Self Dealing Part II: Investigations Started

NY Times: “When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing, you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”

Mr. Lippmann made his pitch to select hedge fund clients, arguing they should short the mortgage market. He sometimes distributed a T-shirt that read “I’m Short Your House!!!” in black and red letters.

While the investigations are in the early phases, authorities appear to be looking at whether securities laws or rules of fair dealing were violated by firms that created and sold these mortgage-linked debt instruments and then bet against the clients who purchased them,

Editor’s Note: It would be wise to pay careful attention to news reports and press releases from investigating agencies and to track the discovery in class action and other cases filed. A lot of your work might already be done, right down to the same lender you are  dealing with.

December 24, 2009

Banks Bundled Bad Debt, Bet Against It and Won

In late October 2007, as the financial markets were starting to come unglued, a Goldman Sachs trader, Jonathan M. Egol, received very good news. At 37, he was named a managing director at the firm.

Mr. Egol, a Princeton graduate, had risen to prominence inside the bank by creating mortgage-related securities, named Abacus, that were at first intended to protect Goldman from investment losses if the housing market collapsed. As the market soured, Goldman created even more of these securities, enabling it to pocket huge profits.

Goldman’s own clients who bought them, however, were less fortunate.

Pension funds and insurance companies lost billions of dollars on securities that they believed were solid investments, according to former Goldman employees with direct knowledge of the deals who asked not to be identified because they have confidentiality agreements with the firm.

Goldman was not the only firm that peddled these complex securities — known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s — and then made financial bets against them, called selling short in Wall Street parlance. Others that created similar securities and then bet they would fail, according to Wall Street traders, include Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley, as well as smaller firms like Tricadia Inc., an investment company whose parent firm was overseen by Lewis A. Sachs, who this year became a special counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

How these disastrously performing securities were devised is now the subject of scrutiny by investigators in Congress, at the Securities and Exchange Commission and at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street’s self-regulatory organization, according to people briefed on the investigations. Those involved with the inquiries declined to comment.

While the investigations are in the early phases, authorities appear to be looking at whether securities laws or rules of fair dealing were violated by firms that created and sold these mortgage-linked debt instruments and then bet against the clients who purchased them, people briefed on the matter say.

One focus of the inquiry is whether the firms creating the securities purposely helped to select especially risky mortgage-linked assets that would be most likely to crater, setting their clients up to lose billions of dollars if the housing market imploded.

Some securities packaged by Goldman and Tricadia ended up being so vulnerable that they soured within months of being created.

Goldman and other Wall Street firms maintain there is nothing improper about synthetic C.D.O.’s, saying that they typically employ many trading techniques to hedge investments and protect against losses. They add that many prudent investors often do the same. Goldman used these securities initially to offset any potential losses stemming from its positive bets on mortgage securities.

But Goldman and other firms eventually used the C.D.O.’s to place unusually large negative bets that were not mainly for hedging purposes, and investors and industry experts say that put the firms at odds with their own clients’ interests.

“The simultaneous selling of securities to customers and shorting them because they believed they were going to default is the most cynical use of credit information that I have ever seen,” said Sylvain R. Raynes, an expert in structured finance at R & R Consulting in New York. “When you buy protection against an event that you have a hand in causing, you are buying fire insurance on someone else’s house and then committing arson.”

Investment banks were not alone in reaping rich rewards by placing trades against synthetic C.D.O.’s. Some hedge funds also benefited, including Paulson & Company, according to former Goldman workers and people at other banks familiar with that firm’s trading.

Michael DuVally, a Goldman Sachs spokesman, declined to make Mr. Egol available for comment. But Mr. DuVally said many of the C.D.O.’s created by Wall Street were made to satisfy client demand for such products, which the clients thought would produce profits because they had an optimistic view of the housing market. In addition, he said that clients knew Goldman might be betting against mortgages linked to the securities, and that the buyers of synthetic mortgage C.D.O.’s were large, sophisticated investors, he said.

The creation and sale of synthetic C.D.O.’s helped make the financial crisis worse than it might otherwise have been, effectively multiplying losses by providing more securities to bet against. Some $8 billion in these securities remain on the books at American International Group, the giant insurer rescued by the government in September 2008.

From 2005 through 2007, at least $108 billion in these securities was issued, according to Dealogic, a financial data firm. And the actual volume was much higher because synthetic C.D.O.’s and other customized trades are unregulated and often not reported to any financial exchange or market.

Goldman Saw It Coming

Before the financial crisis, many investors — large American and European banks, pension funds, insurance companies and even some hedge funds — failed to recognize that overextended borrowers would default on their mortgages, and they kept increasing their investments in mortgage-related securities. As the mortgage market collapsed, they suffered steep losses.

A handful of investors and Wall Street traders, however, anticipated the crisis. In 2006, Wall Street had introduced a new index, called the ABX, that became a way to invest in the direction of mortgage securities. The index allowed traders to bet on or against pools of mortgages with different risk characteristics, just as stock indexes enable traders to bet on whether the overall stock market, or technology stocks or bank stocks, will go up or down.

Goldman, among others on Wall Street, has said since the collapse that it made big money by using the ABX to bet against the housing market. Worried about a housing bubble, top Goldman executives decided in December 2006 to change the firm’s overall stance on the mortgage market, from positive to negative, though it did not disclose that publicly.

Even before then, however, pockets of the investment bank had also started using C.D.O.’s to place bets against mortgage securities, in some cases to hedge the firm’s mortgage investments, as protection against a fall in housing prices and an increase in defaults.

Mr. Egol was a prime mover behind these securities. Beginning in 2004, with housing prices soaring and the mortgage mania in full swing, Mr. Egol began creating the deals known as Abacus. From 2004 to 2008, Goldman issued 25 Abacus deals, according to Bloomberg, with a total value of $10.9 billion.

Abacus allowed investors to bet for or against the mortgage securities that were linked to the deal. The C.D.O.’s didn’t contain actual mortgages. Instead, they consisted of credit-default swaps, a type of insurance that pays out when a borrower defaults. These swaps made it much easier to place large bets on mortgage failures.

Rather than persuading his customers to make negative bets on Abacus, Mr. Egol kept most of these wagers for his firm, said five former Goldman employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity. On occasion, he allowed some hedge funds to take some of the short trades.

Mr. Egol and Fabrice Tourre, a French trader at Goldman, were aggressive from the start in trying to make the assets in Abacus deals look better than they were, according to notes taken by a Wall Street investor during a phone call with Mr. Tourre and another Goldman employee in May 2005.

On the call, the two traders noted that they were trying to persuade analysts at Moody’s Investors Service, a credit rating agency, to assign a higher rating to one part of an Abacus C.D.O. but were having trouble, according to the investor’s notes, which were provided by a colleague who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to release them. Goldman declined to discuss the selection of the assets in the C.D.O.’s, but a spokesman said investors could have rejected the C.D.O. if they did not like the assets.

Goldman’s bets against the performances of the Abacus C.D.O.’s were not worth much in 2005 and 2006, but they soared in value in 2007 and 2008 when the mortgage market collapsed. The trades gave Mr. Egol a higher profile at the bank, and he was among a group promoted to managing director on Oct. 24, 2007.

“Egol and Fabrice were way ahead of their time,” said one of the former Goldman workers. “They saw the writing on the wall in this market as early as 2005.” By creating the Abacus C.D.O.’s, they helped protect Goldman against losses that others would suffer.

As early as the summer of 2006, Goldman’s sales desk began marketing short bets using the ABX index to hedge funds like Paulson & Company, Magnetar and Soros Fund Management, which invests for the billionaire George Soros. John Paulson, the founder of Paulson & Company, also would later take some of the shorts from the Abacus deals, helping him profit when mortgage bonds collapsed. He declined to comment.

A Deal Gone Bad, for Some

The woeful performance of some C.D.O.’s issued by Goldman made them ideal for betting against. As of September 2007, for example, just five months after Goldman had sold a new Abacus C.D.O., the ratings on 84 percent of the mortgages underlying it had been downgraded, indicating growing concerns about borrowers’ ability to repay the loans, according to research from UBS, the big Swiss bank. Of more than 500 C.D.O.’s analyzed by UBS, only two were worse than the Abacus deal.

Goldman created other mortgage-linked C.D.O.’s that performed poorly, too. One, in October 2006, was a $800 million C.D.O. known as Hudson Mezzanine. It included credit insurance on mortgage and subprime mortgage bonds that were in the ABX index; Hudson buyers would make money if the housing market stayed healthy — but lose money if it collapsed. Goldman kept a significant amount of the financial bets against securities in Hudson, so it would profit if they failed, according to three of the former Goldman employees.

A Goldman salesman involved in Hudson said the deal was one of the earliest in which outside investors raised questions about Goldman’s incentives. “Here we are selling this, but we think the market is going the other way,” he said.

A hedge fund investor in Hudson, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that because Goldman was betting against the deal, he wondered whether the bank built Hudson with “bonds they really think are going to get into trouble.”

Indeed, Hudson investors suffered large losses. In March 2008, just 18 months after Goldman created that C.D.O., so many borrowers had defaulted that holders of the security paid out about $310 million to Goldman and others who had bet against it, according to correspondence sent to Hudson investors.

The Goldman salesman said that C.D.O. buyers were not misled because they were advised that Goldman was placing large bets against the securities. “We were very open with all the risks that we thought we sold. When you’re facing a tidal wave of people who want to invest, it’s hard to stop them,” he said. The salesman added that investors could have placed bets against Abacus and similar C.D.O.’s if they had wanted to.

A Goldman spokesman said the firm’s negative bets didn’t keep it from suffering losses on its mortgage assets, taking $1.7 billion in write-downs on them in 2008; but he would not say how much the bank had since earned on its short positions, which former Goldman workers say will be far more lucrative over time. For instance, Goldman profited to the tune of $1.5 billion from one series of mortgage-related trades by Mr. Egol with Wall Street rival Morgan Stanley, which had to book a steep loss, according to people at both firms.

Tetsuya Ishikawa, a salesman on several Abacus and Hudson deals, left Goldman and later published a novel, “How I Caused the Credit Crunch.” In it, he wrote that bankers deserted their clients who had bought mortgage bonds when that market collapsed: “We had moved on to hurting others in our quest for self-preservation.” Mr. Ishikawa, who now works for another financial firm in London, declined to comment on his work at Goldman.

Profits From a Collapse

Just as synthetic C.D.O.’s began growing rapidly, some Wall Street banks pushed for technical modifications governing how they worked in ways that made it possible for C.D.O.’s to expand even faster, and also tilted the playing field in favor of banks and hedge funds that bet against C.D.O.’s, according to investors.

In early 2005, a group of prominent traders met at Deutsche Bank’s office in New York and drew up a new system, called Pay as You Go. This meant the insurance for those betting against mortgages would pay out more quickly. The traders then went to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, the group that governs trading in derivatives like C.D.O.’s. The new system was presented as a fait accompli, and adopted.

Other changes also increased the likelihood that investors would suffer losses if the mortgage market tanked. Previously, investors took losses only in certain dire “credit events,” as when the mortgages associated with the C.D.O. defaulted or their issuers went bankrupt.

But the new rules meant that C.D.O. holders would have to make payments to short sellers under less onerous outcomes, or “triggers,” like a ratings downgrade on a bond. This meant that anyone who bet against a C.D.O. could collect on the bet more easily.

“In the early deals you see none of these triggers,” said one investor who asked for anonymity to preserve relationships. “These things were built in to provide the dealers with a big payoff when something bad happened.”

Banks also set up ever more complex deals that favored those betting against C.D.O.’s. Morgan Stanley established a series of C.D.O.’s named after United States presidents (Buchanan and Jackson) with an unusual feature: short-sellers could lock in very cheap bets against mortgages, even beyond the life of the mortgage bonds. It was akin to allowing someone paying a low insurance premium for coverage on one automobile to pay the same on another one even if premiums over all had increased because of high accident rates.

At Goldman, Mr. Egol structured some Abacus deals in a way that enabled those betting on a mortgage-market collapse to multiply the value of their bets, to as much as six or seven times the face value of those C.D.O.’s. When the mortgage market tumbled, this meant bigger profits for Goldman and other short sellers — and bigger losses for other investors.

Selling Bad Debt

Other Wall Street firms also created risky mortgage-related securities that they bet against.

At Deutsche Bank, the point man on betting against the mortgage market was Greg Lippmann, a trader. Mr. Lippmann made his pitch to select hedge fund clients, arguing they should short the mortgage market. He sometimes distributed a T-shirt that read “I’m Short Your House!!!” in black and red letters.

Deutsche, which declined to comment, at the same time was selling synthetic C.D.O.’s to its clients, and those deals created more short-selling opportunities for traders like Mr. Lippmann.

Among the most aggressive C.D.O. creators was Tricadia, a management company that was a unit of Mariner Investment Group. Until he became a senior adviser to the Treasury secretary early this year, Lewis Sachs was Mariner’s vice chairman. Mr. Sachs oversaw about 20 portfolios there, including Tricadia, and its documents also show that Mr. Sachs sat atop the firm’s C.D.O. management committee.

From 2003 to 2007, Tricadia issued 14 mortgage-linked C.D.O.’s, which it called TABS. Even when the market was starting to implode, Tricadia continued to create TABS deals in early 2007 to sell to investors. The deal documents referring to conflicts of interest stated that affiliates and clients of Tricadia might place bets against the types of securities in the TABS deal.

Even so, the sales material also boasted that the mortgages linked to C.D.O.’s had historically low default rates, citing a “recently completed” study by Standard & Poor’s ratings agency — though fine print indicated that the date of the study was September 2002, almost five years earlier.

At a financial symposium in New York in September 2006, Michael Barnes, the co-head of Tricadia, described how a hedge fund could put on a negative mortgage bet by shorting assets to C.D.O. investors, according to his presentation, which was reviewed by The New York Times.

Mr. Barnes declined to comment. James E. McKee, general counsel at Tricadia, said, “Tricadia has never shorted assets into the TABS deals, and Tricadia has always acted in the best interests of its clients and investors.”

Mr. Sachs, through a spokesman at the Treasury Department, declined to comment.

Like investors in some of Goldman’s Abacus deals, buyers of some TABS experienced heavy losses. By the end of 2007, UBS research showed that two TABS deals were the eighth- and ninth-worst performing C.D.O.’s. Both had been downgraded on at least 75 percent of their associated assets within a year of being issued.

Tricadia’s hedge fund did far better, earning roughly a 50 percent return in 2007 and similar profits in 2008, in part from the short bets.

7 Responses

  1. […] of truth — reality and the collective perception of reality whether it is wrong or right. see self-dealing-part-ii-investigations-started REALITY: The main point missed by nearly everyone is that in the securitization of real estate […]

  2. yes, yes, and yes. BUT, this just skirts the surface as my experience in 2005 started my relentless research to find the links that I knew existed and ultimately led to the foreclosure of my home of 32 years. It is more than merely BETTING on default, it is active participation in the creation of the default. In 2005, a series of events starting with the illegal manipulation of my late husbands retirement account by Putnum / Prudential began a domino effect that put me on the radar for profit from credit risk assessment. This I know is true, but for five years, no one would listen. Just as no one listen when I reported and sought legal redress for the unlawful management of a large investment fund. At the time, I knew the investment details and / or the IRS lien for the tax (provided but not paid), was a part of a change that showed in my credit report. MAJOR interest in me began in ernest AFTER the IRS tax bill. At that same time, a major car accident / insurance claim that was delayed for many many months and led to changes in my credit report and constant risk assessment co hits did not go unnoticed. Additional negative reportings BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY and auto claim, led to and included reportings from the unpaid car rental charge that was created when the charge was approved and charged to then abuptly rebuked by AMEX. Car rental charges related to the auto accident and preapproved rental charges led to illegal and agressive collection activity including threats of jail, lawsuit and foreclosure, including telling me “I’m calling your lender!” The result of my contacting my lender resulted in the enthusiastic and the concerted efforts of several individuals in customer service assisting me with the offer of a 30 day extention so as to pay off creditor. (good credit and customer etc etc) was actually a calculated effort to create a forclosure situation, resulting in a delay while pretending to assist. At a point in this process, a phone call of inquiry was met with an abrupt and out of context declaration that; ‘YOU ARE IN FORECLOSURE, it’s too late, your house is gone, I can’t help if I wanted~!’ OMG!!
    I was not behind in payments, but the resulting panic was enough and caused a hasty refinance in an effort to escape what I characterized at that time as the ‘bad guys.’ This refinance was completely a result of lies and manipulation and under the duress and threats I refinanced. From a fixed 6% 30 year loan of one year and contrary to most everything I was told, I found myself out of my prime loan and into subprime. Aside from the YSD that no one would explain, the New Century loan that I was steered into by an unlicensed broker was a significant and irrefutable key. The stripping of my equity after being paid for in 2001 was not apparent to me at the onset but without any information as a guide, by the time I was aware of the actual apraisal, the pocketed points and yield spread, I realized I was well on my way and would eventually and absolutely lose my home. The 2/28 ARM, had TILA, RICO and UDAP violations, however NO ONE would provide any information at the time of signing. I had no idea of this product, the terms, rate, or PMI insurance or other packed on fees and no one responded to my inquiries including Ocwen. By accident, discovery of the purchase of insurance for the lenders while the escrow collections remained unaccounted for was the beginning of an understanding of why my entire neighborhood was bank owned while the houses remained empty and unnattended. It started to make sense as I had questioned the exit of homeowners who had been here in excess of my 30 years. However, the two title companies and whatever title insurance that was purchased remained in question, while the extensive prepaid insurance and PMI was not. Lenders had hefty insurance in place while the funds for hazard insurance collected for me, somehow, was not. Now I consider what I know to be a moral and ethical issue that I think can’t possibly be lawful, can it? The SAME PRINCIPLES created the foreclosure then insured themselves for the default that was inevitable from the beginning. Now I have been put thru the paces of pretending to be considered for a loan modification, the final blow has yet to play through. Sadly, I am beginning to accept it is a certainty that it will. The inflated value of the appraisal / resulting loan product was intended to go just as it has so far. Now that Ocwen has done everything they can (all the usual bag of tricks) to create a foreclosure scenario, yet again. Successfully duped (go ahead call me stupid), I am unable to completely believe this can actually occur. Luckily with the help of my president and elected officials and the HAMP program, I believed I was doing as instructed for my best interest. I have paid three separate companies to modify my loan and from the point of not making that first payment as instructed by Ocwen and the scammer loan mod company, I have been fooled, yet again. While I’m dragged into the foreclosure I have fought tooth and nail to prevent I want every victim that has yet to line up and be told, you can’t qualify until delinquent…..I have to say, stop. You are a lamb to slaughter and the price is your home. I am forced to realize that the Guaranty Insurance that was part of major non disclosure is why Ocwen never said boo or corrected me when I talked with them about the modification they were doing….NOT. Added 25K onto loan and now the HAMP program trial period is impending and appears to be the payment / interest rate that was unaffordable on my SSI in the first place. Now, I’m forced to go along although I am certain to the core of my soul the new sale date on January 14 will plow ahead while I am rendered complacent as I anticipate the loan mod that will only result in the good faith payment followed by the foreclosure sale because the Radian Guaranty policy that I was told was none of my business insures the default to the hilt. 21st Century / AIG created the situation and now yet again the middlemen will be paid for my home that I used to own. The investigation regarding self-dealing is as corrupt and far reaching as the timing, backdating, and stock manipulation that NO ONE wanted to hear about when it happened to me. When it is exposed that the new profit vehicle is in risk asset management, after this disabled widow is finished off and effectively illiminated from the middle class, CNN can report economic recovery all they want. How does a lifetime career, hard work, and sacrifice that ends like this lead to recovery? I’ve been ruined forever. Aside from that, forcing the refinance by threatening foreclosure and reporting late payments WHILE in escrow, (trapping me in bait n’ switch fraud), lead to so much interest in buying this asset (the credit report confirms three late payments, effectively default), not to mention major insurance products that pay handsomely and yet nobody knew? uh huh. I would love to ask that nobody a question or 10 if I could figure out where they are hiding in this seemingly growing crowd of people blocking my view. Additionally, my previous loan with Ameriquest was only one year old and I am quite certain the trustee was Deutsche, who oddly enough declaired themselves the trustee (power of attorney assignment from New Century to Deutsche was recorded AFTER NOD), as well as five years AFTER the fact. Deutsche then substituted Cal Western Reyconveyance who I believe is nothing more than a foreclosure warehouse….although mind you, Ocwen pretends to me we are in the modification process. Now, for my current theory about Deutsche stepping forward and declaring themselves as duly appointed trustee….Whether they just bought it, (a default risk asset) when it was recorded in 2009, or they didn’t bother when Citi bought Ameriquest in 2005, either way, doesn’t that equal self dealing. How can Citi, in collusion with New Century (they made purchases from New Century in 05 and although one would expect they wanted the valuable assets, it was the toxics, their terminology, that are getting the most action). So if I am to believe Deutsche was trustee at Ameriquest when purchased by Citi in 05, and now the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Deutsche in May 09, is or isn’t more lies…… can this casual consideration of insuring yourself while actively creating the foreclosure / and dash to refinance away from perceived threat was little more than from the frying pan to the fire. Guaranty insurance paid in advance by New Century from the begainning was kept a secret up to and including Ocwen who says ‘not your business.’ OK, add that to the list of non disclosure and misrepresentation and I’m sure I’d be at this point now waiting to be removed from the only home I have lived in my entire life. I’m afraid to pay yet another attorney or opportunist as I believe my 30 years as an Educator and IT / Budget and Research Analyst gives me a chance to at least express what they have done to me and who is responsible before they finish this shell game. I would love any comments / input / questions if you are interested. What I believe has been an unlawful use of my credit information but I believe is referred to as cross marketing and upselling in finance is acutally a continuation of the middle man rip offs which began with the S & L crimes. Also, my QWR was rebuked by Ocwen and I’m sure all the trustees and players in the mix have a deeper meaning than giving the guilty a place to hide in. I want to know who has been paid thus far, AND more than that, who will get the impressive guaranty proceeds from this scam? I’m guessing…..those who were mislead, paid, and suffered the loss MAY be able to look forward to a class action settlement, much like the 15 bucks I got helping white collar mafia score AGAIN!! I am happy to receive contact from anyone open to exchange ideas, solutions, creative exchange of skills or just a touch of humanity. Once proud, confident, brave and fulfilled in my career and education choices, I find myself reduced to a fearful and shivering five year old. Handicapped, ill and alone, I am facing moving myself and my dog, putting the other to sleep, I reach out for the first time out of desperation. Of all that, what gets me more than anything is the opportunity to provide any passive agressives out there the satisfaction of calling me stupid. Yeah, sure.
    ** note** Requests to chat only need be requested with phone or mail details. Support or suggestions gratefully accepted. Barter for research or other skills in exchange for partial legal guidance at your discression (hand holding through end of current nightmare, consult or partial hire in pro se litigation worth on going committment to research / secretarial / or documentation support as desired.)

  3. I hope the courts will do something about the misery that has been caused by these wall st banksters, but if history is any gauge of future action, Goldman Wins Again.

    Only a full blown revolution will produce the heads of banksters on pikes, the Wall St firms that knowingly dealt toxic overrated investments seized and dismantled, the severed hands of notaries who falsly notarize assignments mummifying in a glass case as a warning to others who steal and rob by the pen.

    Unfortunately the sheeple of America are to beaten down to mount a campaign to force investigations, and prosecutions of the many illegal actions that have been perpetrated on them in the last decade.

    Now that Obama has shone his true colors, hope for change that he promised has diminished. Only a outraged mob in the street, will produce the result that the United States needs.

  4. Jose,

    You said it; welcome to the USSA.


  5. I am pissed as to how the law is not what it SEems or we understand it to be rather the law is what money can buy for you. Our judges. Our institutions work for those who haave thebiggest bank account forget about being fair or legal

    They can destroy the nation but they control the flow of money therefore they rule the day and the results
    There your obama plan
    Let us stick it to you the poor people who bought into this corrupt System
    Bye bye America
    Welcome to the goldmn Sachs land of slaves

  6. See “Law and Economic Issues in Subprime Litigation”, Olin School of Law (Harvard Paper Diagrams). It’s filed under “Suggested Readings” right here on the blog. Start around page 71 and go through the list of broken down trusts, and read further to find out who the big securitizers were. The big players are all the guys we read about here (Wells Citigroup, HSBC, Barclays, LaSalle, Bank of New York, Deutsche Bank, U.S. Bank, etc.). Then notice the “bookrunners” with the losses they posted (Lehman Bros., Bear-Stearns, and Merryl-Lynch were the top 3–all gone), scroll a couple of pages down you and then see who the “Trustees” are. Now, go back to that list of losses. Only 3 names on that list (page 73) with $0 in writeoffs. Two are “out of business”, as we know them (as well as some of the others that appear). The third is Goldman Sachs.

    What’s my point? There is none, other than the fact that Goldman Sachs always wins.

  7. My Christmas wish for every one of these banksters and their corrupt attorneys, all the Wall Street goons who caused this mess, and the government officials who aided and abetted them … you can all spend an eternity in hell screwing each other over the way you screwed us over.


Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: