{"id":185616,"date":"2014-09-29T20:37:00","date_gmt":"2014-09-30T01:37:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2014\/09\/29\/for-the-past-two-decades-or-so-not-having-a-substantive-conflict-of-interest-policy-has-been-goldmans-business-model\/"},"modified":"2014-09-29T20:37:00","modified_gmt":"2014-09-30T01:37:00","slug":"for-the-past-two-decades-or-so-not-having-a-substantive-conflict-of-interest-policy-has-been-goldmans-business-model","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2014\/09\/29\/for-the-past-two-decades-or-so-not-having-a-substantive-conflict-of-interest-policy-has-been-goldmans-business-model\/","title":{"rendered":"For the Past two Decades or so, not Having a Substantive Conflict of Interest Policy has been Goldman\u2019s Business Model"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In looking at the recent <a href=\"http:\/\/www.propublica.org\/article\/carmen-segarras-secret-recordings-from-inside-new-york-fed\"><i>ProPublica<\/i><\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.thisamericanlife.org\/radio-archives\/episode\/536\/the-secret-recordings-of-carmen-segarra\"><i>This American Life<\/i><\/a> coverage of the capture of the Federal Reserve regulators by the Vampire Squid (Goldman Sachs) it&#8217;s important to note that they miss a basic point, which is that, as <br \/><a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.hbr.org\/2014\/09\/why-the-fed-is-so-wimpy\/\">Justin Fox so ably points out in the <i>Harvard Business Review<\/i><\/a>, Goldman Sachs has been using conflicts of interest as a mechanism to generate much, if not most of their profits.<\/p>\n<p>I recommend that you read the <i>ProPublica<\/i> story, and then listen to the <i>This American Life<\/i> podcast, but Mr. Fox does make a legitimate complaint about the coverage.<\/p>\n<p>Specifically one of the big reveals is that a Goldman executive said that consumer protection laws do not apply to rich clients.<\/p>\n<p>This is in fact true under US law:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">In the first, Carmen Segarra, the former Fed bank examiner who made the  tapes, tells of a Goldman Sachs executive saying in a meeting that \u201conce  clients were wealthy enough, certain consumer laws didn\u2019t apply to  them.\u201d&nbsp; Far from being a shocking admission, this is actually a pretty  fair summary of American securities law. According to the Securities and  Exchange Commission\u2019s \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/www.sec.gov\/answers\/accred.htm\">accredited investor<\/a>\u201d  guidelines, an individual with a net worth of more than $1 million or  an income of more than $200,000 is exempt from many of the  investor-protection rules that apply to people with less money. That\u2019s  why rich people can invest in hedge funds while, for the most part,  regular folks can\u2019t. Maybe there were some incriminating details behind  the Goldman executive\u2019s statement that alarmed Segarra and were left out  of the story, but on the face of it there\u2019s nothing to see here.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The theory here is that the very rich, by virtue of having a lot of money, are assumed to be knowledgeable investors, and so are more able to protect themselves.<\/p>\n<p>Simply put, they are saying that they are not the general public, because they either have, or can hire, financial knowledge.<\/p>\n<p>In highlighting this, they underplay the 2<sup>nd<\/sup> reveal of the story, and what is clearly the reason for Ms. Segarra&#8217;s unjustified termination, the fact that Goldman Sachs never had a meaningful conflict of interest policy:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">The other smoking gun is that Segarra pushed for a tough Fed line on  Goldman\u2019s lack of a substantive conflict of interest policy, and was  rebuffed by her boss. This <i>is<\/i> a big deal, and for much more  than the legal\/compliance reasons discussed in the piece. <b><span style=\"font-size: 120%; font-variant: small-caps;\">That\u2019s  because, for the past two decades or so, not having a substantive  conflict of interest policy has been Goldman\u2019s business model<\/span><\/b>.  Representing both sides in mergers, betting alongside and against  clients, and exploiting its informational edge wherever possible <a href=\"http:\/\/archive.fortune.com\/magazines\/fortune\/fortune_archive\/2005\/05\/16\/8260146\/index.htm\">is simply how the firm makes its money<\/a>. Forcing it to sharply reduce these conflicts would be potentially devastating.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(<i>emphasis mine<\/i>)<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Fox makes another interesting point, that any organization that is responsible for the stability and the viability of the banks, such as the Federal Reserve, have an inherent interest in ensuring that those organizations are profitable, because profitable banks are more stable than unprofitable.<\/p>\n<p>Carmen Segarra, in pushing for Goldman having a conflict of interest policy, was attacking the attacking the viability of a bank.<\/p>\n<p>This raises a larger question, whether we really <b>want<\/b> to have an organization for which has unethical behavior at the core of both its culture and profits to remain viable.<\/p>\n<p>This was the question that no one has asked about Wall Street in general, and Goldman Sachs in particular.<\/p>\n<p>It needs to be asked.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In looking at the recent ProPublica and This American Life coverage of the capture of the Federal Reserve regulators by the Vampire Squid (Goldman Sachs) it&#8217;s important to note that they miss a basic point, which is that, as Justin Fox so ably points out in the Harvard Business Review, Goldman Sachs has been using &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1005,970,1092,969,1004,985],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-business","category-corruption","category-culture","category-evil","category-finance","category-regulation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185616"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185616\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}