Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patb
Participant[quote=flu]Playball!
LOL…. Brian, by the time government spends a lot of money and ends up producing nada (again), you’ll be so disillusioned that you might even end up voting for Palin….. Just kidding…
The government has testimony from a Paulson & Co. official that could contradict its own claims against Goldman Sachs, CNBC has learned.
Paolo Pellegrini told the government that he informed ACA Management that Paulson intended to bet against, or short, a portfolio of mortgages ACA was assembling.
If true, the testimony would go directly against government claims that ACA did not know Paulson was hoping the collateralized debt obligations would fail, and subvert charges that Goldman (NYSE:GS – News) breached its duty by not informing ACA of Paulson’s position.
CNBC has examined documents in which a government official asked Pellegrini whether he informed ACA CDO manager Laura Schwartz about Paulson’s position.
“Did you tell her that you were interested in taking a short position in Abacus?” a government official asked Pellegrini, referring to the name of the CDO portfolio.
“Yes, that was the purpose of the meeting,” Pellegrini responded.
The exchange is key in that the Securities and Exchange Commission is charging that the failure to disclose Paulson’s position was a “material” factor that could have caused both ACA and German Bank IKB to back out of the CDO investment. When the CDO failed, Paulson reaped a gain of more than $900 million, the government has said.
The SEC does not mention the exchange in its complaint against Goldman.
“We look forward to presenting a complete and accurate evidentiary record in court,” SEC spokesman John Nester said in a statement to CNBC.[/quote]
hearsay
Participant[quote=flu]Playball!
LOL…. Brian, by the time government spends a lot of money and ends up producing nada (again), you’ll be so disillusioned that you might even end up voting for Palin….. Just kidding…
The government has testimony from a Paulson & Co. official that could contradict its own claims against Goldman Sachs, CNBC has learned.
Paolo Pellegrini told the government that he informed ACA Management that Paulson intended to bet against, or short, a portfolio of mortgages ACA was assembling.
If true, the testimony would go directly against government claims that ACA did not know Paulson was hoping the collateralized debt obligations would fail, and subvert charges that Goldman (NYSE:GS – News) breached its duty by not informing ACA of Paulson’s position.
CNBC has examined documents in which a government official asked Pellegrini whether he informed ACA CDO manager Laura Schwartz about Paulson’s position.
“Did you tell her that you were interested in taking a short position in Abacus?” a government official asked Pellegrini, referring to the name of the CDO portfolio.
“Yes, that was the purpose of the meeting,” Pellegrini responded.
The exchange is key in that the Securities and Exchange Commission is charging that the failure to disclose Paulson’s position was a “material” factor that could have caused both ACA and German Bank IKB to back out of the CDO investment. When the CDO failed, Paulson reaped a gain of more than $900 million, the government has said.
The SEC does not mention the exchange in its complaint against Goldman.
“We look forward to presenting a complete and accurate evidentiary record in court,” SEC spokesman John Nester said in a statement to CNBC.[/quote]
hearsay
Participant[quote=flu]Playball!
LOL…. Brian, by the time government spends a lot of money and ends up producing nada (again), you’ll be so disillusioned that you might even end up voting for Palin….. Just kidding…
The government has testimony from a Paulson & Co. official that could contradict its own claims against Goldman Sachs, CNBC has learned.
Paolo Pellegrini told the government that he informed ACA Management that Paulson intended to bet against, or short, a portfolio of mortgages ACA was assembling.
If true, the testimony would go directly against government claims that ACA did not know Paulson was hoping the collateralized debt obligations would fail, and subvert charges that Goldman (NYSE:GS – News) breached its duty by not informing ACA of Paulson’s position.
CNBC has examined documents in which a government official asked Pellegrini whether he informed ACA CDO manager Laura Schwartz about Paulson’s position.
“Did you tell her that you were interested in taking a short position in Abacus?” a government official asked Pellegrini, referring to the name of the CDO portfolio.
“Yes, that was the purpose of the meeting,” Pellegrini responded.
The exchange is key in that the Securities and Exchange Commission is charging that the failure to disclose Paulson’s position was a “material” factor that could have caused both ACA and German Bank IKB to back out of the CDO investment. When the CDO failed, Paulson reaped a gain of more than $900 million, the government has said.
The SEC does not mention the exchange in its complaint against Goldman.
“We look forward to presenting a complete and accurate evidentiary record in court,” SEC spokesman John Nester said in a statement to CNBC.[/quote]
hearsay
Participant[quote=flu]Playball!
LOL…. Brian, by the time government spends a lot of money and ends up producing nada (again), you’ll be so disillusioned that you might even end up voting for Palin….. Just kidding…
The government has testimony from a Paulson & Co. official that could contradict its own claims against Goldman Sachs, CNBC has learned.
Paolo Pellegrini told the government that he informed ACA Management that Paulson intended to bet against, or short, a portfolio of mortgages ACA was assembling.
If true, the testimony would go directly against government claims that ACA did not know Paulson was hoping the collateralized debt obligations would fail, and subvert charges that Goldman (NYSE:GS – News) breached its duty by not informing ACA of Paulson’s position.
CNBC has examined documents in which a government official asked Pellegrini whether he informed ACA CDO manager Laura Schwartz about Paulson’s position.
“Did you tell her that you were interested in taking a short position in Abacus?” a government official asked Pellegrini, referring to the name of the CDO portfolio.
“Yes, that was the purpose of the meeting,” Pellegrini responded.
The exchange is key in that the Securities and Exchange Commission is charging that the failure to disclose Paulson’s position was a “material” factor that could have caused both ACA and German Bank IKB to back out of the CDO investment. When the CDO failed, Paulson reaped a gain of more than $900 million, the government has said.
The SEC does not mention the exchange in its complaint against Goldman.
“We look forward to presenting a complete and accurate evidentiary record in court,” SEC spokesman John Nester said in a statement to CNBC.[/quote]
hearsay
Participant[quote=flu]Playball!
LOL…. Brian, by the time government spends a lot of money and ends up producing nada (again), you’ll be so disillusioned that you might even end up voting for Palin….. Just kidding…
The government has testimony from a Paulson & Co. official that could contradict its own claims against Goldman Sachs, CNBC has learned.
Paolo Pellegrini told the government that he informed ACA Management that Paulson intended to bet against, or short, a portfolio of mortgages ACA was assembling.
If true, the testimony would go directly against government claims that ACA did not know Paulson was hoping the collateralized debt obligations would fail, and subvert charges that Goldman (NYSE:GS – News) breached its duty by not informing ACA of Paulson’s position.
CNBC has examined documents in which a government official asked Pellegrini whether he informed ACA CDO manager Laura Schwartz about Paulson’s position.
“Did you tell her that you were interested in taking a short position in Abacus?” a government official asked Pellegrini, referring to the name of the CDO portfolio.
“Yes, that was the purpose of the meeting,” Pellegrini responded.
The exchange is key in that the Securities and Exchange Commission is charging that the failure to disclose Paulson’s position was a “material” factor that could have caused both ACA and German Bank IKB to back out of the CDO investment. When the CDO failed, Paulson reaped a gain of more than $900 million, the government has said.
The SEC does not mention the exchange in its complaint against Goldman.
“We look forward to presenting a complete and accurate evidentiary record in court,” SEC spokesman John Nester said in a statement to CNBC.[/quote]
hearsay
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
you’ve never heard of clawback.
When you are in CH 11 the court can pull back
the collateral. The hedge assumed AIG kept running, not in bankruptcy[/quote]Pat: Actually, I’m quite familiar with clawback and referenced it in an earlier post on this very thread. Its doubtful you read that post, and its doubtful you read any of my other posts describing Goldman’s position in re AIG.
BK didn’t have dick to do with any of this, especially given the fact that Goldman was IN POSSESSION of AIG’s cash and securities as collateral on the owed monies and whatever difference that existed was covered by CDS from other third parties.
They would have been paid EITHER WAY.
This tiresome discussion on BK is utterly pointless. There would have been no clawback, in that Goldman ALREADY HELD THE FUNDS.
I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or you simply don’t understand how collateral works in the securities industry. They did NOT have have counterparty risk, so what is your point?[/quote]
i saw that post, after i had posted, but, while I will grant you do appear to understand the securities trade, i’d venture you don’t understand the bankruptcy trade.
Yes, Goldman was holding collateral, one could even argue that made Goldman a “Secured” creditor.
However even secured creditors still need to go to
court.a judge could easily determine that it wouldn’t be in the best interests of AIG to allow Goldman to seize that collateral.
look at all those people sitting in default, filing bankruptcy to delay foreclosure.
if a judge determined that something in the AIG contracts was “Unconscionable, inactionable or
a policy violation” they could easily toss the case.Goldman was defecating in their loafers and desperate until Paulsen saved their lunch.
if they weren’t they would never have joined TARP.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
you’ve never heard of clawback.
When you are in CH 11 the court can pull back
the collateral. The hedge assumed AIG kept running, not in bankruptcy[/quote]Pat: Actually, I’m quite familiar with clawback and referenced it in an earlier post on this very thread. Its doubtful you read that post, and its doubtful you read any of my other posts describing Goldman’s position in re AIG.
BK didn’t have dick to do with any of this, especially given the fact that Goldman was IN POSSESSION of AIG’s cash and securities as collateral on the owed monies and whatever difference that existed was covered by CDS from other third parties.
They would have been paid EITHER WAY.
This tiresome discussion on BK is utterly pointless. There would have been no clawback, in that Goldman ALREADY HELD THE FUNDS.
I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or you simply don’t understand how collateral works in the securities industry. They did NOT have have counterparty risk, so what is your point?[/quote]
i saw that post, after i had posted, but, while I will grant you do appear to understand the securities trade, i’d venture you don’t understand the bankruptcy trade.
Yes, Goldman was holding collateral, one could even argue that made Goldman a “Secured” creditor.
However even secured creditors still need to go to
court.a judge could easily determine that it wouldn’t be in the best interests of AIG to allow Goldman to seize that collateral.
look at all those people sitting in default, filing bankruptcy to delay foreclosure.
if a judge determined that something in the AIG contracts was “Unconscionable, inactionable or
a policy violation” they could easily toss the case.Goldman was defecating in their loafers and desperate until Paulsen saved their lunch.
if they weren’t they would never have joined TARP.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
you’ve never heard of clawback.
When you are in CH 11 the court can pull back
the collateral. The hedge assumed AIG kept running, not in bankruptcy[/quote]Pat: Actually, I’m quite familiar with clawback and referenced it in an earlier post on this very thread. Its doubtful you read that post, and its doubtful you read any of my other posts describing Goldman’s position in re AIG.
BK didn’t have dick to do with any of this, especially given the fact that Goldman was IN POSSESSION of AIG’s cash and securities as collateral on the owed monies and whatever difference that existed was covered by CDS from other third parties.
They would have been paid EITHER WAY.
This tiresome discussion on BK is utterly pointless. There would have been no clawback, in that Goldman ALREADY HELD THE FUNDS.
I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or you simply don’t understand how collateral works in the securities industry. They did NOT have have counterparty risk, so what is your point?[/quote]
i saw that post, after i had posted, but, while I will grant you do appear to understand the securities trade, i’d venture you don’t understand the bankruptcy trade.
Yes, Goldman was holding collateral, one could even argue that made Goldman a “Secured” creditor.
However even secured creditors still need to go to
court.a judge could easily determine that it wouldn’t be in the best interests of AIG to allow Goldman to seize that collateral.
look at all those people sitting in default, filing bankruptcy to delay foreclosure.
if a judge determined that something in the AIG contracts was “Unconscionable, inactionable or
a policy violation” they could easily toss the case.Goldman was defecating in their loafers and desperate until Paulsen saved their lunch.
if they weren’t they would never have joined TARP.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
you’ve never heard of clawback.
When you are in CH 11 the court can pull back
the collateral. The hedge assumed AIG kept running, not in bankruptcy[/quote]Pat: Actually, I’m quite familiar with clawback and referenced it in an earlier post on this very thread. Its doubtful you read that post, and its doubtful you read any of my other posts describing Goldman’s position in re AIG.
BK didn’t have dick to do with any of this, especially given the fact that Goldman was IN POSSESSION of AIG’s cash and securities as collateral on the owed monies and whatever difference that existed was covered by CDS from other third parties.
They would have been paid EITHER WAY.
This tiresome discussion on BK is utterly pointless. There would have been no clawback, in that Goldman ALREADY HELD THE FUNDS.
I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or you simply don’t understand how collateral works in the securities industry. They did NOT have have counterparty risk, so what is your point?[/quote]
i saw that post, after i had posted, but, while I will grant you do appear to understand the securities trade, i’d venture you don’t understand the bankruptcy trade.
Yes, Goldman was holding collateral, one could even argue that made Goldman a “Secured” creditor.
However even secured creditors still need to go to
court.a judge could easily determine that it wouldn’t be in the best interests of AIG to allow Goldman to seize that collateral.
look at all those people sitting in default, filing bankruptcy to delay foreclosure.
if a judge determined that something in the AIG contracts was “Unconscionable, inactionable or
a policy violation” they could easily toss the case.Goldman was defecating in their loafers and desperate until Paulsen saved their lunch.
if they weren’t they would never have joined TARP.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
you’ve never heard of clawback.
When you are in CH 11 the court can pull back
the collateral. The hedge assumed AIG kept running, not in bankruptcy[/quote]Pat: Actually, I’m quite familiar with clawback and referenced it in an earlier post on this very thread. Its doubtful you read that post, and its doubtful you read any of my other posts describing Goldman’s position in re AIG.
BK didn’t have dick to do with any of this, especially given the fact that Goldman was IN POSSESSION of AIG’s cash and securities as collateral on the owed monies and whatever difference that existed was covered by CDS from other third parties.
They would have been paid EITHER WAY.
This tiresome discussion on BK is utterly pointless. There would have been no clawback, in that Goldman ALREADY HELD THE FUNDS.
I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or you simply don’t understand how collateral works in the securities industry. They did NOT have have counterparty risk, so what is your point?[/quote]
i saw that post, after i had posted, but, while I will grant you do appear to understand the securities trade, i’d venture you don’t understand the bankruptcy trade.
Yes, Goldman was holding collateral, one could even argue that made Goldman a “Secured” creditor.
However even secured creditors still need to go to
court.a judge could easily determine that it wouldn’t be in the best interests of AIG to allow Goldman to seize that collateral.
look at all those people sitting in default, filing bankruptcy to delay foreclosure.
if a judge determined that something in the AIG contracts was “Unconscionable, inactionable or
a policy violation” they could easily toss the case.Goldman was defecating in their loafers and desperate until Paulsen saved their lunch.
if they weren’t they would never have joined TARP.
Participant[quote=briansd1]What isn’t clear to me is how the money AIG received from the government was spent.
If GS held AIG assets but was only paid a little more, then how does the $13 billion add up? And how is that amount included in the total AIG bailout?
I’d like to see a debit and credit accounting of the AIG bailout money.
Interesting indeed.
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/aig/index.html
if the Goldmanites were so well hedged they wouldn’t have taken a dime from TARP or TALF or all those other ones, and Paulsen wouldn’t have spent august puking in his trash can.
no, Goldman was vulnerable….
they got Paulsen to bail them out.
Participant[quote=briansd1]What isn’t clear to me is how the money AIG received from the government was spent.
If GS held AIG assets but was only paid a little more, then how does the $13 billion add up? And how is that amount included in the total AIG bailout?
I’d like to see a debit and credit accounting of the AIG bailout money.
Interesting indeed.
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/aig/index.html
if the Goldmanites were so well hedged they wouldn’t have taken a dime from TARP or TALF or all those other ones, and Paulsen wouldn’t have spent august puking in his trash can.
no, Goldman was vulnerable….
they got Paulsen to bail them out.
Participant[quote=briansd1]What isn’t clear to me is how the money AIG received from the government was spent.
If GS held AIG assets but was only paid a little more, then how does the $13 billion add up? And how is that amount included in the total AIG bailout?
I’d like to see a debit and credit accounting of the AIG bailout money.
Interesting indeed.
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/aig/index.html
if the Goldmanites were so well hedged they wouldn’t have taken a dime from TARP or TALF or all those other ones, and Paulsen wouldn’t have spent august puking in his trash can.
no, Goldman was vulnerable….
they got Paulsen to bail them out.
Participant[quote=briansd1]What isn’t clear to me is how the money AIG received from the government was spent.
If GS held AIG assets but was only paid a little more, then how does the $13 billion add up? And how is that amount included in the total AIG bailout?
I’d like to see a debit and credit accounting of the AIG bailout money.
Interesting indeed.
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/aig/index.html
if the Goldmanites were so well hedged they wouldn’t have taken a dime from TARP or TALF or all those other ones, and Paulsen wouldn’t have spent august puking in his trash can.
no, Goldman was vulnerable….
they got Paulsen to bail them out.
-
AuthorPosts
