There seems to be a lot of finger pointing at those who are perceived to have let us down, especially those of us who are financial professionals. Most recently Goldman Sachs was on the hot seat where there was a lot of finger pointing by the Obama administration towards the so called "greedy bankers". It seems that the people on main street are following the news and media in forming their own beliefs without actually understanding what's at the heart of the issue. The media has failed to pick up on a few missing links, and the investment banking professionals have not bothered talking about it. Its imperative to know about the missing links to understand what went wrong and who or what led to the financial crisis. It seems that every Tom, Dick and Harry has gotten a license to talk down the large corporations while holding their own esteems high up in cloud 9.
Whenever there is a systemic failure, it is given that there is more than one factor at play, which unfortunately people are just not realizing. It seems that people find it easier to blame one large corporation without knowing any facts. I am referring to Goldman Sachs ofcourse. Ever since the Obama administration has attacked Goldman for betting against their own clients, the common person is up in arms about the firm and relieving part of his/her anger; now that their ignorance has found the Socrates of the 21st century. There are also allegations that even in this dismal economy, Goldman along with its other competitors on Wall St. are paying hefty bonuses to their employees.
Lets first take a look at the recent events of Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) which has pointed fingers at Goldman Sachs (GS&Co.) regarding the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction. It was a package that contained toxic assets. The structured product was selected by ACA Management LLC (ACA) whose expertise is in analyzing credit risk. ABACUS was the name given to the marketing materials. Basically the product was a synthetic CDO - Collateralized Debt Obligation. In layman's terms, it had bad mortgages packaged into a financial instument. Now at the time of sale, Goldman knew that the assets were not of the highest quality and they also knew that they were not dealing with an amature person on main street - afterall, they were selling the product to a firm that is an expert at analyzing credit risk, which would imply that they were aware of the market conditions and of factors that would make a mortgage product good or bad.
After the product lost its value, ACA Managemetn LLC, acted as if it was a puppy who was pushed around by a large greyhound and therefore got bruised at many places. That is like saying, that if a customer walks in a convenience store, asks for rat poision and buys a bottle of rat poision, goes home eats the contents of the bottle, gets sick, and then comes back to sue the store for selling the customer rat poision. It makes absolutey no sense. The fact whether Goldman was also dealing with Paulson (Hedge Fund) and taking the exact opposite side of the CDO's that were sold to ACA Management LLC, changes absolutely nothing. ACA had already done their due diligence. After their team was sure what side of the market they wanted to go long on (the side of the market that they felt will make them money), they went ahead and bought the structured product from Goldman.
The SEC, in this regard, should sue every person selling and buying stocks on the NYSE, DowJones, S&P500 and the like. People who think they will make money by buying a stock 'XYZ' will buy it and simultaneously, there will be someone else in the market who might think that the stock 'XYZ' might go down in value in the near future will sell it. That's how the markets work. Someone has to sell or bet in the opposite direction for someone to buy the same product.
Now coming to the point of hefty bonuses, its a common concensus that the bail out funds given to these large banking institutions are being used to pay the large bonuses. This notion could not be farther from the truth. In reality what has happened is that competition has been reduced significantly. Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch (now owned by Bank of America) and the like have closed down. All the clients that were earlier with these and other mid sized firms which have closed down as well have all concentrated with the firms that are left standing. What this has done is expanded the remaining firms in the financial industry by engulfing massive sized accounts. As everyone already knows, the larger your customer base is with lesser competition, the larger are your revenues, since there are less price wars. So this soaring number of new clientele quarter over quarter, has in effect caused the bonus figures to balloon.
Now lets look at the who is really responsible for this meld down. EVERYONE! Americans have had one of the lowest savings rate in the world. Who is to blame for that? Not taxes! Rather the spending habits and the impulsive shoppers that fill the malls all over America. Shoppers who don't have cash, and therefore use credit cards for buying the latest fad. Media is quick to blame the banks for giving mortgages to those who could barely afford it. However, is it also not the consumer's responsibility to give themselves a reality check - Can I afford this monthly mortgage payment with my income?
Moreover, in 1993, a key piece of regulation that effectively separated depository banks from investment banks, was repealed which was known as the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. What this led to was absolutely no specific piece of legislation that was to look over the investment banks. So on one hand, congress removed the most significant piece of legislation, that helped regulate investment banks, and on the other hand, most recently the senetors had the audacity to compare investment banking to the gambling business.
The financial industry does not support the idea of patents, so the only way to keep competitors from copying one investment bank's products are to designed their products with the mind set that others cannot copy the product fast enough and in the mean time the original idea can make money for the bank. In order to achive this feat, it is imperative that the products designed are highly complicated. Just because the US senators are not able to understand the complex structured products, does not mean that the product is mimicking the casino business. If there is a disconnect with the understanding of a financial product, it would be in the Senators' best interest to learn about finance so they can better undestand for themselves and can then pass on the message in a more informed manner to their constituents.
In all this, its not to say that the investment banks were merely bystanders in this crisis; after all they are the ones right in the middle of this 'mess'. There are some bad apples in the industry, but that's not to say that investment banks themselves are bad. When put under proper regulation, while bankers and consumers both are acting on not just bottom line but also on ethical standards, it is these firms that can bring back the halo to New York city, where it deserves to be.
Whenever there is a systemic failure, it is given that there is more than one factor at play, which unfortunately people are just not realizing. It seems that people find it easier to blame one large corporation without knowing any facts. I am referring to Goldman Sachs ofcourse. Ever since the Obama administration has attacked Goldman for betting against their own clients, the common person is up in arms about the firm and relieving part of his/her anger; now that their ignorance has found the Socrates of the 21st century. There are also allegations that even in this dismal economy, Goldman along with its other competitors on Wall St. are paying hefty bonuses to their employees.
Lets first take a look at the recent events of Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) which has pointed fingers at Goldman Sachs (GS&Co.) regarding the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction. It was a package that contained toxic assets. The structured product was selected by ACA Management LLC (ACA) whose expertise is in analyzing credit risk. ABACUS was the name given to the marketing materials. Basically the product was a synthetic CDO - Collateralized Debt Obligation. In layman's terms, it had bad mortgages packaged into a financial instument. Now at the time of sale, Goldman knew that the assets were not of the highest quality and they also knew that they were not dealing with an amature person on main street - afterall, they were selling the product to a firm that is an expert at analyzing credit risk, which would imply that they were aware of the market conditions and of factors that would make a mortgage product good or bad.
After the product lost its value, ACA Managemetn LLC, acted as if it was a puppy who was pushed around by a large greyhound and therefore got bruised at many places. That is like saying, that if a customer walks in a convenience store, asks for rat poision and buys a bottle of rat poision, goes home eats the contents of the bottle, gets sick, and then comes back to sue the store for selling the customer rat poision. It makes absolutey no sense. The fact whether Goldman was also dealing with Paulson (Hedge Fund) and taking the exact opposite side of the CDO's that were sold to ACA Management LLC, changes absolutely nothing. ACA had already done their due diligence. After their team was sure what side of the market they wanted to go long on (the side of the market that they felt will make them money), they went ahead and bought the structured product from Goldman.
The SEC, in this regard, should sue every person selling and buying stocks on the NYSE, DowJones, S&P500 and the like. People who think they will make money by buying a stock 'XYZ' will buy it and simultaneously, there will be someone else in the market who might think that the stock 'XYZ' might go down in value in the near future will sell it. That's how the markets work. Someone has to sell or bet in the opposite direction for someone to buy the same product.
Now coming to the point of hefty bonuses, its a common concensus that the bail out funds given to these large banking institutions are being used to pay the large bonuses. This notion could not be farther from the truth. In reality what has happened is that competition has been reduced significantly. Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch (now owned by Bank of America) and the like have closed down. All the clients that were earlier with these and other mid sized firms which have closed down as well have all concentrated with the firms that are left standing. What this has done is expanded the remaining firms in the financial industry by engulfing massive sized accounts. As everyone already knows, the larger your customer base is with lesser competition, the larger are your revenues, since there are less price wars. So this soaring number of new clientele quarter over quarter, has in effect caused the bonus figures to balloon.
Now lets look at the who is really responsible for this meld down. EVERYONE! Americans have had one of the lowest savings rate in the world. Who is to blame for that? Not taxes! Rather the spending habits and the impulsive shoppers that fill the malls all over America. Shoppers who don't have cash, and therefore use credit cards for buying the latest fad. Media is quick to blame the banks for giving mortgages to those who could barely afford it. However, is it also not the consumer's responsibility to give themselves a reality check - Can I afford this monthly mortgage payment with my income?
Moreover, in 1993, a key piece of regulation that effectively separated depository banks from investment banks, was repealed which was known as the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. What this led to was absolutely no specific piece of legislation that was to look over the investment banks. So on one hand, congress removed the most significant piece of legislation, that helped regulate investment banks, and on the other hand, most recently the senetors had the audacity to compare investment banking to the gambling business.
The financial industry does not support the idea of patents, so the only way to keep competitors from copying one investment bank's products are to designed their products with the mind set that others cannot copy the product fast enough and in the mean time the original idea can make money for the bank. In order to achive this feat, it is imperative that the products designed are highly complicated. Just because the US senators are not able to understand the complex structured products, does not mean that the product is mimicking the casino business. If there is a disconnect with the understanding of a financial product, it would be in the Senators' best interest to learn about finance so they can better undestand for themselves and can then pass on the message in a more informed manner to their constituents.
In all this, its not to say that the investment banks were merely bystanders in this crisis; after all they are the ones right in the middle of this 'mess'. There are some bad apples in the industry, but that's not to say that investment banks themselves are bad. When put under proper regulation, while bankers and consumers both are acting on not just bottom line but also on ethical standards, it is these firms that can bring back the halo to New York city, where it deserves to be.
Comments