Quote from wareco:
Hmmm, I find it highly unlikely that the do-nothing SEC would bring charges against GS, of all people, unless they had a really good case.
Quote from LeeD:
It is clear that:
1) GS securitization department securitized subprime (and other) mortgages and advertised them as "low-risk";
2) GS prop trading was shorting these same mortgages big time.
What is not clear is if there was a breach of Chinese Wall, namely whether the "securitization" people knew that prop trading was shorting in big size and prop trading knew there was still demand for such paper (from securitization people).
That's when 2 bankers meet a canteen:Quote from omegapoint:
Chinese Wall. Yea, I trust that. Its like a congressman telling an interviewer, "that golf trip to Pebble Beach that my patrons paid the private airfare and hotel accommations for has no effect on
how I vote!" But, wasn't it the ratings agencies that stamped those sec. low risk?
Quote from LeeD:
It is clear that:
1) GS securitization department securitized subprime (and other) mortgages and advertised them as "low-risk";
2) GS prop trading was shorting these same mortgages big time.
What is not clear is if there was a breach of Chinese Wall, namely whether the "securitization" people knew that prop trading was shorting in big size and prop trading knew there was still demand for such paper (from securitization people).