Goldman Sachs, and where your money went

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • sgreger1
    Member
    • Mar 2009
    • 9451

    Goldman Sachs, and where your money went

    For those intirested in what exactly the allegations against Goldman Sachs are, and a laymens explanation of what happened during the crisis, including what these complicated "toxic assets and credit default swaps" are, I have written a small piece about it. Actually not small, so only read if you are intirested in this particular subject.



    CASINOS, FANTASY SPORTS, AND BAILOUTS. A TALE OF RECESSION
    By Sgreger1


    The following is intended to educate the financially illiterate on exactly what happened during the housing crisis, and where all of our money went. It will explain what these “complicated financial vehicles” and “toxic assets” are, and will unveil for you a crime of such epic proportions that it makes Bernie Maddoff look like a saint in comparison.


    Fantasy Baseball

    Do you play? Even if you think you don’t, your bank account sure does. This all started when some financial genius went out and sought to make a lot of money for a very few people. The players here include Goldman Sach’s, AIG, and several other financial entities ranging from banks to investment brokers.

    In fantasy baseball, people make fake teams by selecting real baseball players from many real world teams and consolidating them on paper into one “fantasy” team which they “own”. Throughout the year, as the real players accrue stats, those stats are tracked on paper and added up in your fantasy team. A bunch of guys get together and put money into a hat, and at the end of the season, whoever’s players stats are the highest, and whoever has the best team, wins the pot.

    This is exactly what happened with toxic assets. Some brokers (namely Goldman Sachs) set up a very complicated fantasy sports team, and then told people their team was AAA guaranteed and sure to win. Like fantasy baseball, none of the parties involved actually owned any players (any assets), the broker (Goldman Sachs) simply collected data from real assets which it did not own, and turned the whole thing into a casino style bet. The players in this fantasy team were mainly mortgages. During the housing boom, real estate made a lot of money, and Goldman Sachs put together a fantasy baseball team with all of these mortgages as the players. But, like all casinos, the cards were stacked in the houses favor.

    See, Goldman Sachs picked all of the WORST players for this fantasy team, knowing that at some point it would surely fail. They then told everyone else that their team was AAA guaranteed to win and was a great investment, so investors far and wide began betting on this team of soon to be failures, meanwhile, Goldman Sachs bet that the team would lose, since they knew the players they had chosen were all duds.

    But how, you ask, can Goldman get away with giving a good rating on an obviously losing team? Aren’t there regulators or people who grade these types of investments? Why yes, of course there are, the largest of these is called Moody’s ratings, and as you expected, Goldman Sachs paid them off (indirectly) to give their team a good rating so investors would invest their money in it. See. Goldman pays companies to rate their team, and whoever they choose to do business with makes a lot of money, so Goldman shopped around, refusing to pay anyone who would give a bad rating, until it found one that, in exchange for Goldman’s business, would give it a good rating. Do you know what one of the fastest growing stocks on the market was right up to the crash? Moody’s. There was a lot of money being exchanged here, and therefore the rating agencies were obliged to give a better rating than Goldman’s fantasy team deserved.

    So, what do they mean when they say that Goldman advertised their team as a winner, yet “bet” against their own team? Simple, they bought a massive insurance policy on the team. Now, for us normal people, insurance is high regulated. For example, the insurance company will not allow me to take out an insurance policy on my neighbor’s house, because then I may be inclined to burn their house down for a profit. For the big boys like Goldman Sachs however, these rules do not apply.

    See they went around all that regulation and just invented something new, called credit default swaps. At the end of the day all they did was buy a huge insurance policy on their fantasy sports team, so that if it failed, they would get a check from the insurance company. This is what it means to bet against something; if I buy a skyscraper, I then get insurance because the thing might get bombed, therefore I have in essence “bet” against my own property, so I don’t lose even if the whole thing explodes.

    So, whom did Goldman get such an elaborate insurance policy from? Why, AIG of course. But I’ll get back to that later.

    Anyways, in fantasy sports, if the real life players were to say, go on strike, and no actual baseball games occurred, the entire fantasy sports industry would collapse, because they don’t own any players, they just collect stats on other players they don’t own, and use that to make a bet. Same thing happened here. Goldman purposely made a fantasy team out of all the worst players, in this case, bad mortgages given to people who could not afford them in the long term were those players. They were sure to fail at some point. So once the housing market started correcting itself, and people started not being able to afford their mortgage payments, the assets were now worth nothing. In other words, there was no real life baseball players left to get statistics from for your fantasy team, hence the whole thing collapsed.

    But the real beauty here is that if you own the mortgages, only so many people can “invest in them”, because there are a finite number of mortgages available. But in the fantasy sports world, since none of the parties involved actually own any players, anyone who feels inclined can place their bet. Even if there are only 100 baseball teams, 30 million people could make their own fantasy baseball teams, and the same went for the team Goldman Sachs created.

    So, the whole thing collapses, and everyone loses a LOT of money. Everyone is pissed because they were told by Goldman that this team was a winner, and yet they lost miserably.

    So now some of our biggest companies, such as AIG are screwed, they backed these toxic assets and now have no way to pay out what they owe, therefore they will collapse. That is, unless the government gives them free money. So the president rallies people and says that if we don’t bail these companies out, we will fall into a depression. Even though they made bad investments, they are “too big to fail”. So the bailout money got approved and divvied out to individuals such as AIG. The president sold it as though this money would be used for lending and would in the end help the economy and save it from stagnation, but the plot was far too sinister for anything like that to happen. So AIG gets $12 billion from the gov (read as: Taxpayers), and what do they do with it? Do they push it out into the economy, lend to small businesses etc? No, they used that money to pay what they owed to Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs building got bombed, and they wanted their damn insurance money. So the money went from the taxpayer, to AIG, and ultimately right back into Goldman Sach’s hands in the form of an insurance claim.


    So not only did Goldman make billions from charging a brokers fee each time someone wanted to bet on their team, they also got the money back for their failed team in the form of an insurance check from AIG. Talk about double dipping profits. It’s like if I opened a pizza store, sold a million pizzas, then burned the thing to the ground and claimed my insurance money, recouping my initial costs for setting up the pizza store, plus some extra profit. It’s the perfect crime.


  • sgreger1
    Member
    • Mar 2009
    • 9451

    #2

    (continued)

    While this story is grim indeed, it outlines a much darker reality that we must all come to face. Big money players like Goldman run the show, and as America slowly evolves into a corporatocracy, and as these big players create bubbles which eventually pop (forcing middle class peoples money into the hands of a few rich benefactors who were in on the scam) the nation is on an unsustainable path. Do not be fooled by this financial reform bill, it will be all talk and no teeth. I would like to remind you that money talks and Goldman Sachs donated heavily to the Obama administration, so don’t expect anything to come out of this SEC investigation other than a glorified slap on the wrist.


    If we don’t stop this today, and bring back the shackles of post-depression era regulation to these banks and brokers, they will continue to steal out money in new and ever more creative ways for years to come.

    Comment

    • Bigblue1
      Banned Users
      • Dec 2008
      • 3923

      #3
      Well put, SG. You really need to start a blog and put your free time to good use in articles like this. I would even send a copy of this to infowars. They do post reader/listener generated content. I can't remember the direct email for that at the moment. I will try to find it, in the mean time maybe another info head will come up with it.

      Comment

      • danielan
        Member
        • Apr 2010
        • 1514

        #4
        Originally posted by sgreger1 View Post
        Everyone is pissed because they were told by Goldman that this team was a winner, and yet they lost miserably.
        I don't know, I just can't get upset about this deal.

        Caveat emptor and all that. The markets are very much like a casino. Regulation already makes them tell you this up front.

        This wouldn't even be a story if we hadn't bailed out every poorly run business on Wall Street.

        And I don't specifically blame Obama. I left McCain's camp when he suggested nationalizing the banks.

        Comment

        • sgreger1
          Member
          • Mar 2009
          • 9451

          #5
          Originally posted by danielan View Post
          I don't know, I just can't get upset about this deal.

          Caveat emptor and all that. The markets are very much like a casino. Regulation already makes them tell you this up front.

          This wouldn't even be a story if we hadn't bailed out every poorly run business on Wall Street.

          And I don't specifically blame Obama. I left McCain's camp when he suggested nationalizing the banks.

          Your right on one level. We should have let them fail. The real crime, imo, is when the government bailed out these companies with taxpayer money. Now investors aren't really to blame for investing in such an obviousely crappy package as far as i'm concerned, the whole thign was so complicated, all based on computer algorythms etc, that the people who invested in these things were under the impression that they were buying a player, not making a bet on other player's stats. Plus it was rated as a good investment by trusted sources, so it sounded good and for a while it even paid out.


          Mccain would have done the same as Obama, infact it's actually the opposite; Obama ended up actualy implementing mos tof what Mccain ran for, abandoning his own principles. like Mccain wanted a mandate for healthcare, but obama said that was a bad idea, yet once elected it happened.


          I would like to emphasize that this is not about Obama. This can be traced, in essence, back to even the jimmy carter years when things started slowly getting deregulated, like when he eliminated the cap on intirest rates for credit cards. Our culture has, over the years, slowly shifted towards a debt based model and that entire model revolves around the concept that we have cheap easy credit, something that cannot always happen. No one administration is to blame for this. I blame Bush for not catching it as it started to collapse, and for TARP. I blame Obama for continuing to turn a blind eye on the whole thing. I am reading that this financial reform bill will exempt the Goldman Sachs` of the world and is really just a way to overregulate the small players while organizations like Goldman are exempt and able to conitnue with the status quo.


          People need to realize what's happening. it used to be that banks would take the money you deposited, then lend that out to businesses etc which is great for the economy. Then came fractional reserve lending, then came (in more recent years) all of these complicated investment vehicles we see now. Two parties betting for or against assets which niether of them own. Your right danielan, the whole thing has been a casino for quite some time.

          The problem with the casino model is that the taxpayers find themselves on the wrong side of the table, placing bets but not dealing the cards, and we know that casinos always give the house better favor in each hand.

          Comment

          • danielan
            Member
            • Apr 2010
            • 1514

            #6
            Originally posted by sgreger1 View Post
            Now investors aren't really to blame for investing in such an obviousely crappy package as far as i'm concerned, the whole thign was so complicated
            Yea... "Don't buy anything you don't understand" might be a good policy. Whether it is an ARM mortgage, some weird real estate investment or whatever. That lots of people are ignoring this advice seems like their problem and not a structural issue.

            Let's use a snus analogy.

            You decide to buy some snus.

            You go to the store and decide to buy a can of Snus that has been advertised by the manufacturer as "tasty!".

            You get home and try it, "Yuck - this is too salty!", you say.

            (The store and the manufacturer both have insurance, but I can't think of a relevant way to work it in to this story or the GS deal.)

            Now. Is it the store's fault? Is it the manufacturer's fault? Or it it your fault for not doing the research?

            Comment

            • sgreger1
              Member
              • Mar 2009
              • 9451

              #7
              Originally posted by danielan View Post
              Yea... "Don't buy anything you don't understand" might be a good policy. Whether it is an ARM mortgage, some weird real estate investment or whatever. That lots of people are ignoring this advice seems like their problem and not a structural issue.

              Let's use a snus analogy.

              You decide to buy some snus.

              You go to the store and decide to buy a can of Snus that has been advertised by the manufacturer as "tasty!".

              You get home and try it, "Yuck - this is too salty!", you say.

              (The store and the manufacturer both have insurance, but I can't think of a relevant way to work it in to this story or the GS deal.)

              Now. Is it the store's fault? Is it the manufacturer's fault? Or it it your fault for not doing the research?

              While I generally agree with you, the problem is that this thing is so complicated that even the pros missed it. That is to say that this wasn't joe schmoe investing money into these things. School boards for example lost a lot in MA and other places for investing into this. People who pay someone else to handle their investments bought this shit etc etc.

              It's a little different than buying something that doesnt taste good. it's when the bank says "open a savings account with us and earn 3$ intirest!" and then you losed 1 trillion dollars instead. Kinda sucks.

              I think proper regulation could solve this but that won't happen, they will just regulate it in a way that shuts down competition from the little guy and gives goldman etc more marketshare. It's how it always happens.

              Comment

              • danielan
                Member
                • Apr 2010
                • 1514

                #8
                Originally posted by sgreger1 View Post
                School boards for example lost a lot in MA and other places for investing into this.
                Why would school boards be investing in the market at all? Would it be ok for them to take your tax dollars on a trip to Vegas? Nevermind. I won't like the answers.

                People who pay someone else to handle their investments bought this shit etc etc.
                I pay people to manage my money and I didn't lose a dime. Most of my investments are in funds that clearly state what they will buy in the prospectus. Investing in the consumer real estate bubble was irrational greed.

                Time for another snus analogy:

                Over the last 200 years snus has been a reasonably safer alternative to smoking.

                Do you think it is likely to become incredibly dangerous as more people get interested in it?

                Over the last 200 years or so, residential real estate has increased in value at about 1% above inflation (basically it works out to even when you factor in population growth).

                Just like I'd ignore my doctor if she said snus was going to get really risky, as a long-term investor, I'd ignore any "experts" that told me to invest in real estate (or food for that matter).

                A 200 year pattern is worth believing.

                Snus is only a good investment right now because the government is changing the rules.

                Kinda sucks.
                Sure it sucks, but investing in markets, even index funds, is significantly different then CDs or savings accounts. The problem is that people see the markets as simple money machines and they are really not.

                I think proper regulation could solve this but that won't happen.
                The problem, IMO, with national regulations in an international market is that every time we make some new burdensome regulation, only the firms in the US have to follow it. These make them less competitive on the international market. Two years later they get bought by some foreign company.

                Comment

                • Bigblue1
                  Banned Users
                  • Dec 2008
                  • 3923

                  #9

                  Comment

                  • Ainkor
                    Member
                    • Sep 2008
                    • 1144

                    #10
                    It's really obnoxiously disgusting when you really think about it. I get tired of all the bitching about Obama when in reality, every single politician that exists or has ever existed is in it for what they can get out of the system.

                    Comment

                    • danielan
                      Member
                      • Apr 2010
                      • 1514

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Ainkor View Post
                      I get tired of all the bitching about Obama when in reality, every single politician that exists or has ever existed is in it for what they can get out of the system.
                      Yea, but he deserves what he gets. He convinced a bunch of naive, idealistic people that he was different. That deserves some flogging.

                      Comment

                      • sgreger1
                        Member
                        • Mar 2009
                        • 9451

                        #12
                        Originally posted by danielan View Post
                        Yea, but he deserves what he gets. He convinced a bunch of naive, idealistic people that he was different. That deserves some flogging.



                        Yah i didn't expect anything different from him. What pisses me off is that he promised everyone hope and change and made it seem as though he would come in and fix corruption in washington, bring transparency and stop lobbyests. He did the exact opposite of all those things.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X