Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder
by chishaku on Thursday April 21, 2016 @04:37PM
(#11545165)
> My take away was that the SEC didn't have the _evidence_ to go after anyone but Fabricci.
"Nor had they questioned top bankers in Goldman’s mortgage businesses or any of the bank’s senior executives. Even more surprising to Kidney, the agency had not taken testimony from John Paulson, the key figure at his eponymous hedge fund."
An investigator that doesn't ask questions will have a hard time finding evidence.
Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder
by mathattack on Thursday April 21, 2016 @04:46PM
(#11545224)
They get very large fees for "securitizing the deal", or being the ones who turns a bunch of loans into something that can be traded. In the case of very complicated deals, it can be several percent for a transaction that is low-risk for the bank since they've already identified both sides of the trade.
Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder
by spinlock on Thursday April 21, 2016 @09:50PM
(#11546554)
There weren't any loans being bundled in this deal. It was a synthetic.
My point is tjs Goldman is the house and made money from the deal not the outcome.
Re:Why the S.E.C. didn't hit Goldman Sachs harder
by cowardlydragon on Thursday April 21, 2016 @06:13PM
(#11545692)
Yes, the CIA, FBI, NSA, and all the lot have the entirety of our financial and communications records stored away.
But there's no evidence anywhere. Sorry. Right.
However, I really don't understand how Goldman would have profited from aiding Paulson & co. Goldman set up a security that let people bet for or against the housing market. It's similar to Vegas letting people bet on a sports match. Why would Vegas fix the game that other people were betting on? It's not like Goldman made more money because Abacus paid out to Paulson vs. the Germans.