Enter your email address:
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:
Message:
Activists protest in front of the DC office of Goldman Sachs November 16, 2009 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong / Getty Images) The SEC’s complaint raises more than just legal questions about Goldman Sachs, says Tunku Varadarajan. And the moral case against the bank is open and shut—which means we all have a stake in overhauling Wall Street.
Here’s an exclamation I get from many non-Wall Streeters with whom I’ve talked about the recent Securities and Exchange Commission complaint against Goldman Sachs: “Can Goldman really do that sort of thing?” By which they mean to ask—to borrow an analogy from Frank Partnoy, a professor at the University of San Diego—whether Goldman really had no obligation to tell the gingerbread boys about the fox.
It would be hard to find a decent human being who would disagree with the view that Goldman’s methods were morally questionable. And it is here, in the interstices between the law and morality, that the pressure for reform starts to build up irresistibly.
The gingerbread boys were Goldman clients, institutional investors who bought collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs (pronounced “seedy owes”); and the fox, of course, was hedge-fund manager John Paulson, a short seller who had helped select the mortgages in the product, mortgages picked precisely because he thought they would go under. The nub of the legal case against Goldman is whether withholding the truth about a lupine presence from the gingerbread boys was fraud. Goldman contends, robustly, that it was not; the SEC, equally adamant, asserts that it was.
This matter will be resolved in the courts one way or another, assuming Goldman does not settle. But as with so much that is wrong—or, just as damning, appears to be wrong—with Wall Street, the questions raised are not purely legal ones. Even allowing for an element of pre-election grandstanding, Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, was spot-on when he attacked the “moral bankruptcy” of Goldman Sachs on Sunday.
It has been argued—and argued, sometimes, too glibly—that the purchasers of the CDOs were sophisticated investors; in other words, that they were big players, not widows and orphans, and so deserve neither our sympathy nor our protection. But a sophisticated investor is not an omniscient one, and an investor’s sophistication is, inevitably, determined by the information he has—or should have—after suitably diligent research. But what if information, material information, is occluded, or obscured in such a manner as to lie beyond the reach of an investor’s research? The key question, then, is: Would the investors have bought the product if they’d known that Paulson had put it together, and that he was betting, as was his custom, that the mortgage market would go up in smoke? For only with that knowledge would they have had enough information to make an informed—and, no doubt, sophisticated—decision.
(There’s another angle worth pondering, one that arose in a conversation I had with Michael Thomas, a former partner at Lehman Brothers and the author of Love & Money: No matter how sophisticated the investors were, the deeper the original mortgage paper was immersed in the schist of complication, the more impossible it was to value the security—which led to a dependence on the triple-A ratings assigned to the top CDO tranches by Moody’s, etc. Historically, the rating agencies have defended their ratings as mere expressions of opinion entitled to free-speech protection. But if the agencies have reason to believe that their opinions might be wrong or even reckless, and that they might be relied upon as a key element in the perpetration of a fraud, should First Amendment protection apply?)
That the SEC insists there was illegality in the nondisclosure, and Goldman insists there wasn’t, does suggest that the law is not in a perfectly resolved state. Yet the morality of the matter betrays no ambiguity: It would be hard to find a decent human being who would disagree with the view that Goldman’s methods were morally questionable. And it is here, in the interstices between the law and morality, that the pressure for reform starts to build up irresistibly.
Even if it were able to stave off defeat in the courts, Goldman Sachs will not be able to do business in quite this manner again. Public opinion will not permit it. There is danger that the law might become a mere handmaiden of morality, especially when morality takes on a populist tinge, and our legislators must guard against overreaction. But in cases like Goldman’s, where there is a gulf so great between the formal rules and a broader sense of what is right, morality tends to become irrefutable.
This is especially true when those clamoring for change—and doing so under a moral standard—are not just those sections of society that are reflexively skeptical of markets and capitalism. In truth, it is those of us who value markets, and for whom our society would be inconceivable without capitalism, who have the greatest moral stake in an overhaul of Wall Street’s ways.
Tunku Varadarajan is a national affairs correspondent and writer at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a professor at NYU’s Stern Business School. He is a former assistant managing editor at The Wall Street Journal. (Follow him on Twitter here.)
For More of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
OK, let's not get hung up in the weeds here. To dig into the very technical discussion without noting the obvious timing of these charges with the DEMS attempt to bully the Repubs into their version of Financial Reform is to not notice the King waltzing along without any clothes. One cannot help notice the complete "set ups" used by the DEMS, with the help of their sycophant buddies in the Press on each and every issue: first the background stories, then the victims, then the research papers & self-interviews. It is really getting to be offensive to be treated like a dolt by a media that not only knows no Journalism but hasn't a clue when it comes to deductive reasoning. Then there is the fact that Goldman wrote a letter two years ago to the SEC about this (with no response), and the fact that they were doing exactly what everyone else was doing takes this whole thing off the table in my mind as far as a singular investigation that "happens" to result in charges now. The best financial reform would be for the Gov entities: SEC, FED, FDIC, and the rest of the alphabet soup agencies to JUST DO YOUR JOBS! None of this would have happened, including Bernie Maddoff! What a joke all this grand-standing and serious debate is when it is one sucker punch after another on the Public. No offense Mr. Varadarajan, I'm just getting real tired of it!
This is a very wordy reiteration of the obvious. Even GOP congressmen who are uniting in opposition to the current reform proposals know all of this. Anyone who's read a shred of news pertaining to the financial collapse is aware that Goldman's, and others' practices were integral to it, and that they were and are "morally questionable." Thus my question is where do you stand on the what's currently being debated? Would you see legislation go forward, unmolested? Would you see some amendments to strengthen it? Would you support international measures that many assert are necessary to ensure this type of abusive behavior (looting, as those who know call it) can be prevented in the future? Or are you, like GOP congressmen, content to make sweet-sounding ovations about morality only to be an agent of obstruction when it comes time to legislate? I'm not accusing; I'm just curious as a concerned, thoughtful reader ought to be. I didn't see any specific reforms that you're for or against, so if you follow suit with your fellow conservatives, and demand "going back, and starting over," I'll be reading. And I'll be disappointed. You can't request a do-over when you have nothing to add in the beginning. (That's more about Republican congressmen than you, Tunku. I know it's not your job to actually make "points" or come up with "ideas.") That is the stuff of conservative strategy in today's political conversation. Grand (ambiguous) statements about morality. Followed by deceitful propaganda in defense of the status quo when steps are actually being taken. Again Tunku, I'm not accusing you of anything. Grand statements of the obvious have their merits too. I'm just anxious to find out what kind of tune you will be singing when the party you don't like gets around to actually reforming something. As usual, thank you for your empty eloquence. That is all.
Thank you. As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.
Rise of the Fembots
Rebecca Dana is a senior correspondent for The Daily Beast. A former editor and reporter for The Wall Street Journal, she has also written for The New York Times, The New York Observer, Rolling Stone, and Slate, among other publications.
Elena Kagan's Achilles' Heel
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
The Tea Party's Phony Populism
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
Senators Subpoena the White House
For documents, access to shooting witnesses.
Gun-Rights Activists Storm Washington
To mark start of Revolutionary War.
McCain Backs Tough Immigration Law
AZ would allow cops to arrest people without ID.
At Last, the Truth About Tea Partiers
Tunku Varadarajan is a national affairs correspondent and writer at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a professor at NYU’s Stern Business School. He is a former assistant managing editor at The Wall Street Journal. (Follow him on Twitter here.)
Bring on Hillary
Tunku Varadarajan is a national affairs correspondent and writer at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a professor at NYU’s Stern Business School. He is a former assistant managing editor at The Wall Street Journal. (Follow him on Twitter here.)
A Justice With Boundaries
Tunku Varadarajan is a national affairs correspondent and writer at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a research fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a professor at NYU’s Stern Business School. He is a former assistant managing editor at The Wall Street Journal. (Follow him on Twitter here.)
Sign me up for The Daily Beast's morning email and breaking news alerts.
Sign me up for The Yes List, weekly cultural recommendations from The Daily Beast.
I'd like to recieve e-mail notifications as:
Sign me up for occasional special offers sent by The Daily Beast on behalf of select sponsors, and for occasional special offers from IAC companies.
Partner Sites: Expedia| Hotels| Hotwire| Urbanspoon| Life123| LiveDaily| Reference
Sign me up for The Daily Beast's morning email and breaking news alerts.
Sign me up for The Yes List, weekly cultural recommendations from The Daily Beast.
I'd like to recieve e-mail notifications as:
Sign me up for occasional special offers sent by The Daily Beast on behalf of select sponsors, and for occasional special offers from IAC companies.
or
Register using Facebook to share comments, stories, and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.
Read Full Article »