“The role of a market maker is to make sure those they serve are getting the risk exposures they seek”, argued Lloyd Blankfein while testifying before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. According to this argument, Goldman had no fiduciary duty to its customers since it was not offering investment advice. But was Goldman a market maker or an underwriter in this synthetic CDO?
In early 2007, Goldman created a synthetic CDO (collateralized debt obligation) since one of its hedge fund customers, Paulson & Co., wanted to bet against the sub-prime mortgage market. That makes Goldman also an underwriter. Paulson was short on the CDO and Goldman had to take the other half of the trade as a market maker. In order to protect itself, Goldman purchased insurance on its long position from the likes of AIG. As the housing market fell, Goldman profited from insurance payouts while AIG was getting financial protection from the Fed. Investors with a long position in this CDO including IKB, a German bank and ACA, a bond insurance company together lost $1B. ACA’s losses were “backstopped” by the financial bailout.
At the heart of SEC’s case is Goldman’s failure of disclosure. IKB was allegedly told that a neutral portfolio manager selected the securities that went into the synthetic CDO, and not told that Paulson & Co. as well as ACA had a hand in picking securities. Goldman is also alleged to not have informed the markets last year when it received notification of a probe. Whether or not a hedge fund is participating in a trade (there naturally has to be a short side of the trade in a synthetic CDO) or whether they had a role to play in the composition of the CDO shouldn’t be important. Rather, it is important that the underwriter fully disclose the contents of the CDO and their risk tranche in the prospectus so an investor can make an informed investment decision on which side to take. Did ACA and IKB, large institutional investors do their due diligence before investing?
While the government is going after Goldman, many other banks wrote 2x-3x the amount in similarly risky CDOs. Today WSJ reported that the SEC may be investigating other firms as well.