3 ms·

This doesn't even mention the issue with them delaying aluminum deliveries to raise those prices.

by amalag 12y ago

lmm 12y ago
Because it's not clear that was done to affect aluminium prices, as a judge recently agreed. Rather it's more likely they delayed aluminium deliveries because they were in stupid contracts that meant they got more money the longer they took to deliver.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  Without commenting on the merit of the recent suit I'll just point out that an illegal scheme to rig aluminum prices might look the same. These are smart people. It would be ridiculous to expect to find incriminating emails with subjects like: Fwd: Fwd: Re: Our illegal scheme to rig prices and make mad bucks LOL or contracts with clauses that spell out the entire details of a scheme in a simple manner.
  - lmm 12y ago
    Intent does matter in terms of whether something is illegal price fixing. If you have some other scheme to make money that involves buying or selling a lot of aluminium at particular prices, and you also have some aluminium holdings that mean you profit from the price movements that you yourself caused, that's... shady, but generally not actually illegal. And we generally do tend to find such emails, even in Goldman. It's a big company that does all its business in writing.
Lazare 12y ago
Probably because 1) the alleged actions were completely different and 2) that didn't actually happen. (To be clear: It was not alleged that Goldman delayed aluminum deliveries to raise the price of aluminum. The allegation was that Goldman paid people to store metal in warranted warehouses that had slow withdrawals, which had the side effect of raising the premium which metals in non-warranted warehouses command over metal in warranted warehouses. Not only is it not clear that this happened, it's also not illegal—the lawsuit was thrown out. Plus, the actual price of aluminum was actually falling over this period, and nobody thinks Goldman's actions influenced this price.) If you'd like to read a lot more about aluminum markets than you probably want, this article is pretty good: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-03/the-goldman-sachs-aluminum-conspiracy-lawsuit-is-over http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-03/the-goldman...

This doesn't even mention the issue with them delaying aluminum deliveries to raise those prices.

by amalag 12y ago

This doesn't even mention the issue with them delaying aluminum deliveries to raise those prices.

lmm 12y ago

Because it's not clear that was done to affect aluminium prices, as a judge recently agreed. Rather it's more likely they delayed aluminium deliveries because they were in stupid contracts that meant they got more money the longer they took to deliver.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
Without commenting on the merit of the recent suit I'll just point out that an illegal scheme to rig aluminum prices might look the same. These are smart people. It would be ridiculous to expect to find incriminating emails with subjects like: Fwd: Fwd: Re: Our illegal scheme to rig prices and make mad bucks LOL or contracts with clauses that spell out the entire details of a scheme in a simple manner.
- lmm 12y ago
  Intent does matter in terms of whether something is illegal price fixing. If you have some other scheme to make money that involves buying or selling a lot of aluminium at particular prices, and you also have some aluminium holdings that mean you profit from the price movements that you yourself caused, that's... shady, but generally not actually illegal. And we generally do tend to find such emails, even in Goldman. It's a big company that does all its business in writing.

Lazare 12y ago

Probably because 1) the alleged actions were completely different and 2) that didn't actually happen. (To be clear: It was not alleged that Goldman delayed aluminum deliveries to raise the price of aluminum. The allegation was that Goldman paid people to store metal in warranted warehouses that had slow withdrawals, which had the side effect of raising the premium which metals in non-warranted warehouses command over metal in warranted warehouses. Not only is it not clear that this happened, it's also not illegal—the lawsuit was thrown out. Plus, the actual price of aluminum was actually falling over this period, and nobody thinks Goldman's actions influenced this price.) If you'd like to read a lot more about aluminum markets than you probably want, this article is pretty good: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-03/the-goldman-sachs-aluminum-conspiracy-lawsuit-is-over http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-03/the-goldman...