I tend to agree that it's irrelevant who the short side was. If I buy a stock, I have no idea who is holding it short. In a subprime CDO it's far more importan

I tend to agree that it's irrelevant who the short side was. If I buy a stock, I have no idea who is holding it short. In a subprime CDO it's far more important to know who is holding the mortgages. I'm assuming they are subprime CDOs as that was Paulson's bread and butter. What special position does Paulson have that he can effectively convince people to stop paying their mortgages? ACA made a bet that people would pay their mortgages, Paulson made a bet that they wouldn't. If the CDO market didn't collapse there would be no case brought. If knowing who was on the other side was so important, why did ACA decline to ask? If the SEC wants to find the responsible parties for the collapse why don't they look towards the Dept. of Treasury and the Federal Reserve?