Goldman Sachs Thrived as Economy Fell

Goldman Sachs Messages Show It Thrived as Economy Fell

In late 2007 as the mortgage crisis gained momentum and many banks were suffering losses, Goldman Sachs executives traded e-mail messages saying that they were making “some serious money” betting against the housing markets.

The e-mails, released Saturday morning by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, appear to contradict previous statements by Goldman that left the impression that the firm lost money on mortgage-related investments.

In a message, dated July 25, 2007, David A. Viniar, Goldman’s chief financial officer, reacted to figures that said the company had made a $51 million profit from bets that the value of mortgage -related securities would drop. “Tells you what might be happening to people who don’t have the big short,” he wrote in an email to Gary D. Cohn, now Goldman’s president.

Goldman on Saturday released documents it said showed the firm lost money on mortgage-related products in 2007 and 2008.

The release of the e-mails and Goldman’s response sets up a showdown between the Senate committee and Goldman, which has taken a more defensive posture since the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a security fraud complaint against it nine days ago. On Tuesday, seven current and former Goldman employees, including Mr. Blankfein, are expected to testify at a Congressional hearing.

The Goldman messages appear to connect some of the dots at a crucial moment of Goldman history. They show that in 2007, as most other banks hemorrhaged losses from plummeting mortgage holdings, Goldman prospered. At first, Goldman openly discussed its prescience in calling the housing downfall. In the third quarter of 2007, the investment bank reported publicly that it had made big profits on its negative bet on mortgages.

But by the end of that year, the firm curtailed disclosures about its mortgage trading results. Its chief financial officer told analysts at the end of 2007 that they should not expect Goldman to reveal whether it was long or short on the housing market. By late 2008, Goldman was emphasizing its losses, rather than its profits, pointing regularly to write-downs of $1.7 billion on mortgage assets and leaving out the amount it made on its negative bets.

Documents released by the Senate committee appear to indicate that in July 2007, Goldman’s accounting showed losses of $322 million on positive mortgage positions, but its negative bet — what Mr. Viniar called “the big short” — brought in $373 million. As recently as a week ago, a Goldman spokesman emphasized that the firm had tried only to hedge its mortgage holdings in 2007.

It is not known how much money in total Goldman made on its negative housing bets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/business/25goldman.html?pagewanted=1&emc=na
:io:

Great commentary, it made this post very thought provoking:hsugh:

On a recent “this American life” they talked about this. There were a lot of banks that made a bunch of money betting against bonds made up of sketch mortgages. The banks mainly made money off of fees putting a “cdo” together ( a group of many bonds, backed by many many risky mortgages)

Some compaines even asked the banks to specificly make cdos of the worst of the worst, purchased them, then bet against them knowing they would eventually fail. Pretty shady

I honestly don’t even know what to say anymore becaue I’m not surprised. That’s why I picked that smiley, lawlz.

I used to think making money was great no matter what but, that was before so much of this despicable crap surfaced. It used to be that people that got rich were smart or worked hard, for the most part anyway. Now it seems that way too many criminal types have gotten into dangerously powerful positions.

Its called a short. They were smart enough to short a certain position in the market. You can make money in the market on anything going up or down.

^Yeah except they put the crap together themselves and sold as good stuff just so thy could “bet” against it. It is like Miller betting against the Sabres.

THIS

exactly. if you bet against it for enough money, you will always turn a profit, even if YOU own it and it fails.

plus the fees for putting these things together were 1-2% of the total value of the cdo. if a cdo was worth 100 mil, and you put it together, that means 1-2 mill in fees when it sold…

the banks failed, yes, but individual bankers made tons of cash in the housing crisis

here is a link to a more in depth story about one of the biggest offenders, good read if you have some time to kill ->http://www.propublica.org/feature/the-magnetar-trade-how-one-hedge-fund-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble-going