不那么久以前，高盛(Goldman Sachs)首席执行官劳埃德・布兰克费恩(Lloyd Blankfein)有失谨慎地评述道，高盛在做上帝的工作。显然，美国证交会(SEC)对这家投行业务的看法没有那么乐观。
美国监管机构对高盛提起的诉讼会让其身败名裂。诉状称，就在2007年次贷泡沫破裂之前，该银行与对冲基金经理约翰・保尔森(John Paulson)合作，营销某些次级抵押贷款相关证券。当时高盛并未告诉买家，他们在购买由保尔森亲自挑选的贷款的一部分权益，而保尔森本人对次贷市场的看法非常悲观。换句话说，保尔森挑选这些贷款，是因为它们有很高的违约可能性。
买家也没有被告知，保尔森策划这宗交易的目的，就是做空他们正要做出的投资。这宗交易最终让他赚得约10亿美元利润，而买家的投资亏了本。
的确，从相关证据看，高盛的角色极不光彩。为吸引最终投资者，该银行劝说独立信贷顾问公司ACA Management让这宗交易使用其名称。ACA同意这么做，但该公司当时从高盛得到的理解是，保尔森将做多这些证券。事实并非如此。如果ACA未曾介入这一交易，投资者也许不会购买这些证券。更糟糕的是，如今是苏格兰皇家银行(RBS)子公司的荷兰银行(ABN Amro)当时承保了相当大部分发行的证券。当交易亏本时，荷兰银行不得不支付8.41亿美元，这很难让高盛与如今拥有RBS多数股份的英国政府搞好关系。
如果这些指控是正确的，美国证交会应当严惩高盛。该银行否认了诉状指控内容。但这些指控将留下负面影响。证交会诉状中引述的高盛银行家之间的交谈内容，足以彻底打消这样一个念头，即证券公司只是单纯的中介和做市商。
但此事不仅关系到一家银行的声誉。它将证实许多投资者的看法，即华尔街在操纵游戏。据称，其它银行也做了类似的交易。此前保尔森一直被视为英雄人物之一。毕竟，他为自己的投资者赚得大约150亿美元，这些投资者支持他的直觉，认为次贷市场将要出问题。在媒体的人物介绍中，他一直是受到尊敬的对象。但是，获利于别人的判断失误是一回事（如果他们本来就在犯错的话），可任何有关他用狡诈手法获利的说法，都将损害他的形象。
高盛近期在其年报中表示，公共关系是其业务面对的一项关键风险。这话说得颇有先见之明。美国证交会的起诉已使该银行的声誉面临风险。
译者/和风
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001032254
Not so long ago, Lloyd Blankfein incautiously observed that Goldman Sachs did God's work. The Securities and Exchange Commission takes a dimmer view of the investment bank's activities.
The case the US regulator has brought against Goldman is damning. It alleges that just before the subprime bubble burst in 2007, the bank worked with a hedge fund manager, John Paulson, to market certain subprime mortgage-related securities. Goldman did not tell the purchasers that they were buying an interest in loans hand-picked by Mr Paulson, who took a very bearish view of the subprime market. Or that he had chosen them for their high likelihood of default.
The buyers were also not informed that Mr Paulson's purpose in structuring the deal was to take a short position against the investments they were making. This trade ultimately netted him roughly $1bn in profits, while the buyers lost their investment.
Indeed the evidence paints Goldman's role in an excruciating light. To entice in end investors, the bank persuaded an independent credit adviser, ACA Management, to lend its name to the transaction. ACA did so on an understanding it obtained from Goldman that Mr Paulson was to take a long position in the securities. This was not the case. Had ACA not been involved in the trade, investors might not have purchased the securities. What is worse, ABN Amro, now a subsidiary of Royal Bank of Scotland, then insured much of the issued securities. That ABN Amro had to pay $841m when the deal went bad can hardly make for good relations between Goldman and the UK government, which owns most of RBS.
If the allegations are correct, the SEC should throw the book at Goldman. The bank rejects the complaint. But the charges will leave a sour taste. The exchanges between Goldman bankers recounted in the SEC complaint are more than sufficient to blow a hole in what remains of the idea that securities firms are pure intermediaries and market makers.
But there is more than just one bank's reputation at stake. This will confirm many investors in their view that Wall Street operates a rigged game. It is suggested that other banks did similar trades. Mr Paulson has until now been seen as one of the heroes. After all, he made about $15bn for his investors backing his hunch that the subprime market would crack. He has been the subject of admiring profiles in the media. But while it is one thing to profit from others' misjudgments if they are making them anyway, any suggestion that he profited in an underhand way will tarnish him.
Goldman recently said in its annual report that public relations were a critical risk to its business. Those words were prescient. The SEC's complaint has put the bank's reputation on the line.
没有评论:
发表评论