Goldman Sachs Ethics: An Easy Call

Sometimes the biggest ethics stories are the easiest. I haven’t written much about Enron, for example. When a company uses deceptive, shell corporations to hide its liabilities so profit reports look artificially rosy and investors keep buying company stock, it is obviously unethical. Even the ethics-challenged management of Enron could figure that out. The Goldman Sachs scandal, once one clears away the static and spin, is almost as straight-forward.

Are the Democrats seizing upon Goldman Sachs as a scapegoat for the financial meltdown they, like the Republicans, were complicit in as well? Obviously. That doesn’t mean that the firm doesn’t deserve all the abuse that is being heaped on it. Did the S.E.C., supposedly an apolitical and independent agency, time the announcement of its suit against Goldman Sachs to help rally public opinion behind the Obama Administration’s proposed Wall Street reforms? It wouldn’t surprise me. We have seen previous Justice Departments, the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other supposedly “non-political” entities act blatantly partisan over and over again. The S.E.C. trying to give Obama’s reforms a boost would be one of the least dastardly of these breaches, especially since the public should be informed about the kind of conduct the culture of Wall Street permits. G.O.P. complaints about the timing of the announcement are, to say the least, strange. Would it be better to hide this story from the public? What matters is whether the S.E.C. has a legitimate case. It is clear that it has. It may not turn out to be a winning case, but it is legitimate. [Note: Personally, I think it is  more likely that the S.E.C. announced the law suit to counter the embarrassing revelation that so many of its regulators spent endless hours on the job surfing and downloading pornography off the internet.]

The legal issues will probably be settled in court; the topic now is ethics. After watching the testimony of various Goldman Sachs officials before the Senate, I find it hard to see a credible argument that what the firm did—selling what its own employees referred to as “crappy” investment products to firm clients, and then betting its own funds that those products would end up losers—could be called anything but unethical.

Goldman Sachs tried to describe itself in terms resembling a bookie, who just places bets, doesn’t recommend them, and is free to bet his own money on the same event as a client, even on the other side. This officials defending the firm’s conduct meant by describing its role in trading mortgage securities as that of a “market-maker,” rather than a financial advisor. But the analogy doesn’t hold. A bookie’s client has no reason to expect expert advice from the bookie, just a fair chance to win his bet. If the bookie secretly fixed a horse race, however, yet allowed a gambler to bet on the horse ridden by a jockey the bookie knew was going to intentionally lose, that would be similar to how Goldman Sachs  treated its clients that purchased mortgage securities. The firm designed the “crappy” securities, and sold them without divulging just how crappy they were. Only a crooked bookie does that.

“The way Wall Streeters see things, there is nothing wrong with this: How you bet with your own money and what you sell to your clients are unconnected,” writes Washington Post financial expert Sabastian Mallaby. “But non-Wall Streeters reasonably regard this compartmentalization as odd. Since Goldman had a clear view that the mortgage market was imploding, shouldn’t it have shared that view with its clients?”

Well, of course. Clients would expect that, especially if they read this passage from the Goldman Sachs website:

“A critical part of running the marathon is acting consistently and playing a fair and honest game. ‘There’s only one thing we sell, and that’s trust.’ This applies to anything, but nowhere more than Investment Management. Clients trust us to do the right thing, and particularly when you’re in investment management and you’re appointed to manage clients’ money, they trust that you’re going to do it in a prudent manner. The worst thing you could do is breach that trust. We look for people who want to run the marathon, and who understand that trust fuels it.”

In judging Goldman Sachs’ ethics, this statement is all we have to know. The firm told the world that it could be trusted, then knowingly sold trusting clients bad mortgage-based securities of its own invention, and made money betting against them.

Ethically, it’s an open and shut case.

5 thoughts on “Goldman Sachs Ethics: An Easy Call

  1. It is even worse. There were no ‘securities’ in many of those funds. They were just a bet that the mortgages that other people had in their mortgage backed securities would rise in value. That is like Moody rating a bet that the Jets will win the Super Bowl next year ‘AAA’. Goldman Sachs sold the bet for it to their clients and then bought the bet against it for themselves.

    No fraud? Where is the RICO case?

  2. As Jimmy Paige once wrote – or was it Robert Plant? – “It makes me wonder”. I wonder what defect it is in the psychological makeup of a group of human beings that would have them putting the health and well being of millions of other human beings behind the private profit of a very few. Most of these lawmakers who live in the pockets of the Plutocracy call themselves “Christians”. Have they ever made a serious study of the books? You know! – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? – Those guys! How do they justify their actions? How do they sleep at night? We’re talkin’ major hypocrisy here! That’s what makes them so much fun to watch! I always get a certain twisted delight in watching their fake piety. Imagine Wendy O. Williams being cast as Bernadette of Lourdes; or Marilyn Manson as Mahatma Gandhi. It’s kind of the same thing.

    Sooner or later our right wing friends, within the Congress and without, are going to be forced to admit that the era of anything goes deregulation was a really stupid idea. You can only sit calmly in a burning house, ignoring the flames all about you, for just so long. Sooner or later you’ll be forced to flee for your life. After making your escape, if you still refuse to acknowledge that the house is indeed on fire, you’re beyond the point where you can make rational decisions on your own. You’ve entered Librium Country, hombre!

    Tom Degan

    • Yes, Tom..I think this conclusion is unavoidable. Still, regulations and rules will never completely handcuff greed and those who are determined to split the border between ethics and law. At some point, we have to be able to trust somebody, because trust is the friend of freedom, just as social irresponsibility is its enemy. And curse you for writing so well: now there’s another blog I have to track!

  3. No one ever seems to take advantage of the opportunities given for reform. We could have a good discussion about what the role of investments are in the country, why we need them, and what form they should be. People don’t just voluntarily invest with investment banks anymore. That are required to with their company retirement plans (you can say it is theoretically voluntary, but practically, it is). Because of this, there should be much tighter restrictions on what is allowed to go into these retirement plans. Wall Street shouldn’t be allowed to hide their latest shell-game investment strategy in peoples retirement plans.

    I really think that short selling and derivatives should be outright banned. Stocks and bonds provide a useful service in providing capital for business ventures. Short selling, although useful for alerting people to overvalued stocks, gives an incentive for people to sabotage and destroy businesses (hurting a lot of people) for their own private gain. Derivatives have proven to be too complicated for Wall Street to understand, and makes it too easy for the unscrupulous to hide bad or phony investments. In addition, these both result in money being tied up in ‘bets’ rather than being used to businesses and jobs.

    In the mortgage area, what this scandal has proven is that without a requirement that lenders must keep a high percentage of their own mortgages, they will write fraudulent ones with impunity. The obvious answer is to require mortgage companies and banks to keep a large percentage of the mortgages they write.

  4. Pingback: The Amazing, Versatile and Unethical Goldman Sachs Code of Ethics « Ethics Alarms

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.