This whole tit-for-tat with Goldman and AIG is annoying as hell. The testimony from AIG is ridiculous, while the testimony from Goldman shows a very disciplined firm following the mark-to-market rules of the time.
To me the testimony went like this...
AIG: Goldman marked the assets too low.
Goldman: We followed the mark-to-market principal. We offered to sell AIG at the lower prices, but they did not purchase the assets.
AIG: We did not have a price mechanism for the assets until later that year, but we just knew they should be higher.
WTF?!? - when anyone is on a margin call, you know what happens, your broker sells your shit. They do not ask you permission or to renegotiate, they sell. Yet AIG thought it deserved something different?!?
Goldman was following their consistent conservative mark-to-market principals (and the mark-to-market LAW at the time), called AIG on the margin, AIG refused to pony up and even did not take the lower marked assets they perceived as being too low of price.
And somehow, again, its Goldman's fault?
I am getting really tired of watching the people who fucked up and over-extended themselves get off with out any punishment, yet the ones following the rules and managing risk get blamed. Sick of it.
Post a Comment