April 19, 2024, 08:55:54 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The holes in Goldman's Greek defence - Goldman's AIG defense?  (Read 1068 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« on: February 23, 2010, 05:00:08 PM »

Quote
Goldman Sachs' statement on its financial deals with Greece, which made the debt of this financially stretched nation seem smaller than it actually was, will not - I think - silence the many critics of the world's most successful investment bank.

In a series of deals, Goldman did two things for Greece.

During December 2000 and January 2001, it "swapped" some of Greece's Yen and Dollar debts into euros, using a "historical implied foreign exchange" rate rather than the market rate. In other words, it used invented exchange rates, rather than market rates, whose effect was to make it seem that Greece's liabilities in its own currency were less than was actually the case.

read more here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/02/the_holes_in_goldmans_greek_de.html

How did AIG manage all those CDO's with AIG?  Anyone (outside AIG/Goldman/Federal Reserve/Treasury) really take a good look at all those contracts?  Fresh eyes without conflicting interests?

Quote
Goldman's Greek defence carries the following momentous implication (albeit one that many will say is blindingly obvious): Goldman is in effect saying that banks will always go for the seemingly profitable deal, unless they are formally prohibited from doing so; and that it's naive to expect them to do the "right thing", in a nebulous ethical sense, unless they are obliged to do that right thing.

Which may reinforce the case of those - like the US president - who argue that the only safe bank is one that is subject to the tightest possible constraints on what it can do and has been cut down to a safe size.

What happened to fiduciary responsibility?  Did government dealmakers have to pay all those counterparties at 100%?  Were they acting in the best interest of taxpayers?

more here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/02/the_holes_in_goldmans_greek_de.html

I think the EU has the advantage of fresh eyes that do not have potential conflicts of interest with Goldman alumni.
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 9.359 seconds with 19 queries.