Iceland volcano footage
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pazzn44zDs&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pazzn44zDs&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
A great spot from Reuters’ Peter Thal Larsen. According to the SEC’s complaint against Goldman Sachs, Royal Bank of Scotland took the bulk of the losses when Goldman’s Abacus CDOs went toxic (Felix Salmon has a good summary of the case here):
In late 2007, ABN was acquired by a consortium of banks that included the Royal Bank of Scotland (“RBS”). On or about August 7, 2008, RBS unwound ABN’s super senior position in ABACUS 2007-AC1 by paying GS&Co $840,909,090. Most of this money was subsequently paid by GS&Co to Paulson.
RBS was bailed out by the taxpayer in October 2008 – making the British taxpayer the mug in Goldman’s alleged fraud.
Update: Here’s how Goldman vice-president, Fabrice Tourre, saw things:
More and more leverage in the system, The whole building is about to collapse anytime now…Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab[rice Tourre]…standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstrosities!!!
By my rough reckoning, fabulous Fab cost every UK taxpayer 20 quid or so…
Update II: At the heart of the accusation against Goldman is that John Paulson’s hedge fund persuaded the great vampire squid to base its CDOs on lots of super-crappy mortgage bonds, allowing Paulson to bet against the US housing market. Much of RBS’s money ended up in Paulson’s pocket.
What is especially delicious about this is that Paulson then made another killing betting against RBS’s shares:
New York-based Paulson, who made more than $3bn by betting against the US housing market, now appears to be profiting from positions placed on the assumption that bank shares would tumble in the aftermath of the market chaos caused by the demise of the sub-prime mortgage industry.
His hedge fund, Paulson & Co, was one of the few to trade through the ban imposed on short-selling by the Financial Services Authority in September to protect the rescue takeover of HBOS by Lloyds TSB. On the basis of the disclosures that his company has made since then, the Guardian estimates Paulson is likely to have made a profit of £100m – and possibly more – after making around 240p on each of the RBS shares he sold.
Update III: Probably not the best timing for Republicans to signal they’re going to filibuster the US financial regulation bill.
Update IV: Who was the underwriter for RBS’s rights issue in Spring 2008 when its ill-advised acquisition of ABN Amro was beginning to drag the bank down? Goldman Sachs. (It was largely shut out of the October bailout, though. Not hard to work out why.)
Update V: From The Big Short:
Paulson was… in some ways, a Wall Street outsider. “I called Goldman Sachs to ask them about Paulson,” said one rich man whom Paulson had solicited for funds in mid-2006. “They told me he was a third-rate hedge fund guy who didn’t know what he was talking about.”
And of course, Goldman was betting on CDOs itself, not just passing them onto Paulson and other investors who believed a crash was coming:
Goldman was in the position of selling bonds to its customers [the suckers: ABN, AIG etc] created by its own traders, so they might bet against them…Today, Goldman Sachs is, to put it mildly, unhelpful when asked to explain what it did, and this lack of transparency extends to its own shareholders.
“If a team of forensic accountants went over Goldman’s books, they’d be shocked at just how good Goldman is at hiding things,” says one former AIG FP employee, who helped to unravel the mess, and who was intimate with his Goldman counterparts.”
Surely, there will be more charges from the SEC once it gets its teeth into the business Goldman did with AIG. I reckon this is only an amuse bouche to pave the way for a much bigger onslaught on the bank.
Update VI: Republicans double down and try to tie Goldman to the Democrat plan to regulate Wall Street:
“These are very serious charges against a key supporter of President Obama’s bill to create a permanent Wall Street bailout fund,” [House Minority Leader John] Boehner said Friday in the statement. “Despite President Obama’s rhetoric, his permanent bailout bill gives Goldman Sachs and other big Wall Street banks a permanent, taxpayer-funded safety net by designating them ‘too big to fail.’ Just whose side is President Obama on?”
Update VII: Finally, word from the FSA. And Gordon Brown wants a public enquiry:
I’m shocked at this moral bankruptcy, this is probably one of the worst cases I have seen.
It makes me absolutely determined we are going to have a new global constitution for the banking system,” he said.I cannot allow this to continue, everything I find out convinces me we have to go in deeper and I believe I’m the man to deal with these problems of the banks. I want a special investigation done into what has happened at Goldman Sachs.
Germany is considering legal action too.
Update VIII: Convicted white collar criminal, Sam Antar (read his story), has some fascinating insights…
Apparently, the BBC is trailing Lord Monckton around the United States for a documentary on the Lord’s climate scepticism (a superb use of license fee money).
Monckton, who compares climate activists to the Hitler Youth, appears to be latching onto another conspiracy theory – that Barack Obama is lying about being born in the United States, and is therefore not constitutionally allowed to serve as President.
Dave Weigel reports:
“America!” said Monckton at the start of his speech. “Land of opportunity! You can be born in Kenya and end up as president of the United States!”
That remark was well received in the crowd, if not as boisterously applauded as Monckton’s other jokes. After the speech… a reporter from USA Today and I both asked Monckton whether he was joking.
“I have no idea where he was born,” said Monckton, who was working the crowd and signing autographs. “What I do find strange is that the public records of his Hawaiian birth have been sealed, and can not be obtained by the public. His lawyers have spent a lot of money trying to seal the records of his public life. All of those records should be open to the public, as they always were for previous presidents.”
This morning, The Guardian’s website leads with a polling sensation. Apparently, Nick Clegg did so well is last night’s debate that the British election is now a two-horse race between the Lib Dems and the Tories, with Labour the UK’s new third party.
Such a sensational story – and so prominently placed – must be built on robust foundations, right? No. It turns out that:
This – apparently – is called journalism.
Update: Original headline pulled, replaced by the milder: “Lib Dem support surges after debate win.”
Update II: Andrew Sparrow writes:
I’ve been reading the comments about the way we reported the ComRes poll. Twitter is a wonderful source of information (if we didn’t use it, this blog would be slower and far less informative) and the figures were released by journalists who are normally reliable. But on this occasion the information was misleading. I should have waited until I had spoken to ComRes before going into overdrive. I’m sorry about that.
My beef is not really with Andrew’s live blog – which is clearly contingent and updated as new information is uncovered – but with the decision to use the information from a tweet as the basis for the main headline on the Guardian website front page. Would love to know which editor made that decision.
Update III: Here’s the Guardian’s description of the methodology for its own poll on the debate:
ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 505 people by telephone on 15th April 2010. It reinterviewed people who had previously been selected at random who told them they would be watching the debate and had agreed to be interviewed again. The sample has been weighted to the profile of all people selected at random who previously stated they would be watching the debate.
I have read this a dozen times and have no idea what it means.
“I can only say that I am deeply sorry that our management – starting with me – was not more prescient and that we did not foresee what lay before us.”
– Chuck Prince, former CEO of Citigroup, Congressional testimony, 8 April 2010
“When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance. We’re still dancing.”
– Chuck Prince, CEO of Citigroup, interview with Financial Times, 10 July 2007
Er…