Tweet
I suspect I just missed this before, but . . .
Remember the outrage following the New York Federal Reserve’s decision to cover 100 percent of the credit default swaps claims against AIG. Well, now it appears that payout may have been for the same types of Goldman Sachs initiated securities over which Goldman is now being sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
From the continuing fine reporting by the Times’ Louise Story and Gretchen Morgenson we get a very helpful chart of the scheme and more clarity on how it worked.
Goldman used ACA Management as the respectable front for the alleged scam, telling potential investors that ACA Management was a disinterested independent entity compiling the mortgage-based securities that would be placed in one of the numerous Abacus investments. Meanwhile, SEC alleges, Mr. Taurre, a Goldman VP, knew that hedge fund manager John Paulson was not only helping select likely-to-fail securities for that investment, but also planning to bet against them because he believed the mortgage bonds on which the investment was based would fail. The investors betting the same securities would be fine weren’t told about this conflict.
Goldman structured the Abacus portfolios with a sharp eye on the credit ratings assigned to the mortgage bonds contained in them, the S.E.C. said. In the Abacus deal cited in the S.E.C. complaint, Mr. Paulson pinpointed those mortgage bonds that he believed carried higher ratings than the underlying loans deserved.
Goldman placed insurance on those bonds — called credit-default swaps — inside Abacus, allowing Mr. Paulson to bet against the bonds while clients on the other side of the trade wagered that they would make money.
But when Goldman sold shares in Abacus to investors, the bank and Mr. Tourre disclosed only the ratings of those bonds and did not disclose that Mr. Paulson was on the other side, betting those ratings were wrong. . . .
But that wasn’t the only Abacus investment that might have been structured this way:
In seven of Goldman’s Abacus deals, the bank went to the American International Group for insurance on the bonds. Those deals have led to billions of dollars in losses at A.I.G., which received a $180 billion taxpayer rescue. The Abacus deal in the S.E.C. complaint was not one of them.
That deal was managed by ACA Management, a part of ACA Capital Holdings, which changed its name in 2008 to Manifold Capital.
So, shouldn’t we be asking whether AIG was used in the same way that ACA Management was used? Were the Credit Default Swaps for which AIG was on the hook — and which taxpayers would eventually pay off at 100 percent — also influenced by Goldman directly or through John Paulson or other hedge funds intending to create investments that, while sanctioned by AIG, were bound to fail and make the secret creators rich?
Officials at NYFed testified earlier at the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and before Congress about the 100 percent payout, but that was before we knew the latest details on the alleged Goldman fraud. Maybe it’s time to haul these folks back and ask whether they were also duped by Goldman, AIG or others.
More fraud stuff:
Yves Smith: Rabobank Merrill Committed Similar Fraud to Goldman with a Magnetar-sponsored CDO
Simon Johnson, Our Pecora Moment
NYT/Story and Morgenson: For Goldman a Bet’s Stakes Keep Growning
75 Comments
[Self moderating what I WANT to say about the Vampire Squid bunch to avoid p*ssing off the Mods]
You can never be too careful with that crew.
Yeah. It’s just easier to think the thoughts rather than fully express them in a way that gets me in trouble.
Now this is exactly what, IMO, reveals an “official” role in the inflation and collapse of bubbles, which would explain the inexplicable ability of larger-than-life thieves to “fail upwards,” as Geithner and Summers have done, to name just two. Was some of that fraud induced on “official” orders? Is that why we’re bailing them out: to make good on debts incurred on behalf of Uncle Sam? I won’t be surprised if the banksters try the same kind of ex post facto decriminilization of said acts, like the telecoms did and the torturers are doing.
Will GS get the same kind of laughably small BoA fine the SEC recently levied, implying a federal backstop even in the unlikely event of a successful prosecution/civil suit?
Kleptocracy at its perverse finest? Perkinsian economic hit jobs directed inward?
Scarecrow, I suggested this situation immediately, and on your prior GS post!
Yes it is.
Yep, although the folks at Naked Capital supposedly looked at who the recipients were for that particular pay out, so I assume they’d make the link if there was one. It didn’t click with me until I saw the reference to other Abacus investments explicitly tied to AIG.
Isn’t the whole point that if you had a CDO, you counter-insured with a CDS somewhere, and the biggest somewhere was AIG, whether you were a European Bank or any bank?
And since they aren’t all on any exchange, how is anybody to know?
And lastly, isn’t that why reform without Glass-Steagall type walls, meaningless?
From Bill Black, posting at NYT:
Al Jazeera mentioned ‘Vampire Squid’ today…!
McClatchy is running this marvelous bit of news…!
Yup.
From the Morgenson and Story article:
So what skin does GS have in the game? Some bodies going to the pokey? Some how they have to pay back some other bodies who fell for their Ponzi scheme?
And if there are others, will any of those bodies go to jail or have to pay back anything?
Al Jazerra says they are gonna pay. Who? How?
To dump a bucket of water on the parade, Cohan, author of book on Bear Stearns, thinks the SEC did a piss poor job and that GS will fight it & win, just like the Bear guys did with the lawsuit in Brooklyn. SEC cherry picked quotes from email to put in complaint that will look much more innocuous when put in context.
Got me thinking that SEC might have done it deliberately, to look like they’re on the case, but let GS get away with everything. That’s the way of DC these years.
Hank Paulson is definitely going down… Lying to Congress alone…! ;-)
Ya think? Really? I don’t have much faith.
This is just as I suspected (that it was tied to the par value payouts of Batboy Geithner) and I think this is meant to take the heat off Geithner for his handling of the matter. I’ve read the SEC lawsuit filing in full and though it looks like GS was extremely shady and not one to touch with a ten foot pole, the filing just seemed to go out of its way to excuse ACA. Now it is becoming clear that the motive for praising ACA is an attempt for those in government to claim they were duped. However, neither AIG nor ACA were the victims. As the SEC filing itself says: “Mr. Paulson pinpointed those mortgage bonds that he believed carried higher ratings than the underlying loans deserved” and Paulson turned out to be right that the bonds were overrated, but he just as well could have been wrong and lost money. The lawsuit filing says that ACA not only went along with signing itself off as the PSA but it also issued credit default swaps too – ACA was responsible for doing due diligence so hearing that someone wants to go long on them is no excuse for not doing due diligence. That this is tied to the bailout does go a long way in explaining why the lawsuit twists itself into a pretzel to try over and over again to paint ACA as some great company when even taking what is claimed to have happened at face value ACA failed to do their job.
Note that there was what some may view as an attempted decriminalization or, at a minimum, protection against civil liability when the TARP legislation was first proposed by Sec. Paulson. The original proposal provided effectively that no actions taken with the TARP money could be reviewed in any U.S. court. This provision was not present in the bill finally enacted.
lol
Batboy – I knew he reminded me of someone.
Agree with the cynics on this one. This is likely a sop to the peasants — a way to look like you’re doing something prior to the mid-terms. More political bullshit, in other words.
Hope that isn’t the case but any move to truly lift the rocks and deal harshly with the slithering creatures underneath will be the downfall of much of official Washington.
But the complaint is VERY strong. It lays out fraud in no uncertain terms.
-Party A knew
-Party A lied
-Party B bought on Party A’s claims
Former Secretary of the Treasury Paulson the inside heist man for Goldman Sachs. He seemed to have a gun to the heads of our Reps saying give me the keys to the Fed now or else.
Paulson also allegedly told Senators making an effort to put language into the bail out legislation that taxpayers money could not be used for executive compensation would not “hold water”
Recall that Geithner claimed he was not personally involved in the payout decision. He was already under consideration for Sec. of Treasury and had recused himself from that matter at NY Fed. In one of the early hearings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, others at NY Fed supported that view. IIRC, the official story was the payoff issue was being negotiated by another entity, not NY FED, but they were called in at the last minute and had little time to negotiate, and were under pressure of an imminent downrating by the rating agencies, which would cause even further havoc at AIG. That was their story, IIRC. Folks over at Naked Capitalism were skeptical, but I don’t recall there being any hard evidence coming out then to prove beyond doubt Geithner’s direct involvement despite his denials.
In reading the case it just didn’t come across as that strong. It didn’t seem to be logically consistent. I say that because if you take the counter-factual that Paulson was long (instead of giving the impression he was long when in reality he was short), I don’t see how that also wouldn’t be a case of fraud/misrepresentation as in either case ACA decided to listen to him…whether he was long or short he had the same undisclosed involvement yet this is only supposed to be civilly actionable because he was short. To me it looks like GS followed the letter but not the spirit of the law because ACA did sign off on everything so it was factually true that ACA did sign off on it as their PSA. It’s not a crime let alone civilly actionable to be a better analyst than others – where I could see a crime on the other hand would be if it could be shown that Paulson got the ratings jacked up so that he could short them, but if he didn’t interfere in the ratings then all he did was outsmart the rest of Wall Street…ACA afterall got to see first-hand which mortgages were going into the CDO yet ACA decided to put out a CDS when they were perfectly capable of doing the same analysis as Paulson and decided those mortgages were overrated, but they failed.
I’m just hoping that ole Hank will sing the blues like a canary…!
Bernie ain’t enjoying his Minimum Security stint…! ;-)
That’s the gist of Cohan’s point. That GS skated as close to the edge as they could, but didn’t go over.
No. You’re missing the point. They DID the analysis and that’s WHY they counter-insured with a CDS. They got bailed out since they bought the CDS swap from AIG.
That’s the SEC’s side. You haven’t read GS’s side yet.
I’m not defending GS, just fooling around with the possibilities.
Yep – but the charge is very strong nonetheless.
You do know that UBS will be mighty interested in this civil suit…! I’m sure Davos is listening intently…! ;-)
Yes, the value of the civil suit is that other interested parties can do discovery.
AND consider this –
Defendant GS is going to claim that counter party ACA should mitigate their losses; it’s a fiduciary duty to their client(s) to do so. And in Discovery, finding that counter-party ACA DID make an attempt to mitigate via the purchase of a CDS, Goldman will say “See? Every body mitigated where they were supposed to do so. So, what, Me Worry?”
That’s the way the casino works.
Thanks Scare.
FDL started from the armpit deep in lies and bullsh*t reporting of Judy Miller. See this terrific post from Jane back in October 2005.
The effing Indiana Jones of dust bunnies I took liberties with the title, but iirc, the line is from Jane. She, and Marcy, and Christy and a lot of really smart commenters used their bare hands to hack PLAME out of the damn granite in which Cheney buried her.
WRT to the SEC filing, there is much to be concerned about. The fact that the SEC released it on a Friday does not inspire confidence. But, this filing can also lead to an unraveling of the worst excesses on Wall Street. Harry Markopolos first told the SEC about Bernie Madoff in 1999. Kotz, the IG for the SEC, reported other information the SEC had on Madoff prior to 1999. The Wall Street Journal knew everything the SEC knew for three years and did nothing. The NYT’s clear sees an opportunity to scoop the WSJ.
As long as FDL, (and terrific commenters such as Kelly and eCAHN, and so many others), stay invested, we can put pressure on the MSM to drive this effing story. We have the support of the Paulites on this and we need to leverage it. Pete Peterson and the deficit hawks also want to bury this.
Yes, absolutely we should.
Yes, almost certainly.
Which is why it’s extremely important that the AIG emails be released into the public domain.
Superlative notion.
Goldman Sach’s is being charged in civil court and not criminal. Until the fat cats and aristocrats have to serve hard time the crimes will continue.
GS apparently lied to ACA about the position of Paulson (that Paulson was short rather than long), but I don’t see how GS lied in an area that is legally actionable – ACA signed off on it and it shouldn’t have mattered what Paulson’s position was. ACA taking GS at face value that Paulson was long could have determined that Paulson was going to lose a fortune, but ACA didn’t and instead put out a CDS. I don’t see Paulson’s position as relevant as ACA was responsible for doing their own analysis and just because ACA heard somebody had some position that shouldn’t have affected their analysis. To take the lawsuit seriously on one hand you have to believe that ACA had a deservedly strong reputation that didn’t deserve to be damaged (as the SEC says in the filing) while on the other hand ACA’s work was limited to renting out their name and getting a big paycheck for doing nothing (which the SEC implies by the very basis of the filing) and on top of doing nothing put out a CDS.
Heh ;-)))
You have a gift not only for understanding this stuff, but also for making it accessible to the rest of us. THANK YOU.
I’m sure Dubai is revving up their legal teams, too…! ;-)
Keeper.
I am stealing that.
You may want to try a few links at NakedCapitalism today. There are several that address the issues you raise.
Just because someone is ‘long’ does not prevent them from also taking a position that is ‘short’. Thus, the claims of innocence (“I was long — honest!”) while shorting.
Can you say ‘Magnetar’?
Read the complaint again. It doesn’t say what you think it does.
Go to the “Facts” section.
I’d be cynical also, if I didn’t have more faith in the fact that when people get cheated out of money and pissed off, they call in lawyers.
As eCAHN has pointed out, this now opens up discovery.
Now, we also need the AIG emails made publicly available to really have some fun.
The supposedly good rep of ACA supports the claim that Paulson’s short interest in the deal had to be kept quiet. From the complaint, p.13:
And it was ACA’s rep that was needed to hook ordinary triple-A type investors.
And by the way, there aren’t any SarBox complaints in this SEC filing. The means that shareholders still have room to bitch.
Just saying.
Rayne is upstairs!
MDP 2010 Convention: Lots of Buzz About Downticket
This is all the SEC can do. They can only make referrals to the DOJ. They do have powers of discovery, however, which can go further than criminal prosecution.
Clearly GS thinks they can tie this off at the level of a VP, Tauree. Cheney thought he could block Plame at Judy Miller. Then Jane, Marcy, Christy, (reader of tea leaves was a robust force on Marcy’s threads back then too,) forced him back to Libby. Finally W had to commute Scooter’s sentence. That’s damn fine work, when all you had at the start was a notebook, a goofy letter about aspens, and a couple of dust bunnies.
Edited for clarity…! ;-)
Yep!
“No. You’re missing the point. They DID the analysis and that’s WHY they counter-insured with a CDS. They got bailed out since they bought the CDS swap from AIG.”
No, ACA didn’t buy insurance on the CDO but rather they sold insurance on the CDO. ACA put out more in insurance than Paulson was supposedly involved (ACA got the impression that Paulson was in it for $200M, yet ACA sold $900M in cerdit default swaps, which is 4 1/2 times more than the maximum Paulson was supposedly going long):
“ACA’s parent company, ACA Capital Holdings, Inc. (“ACA Capital”), provided financial guaranty insurance on a variety of structured finance products including RMBS CDOs, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, ACA Financial Guaranty Corporation. On or about May 31, 2007, ACA Capital sold protection or “wrapped” the $909 million super senior tranche of ABACUS 2007-AC1, meaning that it assumed the credit risk associated with that portion of the capital structure via a CDS in exchange for premium payments of approximately 50 basis points per year” (in other words these supposedly neutral operators sold insurance for $4.5M)
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2010/comp-pr2010-59.pdf
ACA was out to profit and heck it would seem like there would be action be able to take against them for portraying themselves as neutral third parties while at the same time ACA was selling insurance on CDOs it claimed to have neutrally blessed. Just because ACA thought Paulson was long is no excuse for them issuing nearly $1B in insurance because afterall Paulson could have been wrong even if it was true the impression was given that he was long.
I’m not really following what sachs did wrong here, is there something wrong with putting a portfolio together based on what they believe are overvalued stock?
I don’t see why thats any differant then advising someone to sell a bumch of stocks short
You realize we are not disagreeing, right?
Parties and counterparties both bet and counter-bet on shit tranches. That’s why Atrios was calling it “Big ShitPile” back in 2007.
I’m not saying there are any angels here, because there aren’t. There are only demons.
Paulson held a loaded gun to the American Taxpayer’s head and pulled the trigger…! 8-(
sorry mods…! *g*
Dean Baker is upstairs!
CAF Sponsors the Virtual Summit on Fiscal and Economic Responsibility for People Who Did Not Wreck the Economy
I had not realized there were so many Bernie Madoff clones on Wall Street.
Two responses:
Don’t look for any real punishment to befall GS or its honchos. I think this is mostly kabuki and lots of backroom wheeling and dealing will eventually make it all go away. GS will enter an agreement to be a good boy and not do it again.
Second, does FDL have the deepest bench in journalism, or what?! I mean, forget the caliber of the front-line (“starting lineup”)reporting by Jane, David, Jon, Marcy, Bmaz, etc. The quality of comments by readers (“the bench”) is light years better than the so-called reporting of the MSM. I’ll take eCAHN, Scarecrow, Kelly C, etc., over almost anybody from WaPoop or TPM or Politico or CNN. (Or lately, MSNBC for that matter.)
OK, I’m not an expert by any means, but this is how I read the whole suit and civil charge and the GS response.
I don’t think it’s relevant whether ACA should or shouldn’t have done it’s homework (but it should have). But what’s at issue is that GS did not completely disclose the huge conflict of interest one of it’s clients had in this whole transaction. Paulson paid GS 15 million to handpick the Abacus funds that he was betting on at the same time GS marketed the same product to another client ACA without letting them in on that information. Too me that is really at the core here, GS’s failure to completely disclose this conflict of interest when marketing the product to others.
Notice in GS’s response they couch their defense using the clever word choice saying “extensive” disclosure was provided, yeah but that’s different than full disclosure dumbarses. I hope that distinction is enough to nail these fraudsters.
And Why Paulson and others skate is beyond me. I’m just hoping that the lowly vp “fabulous Fab”, is not just the token fall guy, but perhaps being used as starting place by the SEC lawyers to get at the higher ups once he starts talking and turning over emails/secrets? (or have I been watching too many television lawyer show these days).
Either way I’ll take it, it’s a start. Hope it leads to something more substantial, but not convinced it will… the cynic in me rearing it’s ugly head. Hope it’s the tip of the iceberg that finally takes down these Titans of Fraud…or at the very very least, leads to significant changes in the rules, regulations, and law so it won’t happen anymore.
Teddy Partridge is upstairs!
Designate Your Gay Hospital Visitor Today!
“I’m not saying there are any angels here, because there aren’t. There are only demons.”
I would agree with that characterization, which is why the filing draws a reg flag with me. The SEC tries to paint ACA as some wronged angel and it just doesn’t wash.
“I don’t think it’s relevant whether ACA should or shouldn’t have done it’s homework (but it should have). But what’s at issue is that GS did not completely disclose the huge conflict of interest one of it’s clients had in this whole transaction. Paulson paid GS 15 million to handpick the Abacus funds that he was betting on at the same time GS marketed the same product to another client ACA without letting them in on that information. Too me that is really at the core here, GS’s failure to completely disclose this conflict of interest when marketing the product to others.”
I agree that this the core of the case, but I think it is extremely relevant that ACA didn’t do their homework and that is why I think the case is weak. ACA ultimately signed off on the composition of the CDO. If ACA did their job, it shouldn’t have mattered what position Paulson took as ACA would do their own separate analysis. It’s quite possible that GS selected ACA because they were considered lazy incompetents who’d just rubber stamp anything that came their way, but that’s not something legally actionable and the SEC goes out of their way trying to paint ACA just the opposite. Just taking it at face value ACA based on what it is claimed that ACA believed, ACA wasn’t doing their job of being a neutral third party analyst because ACA knowingly let an interested party play a big role in their work – afterall, whether Paulson was long or short ACA knew that Paulson was not neutral. I think it is also quite telling that rather than protesting that Paulson wasn’t disclosed, ACA not only didn’t say a word but they tried to profit off the CDO by selling insurance on it for $4.5M with their knowledge that Paulson was involved. If indeed Paulson’s involvement as a non-neutral party was something material, wouldn’t that mean that ACA was trying to make millions based on non-public material information rather than being the fine upstanding company that the SEC tries to portray them as?
Sure works for Sound Bites and the 24hr news cycle. They get the initial headlines, of being on the beat.
Great comment, thanks.
Goldman didn’t just sell overvalued garbage which Goldman itself had constructed to thier clients. They secretly placed bets with AIG that the garbage would fail. And ultimately the US taxpayer paid out on those Goldman Sachs bets via the AIG bailout.
From Gretchen Morgenson’s nytimes article on this topic:
At this magnitude, when was the last time you saw any one convicted and punished appropriately?
Lt. Calley?
Ollie North?
This system as is will NOT allow the full investigation and conviction of this magnitude of criminal activity.
I sure appreciate your enthusiasm, though.
I’ve long lost mine for just justice to occur over the decades.
LONG Ago. The bastards run free, and mostly unfettered in their dealings.
Corporate fascism. The marriage of government and corporations.
Badda boom, badda bing.
End of story.
Nicely and sweetly put, BT.
Unless GS tried to get people not to pay their mortgages, GS didn’t cause the mortgage defaults. Betting for instance that you believe a stock is overrated (and you turn out to be right), it doesn’t mean you caused that stock to be downgraded. Unless it is shown that GS/Paulson had a hand in goosing the ratings of the mortgages (which the SEC doesn’t claim either party had anything to do with the ratings of the mortgages, but rather says that Paulson speculated that the mortgage ratings agency were wrong) or had a hand in encouraging people not to pay off their mortgages (which also isn’t alleged by the SEC), they didn’t commit “arson.”
Here.. Jump, You Fuckers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yge311sFhC8
I fully understand what your are saying about ACA (which is bankrupt but now resuming business under a different name). However I think you are conflating their actions and behavior into this case (which is what I believe GS’s defense will also do-using some money defending the case directly or indirectly from the taxpayers bailout).
I agree they all were doing it, we all agree there are no angels. But the case isn’t whether ACA fully disclosed it’s actions and counterbets (which were all legal) it’s whether GS fully disclosed what it was doing as allegedly a neutral party with it’s partner Paulson on the side.
I think there is a distinction in that GS failed to disclose that Paulson had paid them money to handpick the funds as he was also betting on the funds he picked(he was shorting them). And GS then presented to other buyers and investors that ACA was running the show when in reality it was Paulson who paid them a fee who actually vetted and picked the funds…it’s separation and degrees of removal that they failed to fully disclose.
IMO, It was purposefully designed with multiple layers in order to protect and obscure what was really going on, some say it was savvy. I’ll say the complexity was designed into the system to obscure. I will say it was evil and still fraud (not telling people about all these conflicts on the side) no matter how clever they thought they were. I have no respect for people who design schemes like this that are purposefully designed to fail in order to personally profit. To me they’re no better than people who design computer viruses that wreak havoc. If only those people used that ability to produce good for all and I’d have more respect.
As I said, will that fine line and distinction (extensive disclosure versus full disclosure) be enough to nail the gamers and ponzi schemers here??? I dunno we’ll find out. I just hope if they can keep to the narrow and specific charges of the case, that it will be enough in this civil suit.
Should SEC have the authority AND THE DUTY to make referrals of possible
criminality to DoJ? (Which DoJ would have to have the positive obligation
to investigate and report on?)
The thing I find most interesting at this point is, no matter how the SEC case comes out, GS is about to learn the lesson of long term greedy vs short term greedy. They might be able to weasel out of the letter of the law but the damage this will have done to their fee-based business will prove to be astounding I think. I always find it amusing when arrogant people are in charge of damage control campaigns.
There was really only one way for Goldman (the entity) to come out of this lightly seared as opposed to immolated. They didn’t pick it, which is no surprise. Telling people “caveat emptor” when your book of business is built on your ability to represent the buyers interests is never a good idea. I expect this line will serve to insulate the company from short term reserve losses ( fines ) but i’m fairly certain the damage to their bottom line will more than compensate. The appropriate defense, the one the SEC was providing them was: “This was a rogue division run by a socio-path, we’re sorry” instead they opted for a “there’s nothing wrong with what we did” defense. I’d guess there are a few jaws on the floor of the SEC enforcement division right about now :) It should get interesting.
No one said that the SEC charged GS with arson. “arson” was Sylvain R. Raynes metaphor from the original Gretchen Morgenson article on the abacus matter which was published in the NYTimes last December.
Do I agree with Raynes metaphor? Yes, it’s valid. I don’t know how easy it would be to prove in a court of law but GS and the other big banks, ratings agencies and mortgage originators… all have committed fraud. There should be a RICO suit against these folks.
Massively over leveraging, building up a bubble which is bound to come crashing down…. isn’t that a method of causing mortgage defaults? These people MADE a market for bad mortgages. And they were working on a macro scale, not going house to house.
Is that a realistic comparision? Likening an instrament which GS themselves crafted to a corporate stock which GS wouldn’t have inside information on?
Well, GS only took on these deals because they knew they had an IN at Treasury so they would be made whole when AIG couldn’t pay off on the wager (and GS was well aware that AIG would never be able to pay off). They made money as insiders in Paulson’s hedge fund, and they had no downside risk because of Bernanke/Geithner/Henry Paulson. They were the House, and they were also sitting at the table.
GOLDMAN STING PART IV:
http://williambanzai7.blogspot.com/2010/04/goldman-sting-iv.html