Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Goldman had “no economic motive” to design the deal to fail

Reeeehehehehehaaaaaally? Isn't the only motive of a financial instrument like Goldman Sachs TO MAKE MONEY? Which is where we return to the profit motive as above every other motive, and whether this is healthy? Money uber alles?

NYTimes: While Abacus was the best-known example of the “conflicts of interest” in the Goldman documents, it was not the only example; he cited an investment called Anderson Mezzanine Funding as another product that Goldman was going to bet against.
clipped from

The questioning Tuesday quickly put the Goldman witnesses on the defensive, with the senators expressing exasperation and sometimes incredulity. A Republican member, Senator Susan M. Collins of Maine, turned from one witness to the next as she asked repeatedly whether they felt a duty to act in the best interest of their clients. Only one of the four witnesses she questioned seemed to affirm such a duty outright.

At one point, she said she felt the witnesses were intentionally stalling, trying to “burn through the time of each questioner” allotted for hearing.

The , subcommittee chairman, Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said the hearing would take as much time as needed to extract answers. In his opening remarks, he said the questioning would focus on the role of investment banks in the financial crisis, focusing particularly on the activities of Goldman Sachs in 2007, which “contributed to the economic collapse that came full-blown the following year.”

 blog it

No comments: