4 ms·

What percent of all trades in anything don't fall under the umbrellas of hedging or speculating? I assume Paulson's not being charged because it wasn't Paulson

by jfager 16y ago

What percent of all trades in anything don't fall under the umbrellas of hedging or speculating? I assume Paulson's not being charged because it wasn't Paulson who told ACA he was long, it was Goldman. As for why ACA couldn't figure out he was short on their own, I don't know. Maybe they'd already had a lot of experience with people doing this kind of thing and walking out the other end okay? Maybe they thought Paulson was smarter than they were, and if he were long on these things, than there must be something to it? Maybe they're just happy to keep cashing the 'trusted independent 3rd party' checks Goldman keeps sending their way?

yummyfajitas 16y ago
What percent of all trades in anything don't fall under the umbrellas of hedging or speculating? In synthetic CDO's, precisely zero. Consumption goods are purchased for other reasons, however. I assume Paulson's not being charged because it wasn't Paulson who told ACA he was long, it was Goldman. As for why ACA couldn't figure out he was short on their own, I don't know. Paulson and ACA were in direct collaboration on the creation of the CDO. They talked to each other directly on many occasions. If Paulson deliberately pretended to be the long side, when they were really the short side, that sounds like clear cut fraud on their part. So why isn't the SEC going after Paulson?
- jfager 16y ago
  Do you have any evidence that in collaborating on the portfolio, Paulson ever said or represented that he was on the long side? Or that ACA that ever asked? Maybe the SEC doesn't, either, but they do have Goldman's emails on the matter.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    If the SEC believed Paulson lied, then Paulson would be on the dock with Goldman. In any case, I obviously don't have the ability to prove Paulson never said they were the long side. On the other hand, it's the job of the SEC to prove that a) ACA asked who the longside was and b) Goldman/Paulson lied about it. I see virtually no evidence of this.
    - jfager 16y ago
      If you see no evidence that Goldman lied, you're not paying attention. Haven't you read the complaint yet? There are emails between ACA and Goldman where Goldman specifically says Paulson's going to go long in the finished product.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        I haven't seen any emails which clearly show Goldman lying. All I saw were emails which could be vaguely interpreted that way. Could you post a link?
        jfager 16y ago
        Section G of the complaint: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-59.htm http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-59.htm
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        I still don't see anything showing a lie by Goldman. They quote emails showing ACA didn't know who the short side was, but they don't quote any email showing Goldman claimed Paulson was the long side.

by jfager 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

What percent of all trades in anything don't fall under the umbrellas of hedging or speculating? In synthetic CDO's, precisely zero. Consumption goods are purchased for other reasons, however. I assume Paulson's not being charged because it wasn't Paulson who told ACA he was long, it was Goldman. As for why ACA couldn't figure out he was short on their own, I don't know. Paulson and ACA were in direct collaboration on the creation of the CDO. They talked to each other directly on many occasions. If Paulson deliberately pretended to be the long side, when they were really the short side, that sounds like clear cut fraud on their part. So why isn't the SEC going after Paulson?

jfager 16y ago
Do you have any evidence that in collaborating on the portfolio, Paulson ever said or represented that he was on the long side? Or that ACA that ever asked? Maybe the SEC doesn't, either, but they do have Goldman's emails on the matter.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  If the SEC believed Paulson lied, then Paulson would be on the dock with Goldman. In any case, I obviously don't have the ability to prove Paulson never said they were the long side. On the other hand, it's the job of the SEC to prove that a) ACA asked who the longside was and b) Goldman/Paulson lied about it. I see virtually no evidence of this.
  - jfager 16y ago
    If you see no evidence that Goldman lied, you're not paying attention. Haven't you read the complaint yet? There are emails between ACA and Goldman where Goldman specifically says Paulson's going to go long in the finished product.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      I haven't seen any emails which clearly show Goldman lying. All I saw were emails which could be vaguely interpreted that way. Could you post a link?
      - jfager 16y ago
        Section G of the complaint: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-59.htm http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-59.htm
        yummyfajitas 16y ago
        I still don't see anything showing a lie by Goldman. They quote emails showing ACA didn't know who the short side was, but they don't quote any email showing Goldman claimed Paulson was the long side.