ASSET RELOCATION
What is Goldman Sachs, exactly?
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., or simply Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), is a bank holding company that engages in investment banking, securities services and investment management. Goldman Sachs was founded in 1869, and is headquartered in the Lower Manhattan area of New York City at 85 Broad Street but has its secondary office at 30 Hudson Street, Jersey City, New Jersey.[1] The firm has offices in all global financial centers and acts as a financial advisor and money manager for corporations, governments, and wealthy families around the world. Goldman offers its clients mergers & acquisitions advice, underwriting services, asset management, and engages in proprietary trading, and private equity deals. It is a primary dealer in the U.S. Treasury securities market.
According to Goldman Sachs they 'do' a number of things. This from their own advertisements:
Advising
Financing
Investing
- Asset Management
- Bank Deposits
- Closed Ended Investments
- Mutual Funds
- Private Equity
- Private Wealth Management
- Securitised Derivatives
Securities
- Clearing Services
- Execution Services
- Fund Administration
- Pensions, Endowments and Foundations
- Prime Brokerage
- Products
- Securities Lending Programs
- Transition Services
Research
Well well, this Sachs Goldman is something to behold. One
hundred and forty years old. My god, almost as old as Bob Hope was at the time
of his death, if I recall correctly.
Now I am not an economist. And I certainly never maintained
much of an economy, having lost everything in the crash. Which crash? Never
much matters. Crashes will always be with us, just like Goldman Sachs. And I might add, whether we like it or not.
I have decided however, with all the hubbub and ado these
days about such matters as investment banking, and hedge funds, and geniuses of
high finance like Bernie Madoff (oh and Madoffs will always be with us also),
to examine this conglomerate from the point of view of a peasant.
But I cannot take on such a burden without breaking Goldman Sachs down to the basics in terms of analysis. So with that rather long and engaging introduction (I mean you are engaged are you not?) let us begin the impossible.
ASSET RELOCATION
Now, it would seem to anyone with a degree in Anthropology
that this phrase is rather simple to understand.
You have an asset in one place. And you take that asset and
put it elsewhere. And it is this kind of genius that has made Goldman Sachs
what it is today. I contacted a friend of mine, Sleepin' Jesus who also is in
the asset relocation business. He is a trucker. But you may be surprised to
learn that GS is into something a little different. I mean they really do not
even own any trucks. According to their
own advertisement, asset relocation would be overseen by GS:
The Global Investment Strategies (GIS) group offers global expertise in such areas as strategic asset allocation, liability-driven investing and active risk budgeting for institutions.
- Advises based on the sound principles of modern finance and executes through proprietary models
- Recommends both general and Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM)-specific portfolio solutions
- Provides a framework and solutions for pressing investment policy issues
- Delivers economic and financial forecasts for global markets
- Maintains ongoing dialogue with clients to generate best research ideas
Now I called them, at the number provided, and they insist
that you must have an asset in the first place in order to qualify for their
aid. I told them I had a computer and a table and a chair and a 32 inch TV and
they hung up on me.
So, we must assume we have an asset. Some asset of
importance. Like twelve billion dollars.
And then they promise to advise based upon sound principles
of modern finance...using proprietary models. Wow.
And, one of the ways you might be advised to relocate your twelve billion dollars would be with Goldman Sachs, evidently.
Now I say, always go
with the very best.
Right now I am watching a 50's film. It is called The
Devil's Disciple. It was based upon a play written by George Bernard Shaw. It stars Kirk Douglas, Burt Lancaster and Sir
Lawrence Olivier.
One of the greatest British (Irish) playwrights of all time. The greatest British Actor of all time. And two of the greatest American actors of all time. See. I mean this movie worked because it had the best.
Well a fellow by the name of Matt Taibbi has written a delightful essay on Goldman Sachs, introducing us to this giant of market manipulation in a recent edition of the Rolling Stone magazine. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print
The Great American Bubble Machine. And here I thought GS did not 'make' anything.
Well, from the get go GS denied that they have anything to
do with bubble machines at all:
"We reject the assertion that we are inflators of
bubbles and profiteers in busts, and we are painfully conscious of the
importance in being a force for good."
I
was worried for a minute. I mean we are talking about one of the most important
economic forces in America today and it looked like
they were making something. But instead, they in fact do not make bubble
machines at all. Phew!!! What they are is a force for good.
Kind of like Superman. I mean he is a force for good also. The Movie was also on today but has no script to speak of and certainly no actors except, of course, Kevin Spacey. Although he does not really contribute much at all. Stick with Olivier, Lancaster and Douglas is what I say.
At any rate back to Asset Relocation:
The history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled-dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates. By now, most of us know the major players. As George Bush's last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup -- which in turn got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson. There's John Thain, the asshole chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $87,000 area rug for his office as his company was imploding; a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a multibillion-dollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain's sorry company. And Robert Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in golden-parachute payments as his bank was self-destructing. There's Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailed-out insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board. The heads of the Canadian and Italian national banks are Goldman alums, as is the head of the World Bank, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, the last two heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York -- which, incidentally, is now in charge of overseeing Goldman.
I am going to boil down the basics of asset relocation into a set of rules.
The first rule appears to be that YOU NEED FRIENDS IN ORDER TO RELOCATE ASSETS.
That is probably why I have always failed every time I attempted to relocate assets. And you want to have those friends regardless of the fickle American Election Cycle. That is, you need friends who are Democrats and you need friends who are repubs. It is really the only way to go.
Now like GS' other rule, about getting people and corporations to relocate their money with them, Goldman Sachs relocates its people. Now I attempted to confirm all of this important information by calling Rubin. Well, I guess he was too busy to take my call. But I get the feeling that if Joshua Bolten called Rubin, Rubin would not be too busy to take his call.
And while we are at it, it certainly appears that you must relocate a bunch of assets directly to your friends to kind of insure that they will remain your friends. I mean if GS had relocated a couple hundred million dollars to me, I would make sure I would never be too busy to take their call. I actually left a message with GS and told them if they would simply relocate a couple of million in my direction, I would even carry a special phone that was only programmed to take GS calls. Ha!!!
Now to wind up this first chapter on global economics, I would like to discuss what an asset actually is.
Lewis Black does a shtick on water. Like me, when he was a kid he would play outside all day. But ever so often he would get thirsty. What to do about this thirst? Well, he would run down into his basement and get a glass of water. Exactly what I did.
Now, back in our ancient history, there were spas. You would retire to a spa when you were ill. And located nearby to these spas were magic springs. By drinking from the magic springs or bathing in water taken from the magic springs, you would sort of 'spring back to life'.
Well, rich people are idiots just like many of us. So companies went to magic springs, retrieved the water, and popped it right into a bottle. No sugar, no corn syrup, no spices. Just water. Of course, in order to get by the FDA these companies would have to boil the water and place it into disinfected bottles and prove, via testing and such that the bacteria and poison count was down to an acceptable level. Which means that the water from the magic springs had little or nothing to do with the water in the bottle.
Ok. So naturally companies came along that wanted to cut out the middle spring. So the scandle a decade ago was that some of the magic spring water companies, were actually getting their water from the same place Lewis and I were getting our water. From a municipal water supply. Now, these companies have to write a note to their customers on the bottle, that the water from a municipal water supply. IT IS TAP WATER. Ha!!!
The basic scam in the Internet Age is pretty easy even for the financially illiterate to grasp. Companies that weren't much more than pot-fueled ideas scrawled on napkins by up-too-late bong-smokers were taken public via IPOs, hyped in the media and sold to the public for megamillions. It was as if banks like Goldman were wrapping ribbons around watermelons, tossing them out 50-story windows and opening the phones for bids. In this game you were a winner only if you took your money out before the melon hit the pavement.
Get it? Now you and I may look at a 50 cent sponge and say, hey, we got a 50 cent sponge. But an economic genius might think, hey, I can get a 20 cent stick and connect it to a sponge and call it a magic windshield cleaner upper. I will get some nice Asian people to connect the sponges to the sticks for 25 cents and hour. Then I will sell the cleaner upper for 9.95 plus shipping and handling. And I will advertise it during dickday's favorite shows.
Now, in the old days in this state we had usury statutes. There was an 8% limit on what could be charged in interest on a bank loan that was unsecured. And 6% on a 30 year mortgage on your home.
Then the Federal Government changed all that. There are few 'fixed loans' anymore. The interest you pay on the first year you have the loan may look nothing like the interest you pay on that same loan two years later. What most people have are variable rate loans where only the lender can predict with any certainty what the interest rate may be a year after you sign the loan document.
Now you have home 'worth' 150 grand. Your loan is for 130 grand. You make 39 grand a year as a fourth grade teacher and your husband makes 29 grand a year as a part-time accountant and a floor man at Wallmart. You and your mate sign the documents and you send in 1300/month to the mortgage company (which has nothing to do with the mortgage company you signed the note with) and everybody is happy and you are now living a Leave It To Beaver suburban American Dream.
Except, after paying property taxes, and water and sewer charges, and utilities, and phone, and car loans...and after buying sponges on a stick and such...you have about $65.00 left over at the end of every month. And now you get the notice that your new Principle/Interest payment is now $1900/month. Then your son gets sick from a preexisting condition and your husband loses his job.
Okie dokie. Oh and your house is now worth $110, 000.
Now the day after closing on your home, the mortgage was packaged and bundled with two thousand other mortgages by GS. And GS sold that bundle for a profit to z corporation that might pay GS so much every year for five years.
Except you are now bankrupt, nobody is making a mortgage payment, z corp has no income coming in on the mortgages it purchased...........
We shall return to this discussion in a few days.
IN THE MEANTIME, WHERE THE F...IS MY BONG?
















Dickon
July 4, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Bwak. I figure high finance is the only way to go.
July 4, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD - not sure why you are choosing Goldman to harp on other than it was convenient with the Rolling Stone article? Does the author of that article have any background in finance? Did he work at Goldman? I couldn't find a bio on his website. He seems to throw out alot of assertions without much proof to back it up.
Goldman was smart enough to avoid getting deep into bad loans like others did (Bear, Lehman, AIG, etc.) The fact that ex-Goldman bankers have worked at Treasury (Paulson, Rubin, etc.) isn't really a reason to conclude that they somehow were playing favorites.
July 5, 2009 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bill -
Watch the Frontline special on the meltdown from earlier this spring. Paulson was arch-enemies with the guy who ran Lehman and was looking for reasons to "let" Lehman fail. But, he was more than happy to help GS stay afloat because they were "too big to allow to fail."
If you don't want to believe that having a GS guy at the helm helped to make Lehman and others crumble, at least consider that it didn't hurt when the gov't was deciding whether to bail out and who should get the help...
July 5, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Friends Burnie. hahahahaha
Friends in HIGH PLACES!!!!!!!
July 5, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did watch the frontline special. Couple things - 1) GS wasn't in enough trouble where they were ever in danger of failing. So it's not really fair to say that Paulson let them stay afloat. 2) You didn't need to look hard to find reasons to let Lehman fail. Their mortgage book was a disaster and nobody in their right mind was going to buy them. That doesn't mean that it was "right" to treat the others differently, but it's hard to rationally argue that Paulson let Lehman fail because he didn't like Dick Fuld. Paulson can't be blamed for gross mismanagement nor should he be forced to bail them out.
I think Paulson or any of his predecessors would have been as impartial as possible. Inconsistent in how they tried to save the victimes? Yes, but how would Paulson have benefitted from giving Goldman special treatment? I don't see it. It's not like he owned any shares of Goldman or any other bank where he was trying to help his own personal account.
July 5, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Friggin' brilliant.
Truckers, sponges-on-a-stick, horse-puckey bottled water salesmen, Scrotal Sachs and...
WHERE THE F... IS MY BONG?
July 4, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have it. All the doughnuts, too.
July 4, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALWAYS BE PREPARED. That's my Missy. I mean what good is a damn bong with some donuts. mmmmmmmmmmmm
July 4, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think we could market BONG WATER?
July 4, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I figure, sure, I do not know what I am talking about.
But according to this guy at RS, whom I have seen on cable news more than a few times, the geniuses do not really know what they are talking about either. Although they are real good at figuring out their bonuses with a calculator.
July 4, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why they need friends, dd. The friends don't know the answers either, but they're good for a few billion in an emergency.
July 5, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to tide them over for the short term. ha!!
July 5, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This rambling post of Dick's just reminds me that I did not do enough drugs in college.
July 4, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahaha. I just get the feeling that some of these top financial guys never stopped.
July 4, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's always post-grad.
You know, lifelong learning and all....
July 4, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez dickday this Golden Sach's is like the Matrix of movie fame, it's got its tentacles everywhere and in everything, and has a thousand Mr Smiths to protect it's interests. Only this is real.
July 4, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like that California company decades ago, ripping off the electricity...
And it was 'discovered' that they really had no assets. ha
Sent a few to prison. Of course the others who had made millions...just disappeared and went to work at some other corp that really had no assets.
Nothin from nothin leaves quite a lot when you think about it.
July 4, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enron, too, in good ol' honest Texas.
July 5, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, dd! Just checking in.... :-)
July 4, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi ya TheraP Happy 4th.
July 4, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recently saw the movie Pelham 123
The bad guy created a panic and the market dropped. Of course the bad guy knew this would occur so he hedged his bet.
It was reported Bin Laden figured this game out too, when he shorted the Airline stocks
The GS’ of the world have it figured out and they will never lose.
Rule # 1 Goldman can never lose
Rule # 2 If the financial upheaval should appear overwhelming and panic sets in, refer to Rule # 1
I should have bought Bank of America Stock when it was almost worthless, how could ever fail.
Asset relocation alright
The Government would take the peoples money and make Goldmans friends whole again.
Is North Korean leader Kim Jong-il one of GS’ customers? Money tied up with oil futures? Panic the market and prices jump. No need for bubbles. Do you think GS will make money in this type of market?
Capitalism works, just ask Goldman.
"As you go through life, make this your goal:
Keep your eye on the doughnut and not on the hole."
Follow the Dough.
July 4, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really good read Resistance. And I hereby render unto you the Dayly LIne of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe Site, given to all of you from all of me.
"As you go through life, make this your goal:
Keep your eye on the doughnut and not on the hole."
Follow the Dough.
That sir, is a great line. hahahahaa
Oh and my link screwed up but read the entire RS article if you have the time..A really good, good article.
July 4, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine
July 4, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may all ready have this link.
I find many interesting articles here also.
WATCH THE VIDEO ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF SCREEN, FUNNY
http://www.minyanville.com/
July 4, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Happy Fourth Dick. Not all the fireworks are in the sky tonight. The ones that count are the ones you display by using your heart and mind to take on the Bastards of Wall Street. Thank you for revealing the trompe l'oeil léger de main of their showy, but deceptive display. Your blog and DonDi's blog in one day. Life is good.
July 4, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such kind words Belle. Yeah I caught DonDi today. It was good.
Mine is even more confusing than the norm. haha
July 4, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello!?
July 4, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf2S7kKLtEQ
July 4, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where this all goes terribly wrong is where GS and others have become, in practice, an arm of government and in that capacity have extracted money from citizens that in essence is little more than a alternative scheme of taxation. In this alternative scheme government and GS are equal partners and share in the proceeds.
Congress and GS cooperatively changed the laws in order to bring this about. One goal of the change is to bring about a modification of the valuation of everything that then causes a reset of the entire scheme. In the process of 'readjusting' for that reset the dollar distribution is altered in such a way so that there is a shift in the percentage of ownership of dollars. Even though the total dollar number has diminished the piece of the whole that GS and government now have is bigger than before.
GS and major banks and government all gain power via this scam and citizens lose power, both financially and politically. Government and finance end up in the plus column after all of this is done. This perpetuates the very purposefully devised scheme of transfer of wealth that has been under way for decades. Virtually everything that can be monitized, no matter what it is, has been and continues to be redistributed so that the middle class has less.
As for the political, you can see the same occurrence where the 'holdings' of the middle class are diminishing. Just look at the Bush years and now at the Obama presidency. The overall expression of 'less' is very certain and is some measurable amount. The percentage of 'loss' upon the part of the middle class is manifested as a gain for the financial and political elites of our society.
In the end the intangibles such as religion, gender, sexual orientaion and other like things that we attach value to are subordinate to political and financial power. Political and financial power are all that matter and are the only two that accrue real power. The unification of political and financial power are the core elements which are driving a reformulation of democracy. This reformulation has little to do with democracy.
Where the broader public holds a perception of our constitution as being the guide for how this nation works exposes a gross misrepresentation of the reality.
There is a very big lie being told, which is reiterated over and over. This is really quite amazing because every bit of this is occurring through the simple and repetitve telling of a lie. We want to believe in our government and our elected officials because it is all we really have. Our belief. Our trust.
Our true reality is, that trust has been thoroughly and irrevocably betrayed. The evidence is irrefutable. Most Americans have yet to accept this fact. Our love of country and faith keeps us from acknowledging this most awful reality. We are in fact in an abusive relationship. We have the power of choice to end that.
July 5, 2009 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Goldman and the others never had any desire to become an "arm of government". That was decided by the government to not let some of these banks fail and instead provide government assistance.
But some, like Goldman and JPMorgan, were able to avoid the subprime crisis enough that they didn't go under.
I'm not sure if you are trying to single out Goldman or you're just blaming the entire banking system.
July 5, 2009 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, I didn't click right. See I wasn't referring to...
July 5, 2009 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The value of the homestead. What used to be THE asset of the American Citizen.
My home is worth something. Therefore I MAINTAIN IT. I not only keep the yard mowed, I add a den and I redo the kids rooms....
PRIDE
The mortgage foreclosures. No one doin the lawns. No one residing in 20% of the neighborhood. Jeeeeeeeeez!
Talk about Blood, Sweat & Tears!!!
July 5, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Where this all goes terribly wrong is where GS and others have become, in practice, an arm of government and in that capacity have extracted money from citizens that in essence is little more than a alternative scheme of taxation. In this alternative scheme government and GS are equal partners and share in the proceeds."
Hmm...might it be the Government has always been an arm of GS? BOTH parties appointed GS alumni to high places in Washington and beyond.Which comes first, GS or key positions in government?
Another interesting tidbit from GATA about a lecture by Lawrence Lindsey. He even crowed about the bubble buildup leading to this financial mess and the decision to make a blood transfusion of taxpayers' money to the million-dollar bonus bankers as reside in GS. Note the paragraph about being a card-carrying member of the international central bankers:
http://www.gata.org/node/5667
My biggest regret is my support of TARP when Paulson raised the hysteria and Obama backed it. I truly believed in Obama being on the side of the taxpayers then.
July 5, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I truly believed in Obama...
Not in my wildest dreams would I have thought we would be using the past tense in this way so soon. I'd have bet my life on that.
Set up another round of cynicism - on the house.
July 5, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't referring to the current circumstance. I was referring to the general state of the relationship between government and the private sector and the way it has evolved over time. That evolution has ended in depriving the citizenry of a degree of representation where democracy specifies that government is accountable to the people. The distorted expression of citizenship that has evolved has served to inappropraitely cause the relationship between the government and the governed to change in a way that has arguably produced very undesirable results.
July 5, 2009 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there is one SIN that sticks out to me more than the others, its the old buddy system. All these greedy men, no matter their political affiliation giving all this money to this company and then reaping hundreds of millions of dollars, billions really.
And they got away with it and continue to get away with it.
July 5, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
and so it ever was, and so it shall be, world without end.
July 5, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
They can sin all they want. I could give a FF about that.
But when they commit crimes against my country then I get pissed.
July 5, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand how you think that "GS and others have become an arm of the government". What makes you think that this is the case?
July 5, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy. GS, Citi, B of A etc cannot be undone given their current size and complexity. So at the very least they are an integral part of our government. If one or more of them fail the risk of the nation failing is significant. Nobody wants to state they are bigger in the sense of the political because in legal terms that is false but financially their importance makes them inseparable from this nation (government).
In the case of the housing collapse our government was faced with the reality that they couldn't apply existing banking law to these banks because the financial repercussions posed a severe risk to the nation. This risk then required government to act as though the banks are an integral unit of government.
Politically, I suspect you know the numbers just like anyone here. Their political contributions are second to none and in that regard they have a lot of influence. That influence has to be lessened to eliminate some of the interdependence. The encroachment upon or blurring of the lines of authority and power are a huge concern for regulators and erect a barrier to effective regulation.
Here is a piece from today where Obama is going to try and change the landscape so that the systemic risk these banks pose is reduced by either shrinking their size or the amount of cash they have to keep on hand. This will reduce their overall financial footprint and remove some of the leverage they have as it applies to decisions of our government.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31711461/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/
July 5, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
GS, Citi, or BoA could have failed and we'd all still be here living and breathing. It would have been painful but it's not true that they're "too big to fail". None of them possess any special technology or expertise that the other banks don't have.
The problem is when we have firms who act as if the government will come to their rescue if they get in trouble. The government did not need to rescue AIG or Lehman.
The Administration's new plan to designate particular firms for special regulatory treatment is a recipe for disaster. It will reduce the perceived risk of lending to these special institutions, and this will give them an unfair edge over their competition.
The turmoil following Lehman's failure occurred because the market expected, after the intervention with Bear, that any larger firm would also be rescued. When Lehman wasn't, everyone had to recalibrate risk, causing a freeze-up in lending. Lehman's failure itself didn't cause any substantial losses, and within weeks of the bankruptcy Lehman's trustee had sold its brokerage, investment banking and investment management businesses to four separate buyers.
July 5, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Admittedly, I am somewhat on the fence on this. The government hasn't shown any reluctance to take down smaller banks that have failed. Almost 50 this year already. I had shared your opinion for quite some time but as more and more time has passed and a clearer picture of this has emerged I am more inclined to think the action taken was chosen because the risk associated with it was known and thus was safer. Not the best one from a taxpayer vantage point, but safer. For instance, to take down a Citibank where there is between $5T and $10T in managed and custodial assets would be a nightmare. I am starting to think that upon examination government realized it wasn't possible in any practical terms. The risk where there were too many interdependencies of a global nature gave them great pause.
So now we have the Obama administration reviewing this. Having been presented with the mess, and realizing existing banking regulation couldn't be applied to these oversized banks, it became obvious something has to change.
Government needs a workable regulatory model that can actually be applied to banks of this size and in particular reduces systemic risk. Right now any notion of control for these monster financial institutions simply doesn't exist. This lesson has been learned the hard way but it could have been a whole lot worse and is still hardly a done deal. I don't think anybody is ready to declare these banks healthy.
I make this comparison. I do computer work for a living and do a lot at systems level. It is necessary to have a recovery plan in place in the case of a failure. There is a need, and this is customary, to devise and thoroughly test that plan so that in the event of a failure critical systems can be brought back on line.
In the case of these large banks the above never happened. When the need presented itself it was immediately apparent there was no plan to rectify a failure for this class of bank. I offer as proof of that the view from our perspective that government had no clue of what they were doing. I think, now, the opposite.
Realizing there was no plan put them at square one and they knew it. They had to examine the entire problem on the fly and devise a recovery solution. Above all, whatever they did, any action that might have caused a devastating or unrecoverable crash was not an option.
I think that when they realized the extent of the problem they knew without a doubt they were pretty well screwed. The excess of unmanaged risk, with no plan to contain it, exposed a monumental error on the part of government regulators and the banks.
Which brings us to the question of too big to fail. Too big to fail is true, but only if there is no plan to accommodate a failure.
July 6, 2009 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was a plan in place but the model failed them. The risk models were giving AAA credit to mortgages that in the end were much riskier than this. The risk models run lots of disaster scenarios. So they did have a "plan" - it's called risk models that are supposed to say how much capital you need to maintain. But the models are only as good as the assumptions that were made.
These banks will only become an "arm of the government" if the government elects to designate them as too big too fail. A "quasi" government guarantee will encourage them to take excessive risks. You saw it happen with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And that didn't turn out too well.
"taking down" Citi would not be a nightmare. No more than it would with AIG. The brokerage and deposit assets would not be affected. We have FDIC to protect consumer assets, SIPC for brokerage assets and the stocks/bonds you have with Citi are separated such that if something bad ever happened (like Citi going bankrupt) it would never effect the brokerage assets you might have with them.
July 6, 2009 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment:
These banks will only become an "arm of the government" if the government elects to designate them as too big too fail.
Hasn't this, in fact, already occurred? Exisitng regulatory action hasn't been pursued because it was determined a suitable plan to address a failure of banks of this class didn't exist. An alternative was devised to address the shortcoming which doesn't designate the banks as failed but which places the banks under government control which falls outside the customary regulatory scheme.
July 6, 2009 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we have already effectively nationalized Citibank and AIG. But this doesn't mean it was the right course of action. And now Obama is making it worse by having regulation that talks about explicitly giving the Treasury the power "in lieu of bankruptcy" to stabilize very large firms. Designating firms for special treatment is a disaster.
But in your original post I interpreted you saying that the banks WANTED to become arms of the government in order to bilk taxpayers. That's where I disagree - Goldman and the others never wanted to team up with the Government. Why subject yourself to that nightmare? You saw how quickly that GS and JPM wanted to pay back TARP funds that they didn't want to take in the first place but were forced to do so.
July 6, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok. Now I see what I (we) did. No I didn't intend to suggest this was at the behest of the banks. It was unmistalably initiated from the treasury side of things when treasury realized the existing mechanisms to handle failed banks were hopelessly inadequate to address difficulties with the institutions we are talking about. I think Paulson recognized this right from the get go last September. It comes down to having a tool appropriate to the job. The tool they needed wasn't yet invented and is now under way.
Bill, I am glad we are going through this because it has made me examine this particular and very important aspect more closely than I had previously. As you know, keeping these discussions on an even keel is crucial in making sense of it. Thanks for hanging in there with me while I sorted it out.
July 6, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I view the Lehman bankruptcy as a "success" in the sense that it was a very large organization that the government did not have to rescue. The existing bankruptcy process worked fine for Lehman and would have (in my opinion) worked fine for Bear, Citi, BofA or AIG. The worst thing we can do going forward is try to protect firms that have such "too big to fail" status. It will promote excessive risk taking on their part if they think at the end of the day the government will come in to save them.
July 7, 2009 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is under way is supposed to address that. We'll wait and see.
July 7, 2009 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is under way is going to make the government backstop more explicit. It will encourage poor risk taking.
July 7, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
2D,
All these guys are nothing more than "legalized high end bookies". They make money regardless of whether the client wins or loses. This could be one of those 5 or 10 things I metioned elsewhere.
Rec'd
July 5, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You got that right Face. Ha!!
Remember when gambling was illegal and you had to have a secret bookie?
Now the bookies are right out in the open.
July 5, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arthur, I actually read the whole article a few days ago and wanted to do a post about it, but I'm glad I didn't. Your wise donkey approach is much better than any analysis I could have done.
I don't know why I continue to be amazed at your ability to take a subject (any subject) and come come up with such a hysterically funny way of looking at it. I'm going to have to invent some new superlatives...I'm getting tired of using the ones we all know! Maybe I'll just start using more exclamation points. Great job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Naw, how about superfantabulous?
July 5, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Goodness Stilli, you really know how to raise a guy's spirits. Thank you so much.
July 5, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sit on my ass-et cause it's all I got!...
Bong? Did someone say bong?...
July 5, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I told this MBA the other day:
THAT'S JUST PLAIN BONG!!!!!!!
July 5, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi DD - another masterful writing -
Must confess I know little about the financial market and securities etc. This from a gal whose father spent his entire career on Wall Street. He tried so hard to educate me about stocks,bonds etc. Mostly to no affect, much to his disappointment. At any rate - the above has helped me understand about my money or lack thereof. Economics 101 perhaps?
Thanks from an admirer.
July 5, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of my favorite admirers. ha!!
I hope you are having a nice week end Maggie.
July 5, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And as for questioning Taibbi's credentials, the skeptics can look up the record of Goldman Sachs for themselves on Google. My favorite site is
http://www.goldmansachs666.com/
July 5, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great links Querty. 666 the mark of the devil.
Thank you for these!!!
July 5, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're welcomed DD. The facts on GS666 do speak for themselves.
July 5, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
For DD and other fans of Goldman Sacks...see if you can connect the dots?
http://cryptogon.com/2006_09_03_blogarchive.html#115726846532246735
Check out the 2006 entry with the Business Week cover, "How Toxic is Your Mortgage" for an insider look at the set-up behind the toxic loans and then this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/12/subprime-prosecution-stop_n_202630.html
July 5, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coakley and Cumo in 2016.
I love happy stories Qwerty. ha
July 5, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is everybody picking on Goldman? They were barely a player in securitizing subprime loans. If they had been a major player then they would have suffered the same fate as Bear, Lehman and Merrill. Yes, they were doing it along with everybody else, but it's like blaming the bat boy for the Mets choking every time they play the Phillies.
July 7, 2009 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink