Uhh ... you do realize Blythe basically INVENTED the CDS right?
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say, but ALL of the big investment firms were in on this. In fact, the system would not have failed if any one of the investment banks had not played their role.
If you are a quant we can get into arguing the fatal flaw of uncleared counterparties. But from my perspective when everyone is a counterparty, and EVERYONE was, there is nowhere to run when things go bad.
Could you clarify what you mean for me please?
Incidentally, the quote is correct, the heads of everyone from Bear to Goldman would have been summarily dismissed if they had failed to play their roles. All because of the 'innovation' of one, as it turns out, not so bright quant at JPMorgan. Astounding isn't it?
I'm talking specifically about subprime. JPM and Goldman explicitly decided at the very highest levels of management to remain uninvolved in certain areas of the subprime mortgage market. Chase did originate subprime loans, but it did not securitize them and for a long time, did not make a market in subprime bonds. Chase also stayed away from certain areas of alt-A lending, in particular option ARMs, which have become one of the most toxic forms of mortgage debt. Also, JPM didn't purchase billions upon billions of subprime bonds and subprime-backed CDOs, like Merrill, UBS, Citi, and other banks did. That's why JPM has taken "only" $6bn in writedowns over the past 18 months, vs. over $30bn each for Citi, Merrill, and UBS. And yet Jamie Dimon remained CEO of JPM through the mortgage lending boom, despite staying away from its most lucrative areas.
You might find the following article interesting: http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/29/news/companies/tully_jpmorga...
And yet that's exactly what upper management at Goldman and JPMorgan did. Goldman never bought massive quantities of ABS CDOs for portfolio. Chase never originated a single option ARM. Not all of Wall Street was so cravenly focused on short-term profits.