BREAKINGVIEWS-Neither Goldman nor Senate makes killer case

By Reuters Staff
April 26, 2010

By Antony Currie

– The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own –

LONDON, April 26 (Reuters Breakingviews) – The U.S. Senate’s investigations unit has scored some easy political points in its study of Goldman Sachs’s subprime mortgage activities in 2007. But there is no concrete evidence of wrongdoing, or even of an excessively zealous search for profits, in the four exchanges of embarrassing emails from the Wall Street firm released over the weekend.

Still, Goldman hardly makes a killer case with its defence — that it was merely hedging risk.

A discussion of what finance chief David Viniar called the “big short” against subprime did not sound good. One email mentions making $50 million in one day, another talks about making some “serious money”, while a third mentions losing $2.5 million on bonds that it structured for a lender — but also making $5 million shorting them. And Goldman chief Lloyd Blankfein wrote that “we made more than we lost because of shorts”.

But a closer look shows Senator Carl Levin’s subcommittee has not found any smoking guns. The first three are snapshots, not an overall view. As for the firm’s profits in this line of business, Levin’s subcommittee has not, so far, provided any analysis. Without that, Blankfein’s email comment does not contradict the firm’s earlier statements that it did not make significantly more money shorting mortgages than it lost holding them.

In fact, Goldman released its own set of emails over the weekend, which showed it reacting early and prudently to the crisis. They bolster the argument that Goldman’s overarching goal was nothing more sinister than minimising losses.

Goldman is hardly in the clear, though. Some of the emails it released detail how the Wall Street firm was also constantly looking for other ways to make money — such as considering buying up distressed mortgage lenders or dreaming up new mortgage trades.

In the world of Goldman, that sort of thinking is normal. Making money is what investment banks are supposed to do. But the critics may not be satisfied unless Goldman can demonstrate that it put all its clients first in all its trades. That looks like a tall order.

CONTEXT NEWS

– The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released several Goldman Sachs emails on April 24 gathered as part of its inquiry into the role investment banks played in the financial crisis.

– In one email in late 2007 Goldman chief executive Lloyd Blankfein wrote in response to press office Lucas van Praag’s description of an upcoming New York Times profile of the firm: “Of course we didn’t dodge the mortgage mess. We lost money, then we made more than we lost because of shorts.”

– In other emails, executives talk of: making “serious money” after credit rating agencies downgraded $32 billion of subprime mortgage bonds; losing $2.5 million on bonds it structured for lender Long Beach Mortgage but making $5 million from hedges; and making $50 million in one day as the mortgage market cratered.

– For its part, Goldman also released emails over the weekend in an attempt to buttress its case that it was hedging and engaging in normal business practices.

– Goldman executives including Blankfein, Chief Financial Officer David Viniar and Chief Risk Officer Craig Broderick are to appear before the panel on Tuesday April 27. Fabrice Tourre, the Goldman executive at the heart of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s fraud allegations, is also due to attend the hearing.

– News release from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations: http://link.reuters.com/jek49j

– Goldman release: http://link.reuters.com/kek49j

(Editing by Hugo Dixon and Aliza Rosenbaum)

((antony.currie@thomsonreuters.com))

No comments so far

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/