liked to throw handfuls of it around as if I were Christ standing on the back of a broken piƱata heaving candy cigarettes to the…

Only once

For clarity, I think I will write this only once.I do not write confessional poetry, and I do not write things down as a form of therapy. I write because I have something unique to say in a unique sort of way, a way that I think is universal in an analogous manner, not as any sort of literal telling of the truth.  I trowel spackle onto pages with a straight edged blade, I don’t paint aging widows with a brush. (My soul has been psychedelicized, but this shit’s not about me.)It comes in this form – that this relates to that, in this way – A form that I think illustrates things that are too true to be looked at straight on – personal truths that are usually discovered through interactions with other people – truths that are often relational, unreliable and subject to the weavings and debris of human beings. Truths that sneak out and become a miraculous surprise of insight – like a Zen master hitting you on the head with a baseball bat at just the right time.I don’t think I’m the only on…

How do I know when I'm done?

I left a message on Facebook for someone I care about that ended with the words, “one won”. I did it just because I thought was funny. That led to a whimsical discovery that I no longer had to place a period at the end of my sentences – in fact to do so would be rude and identify myself as an old person. 
It seems that, for online use anyway, a period has become a loud shout -- a purposeful exclamation point useful only in drawing unnecessary attention, or as a way of making an angry burp of anti-social angst. Sentences no longer end, they gently back out a side door when no one is looking -- they’ve become bars without a jail, or that angry driver just ahead of you who hesitates before moving through an intersection just to make a point of how stupid you are.
Since a period is no longer an end to a thought, its new function has evidentially become nothing but a stuffy ritual of formality that writers can now use to mark up or down generalized feeling of huffiness, or perhaps a way to s…