Here is my take on the the first part of the Goldman Hearing. You have three guys who made millions buying and selling mortgage backed securities as "market makers" and as principals acting for their firm. The other guy, Fab, originates the junk sold by the other three.
None of them are able to answer basic questions such as "Do you think you had an obligation to act in your customers best interest" "Is it ok to sell a shitty deal to your clients without telling them you are betting against them".
They collectively blame "too much credit in the system", but the inherent conflict of combining the role of prop trader with originator and underwriter/selling agent of risk securities blows right over their heads.
What you are seeing a total lack of ethical grounding caused by conflicting business interests. All they were able to say is: it is a complicated question, we have strong ethics, but we have to be prudent.
There clearly is no bright line delineating proper and improper behavior in this, the most "storied firm" on Wall Street. Imagine the crap going on around the block and around the corner.
.jpg)
Posts
someone with 3 names should whack a few of these guys.
ReplyDelete