Felix Salmon, an Audit contributor, asked for an arbiter to look into the complaints of a writer named Sean Olender. Olender had e-mailed Salmon in May about a Market Mover blog Salmon wrote in 2007, attacking an opinion piece by Olender in the San Francisco Chronicle a few days before.
“I was certainly too bullish on lots of things back in 2007, so, if I was unfair to this chap I should probably say so,” Salmon wrote, asking whether he owed Olender an apology.
Over the past two years, I’ve served as The Arbiter for The Audit, looking into claims by businesses about whether they had been fairly covered by the financial press, so this job fell to me.
First, a disclaimer: Although Salmon and I both write for The Audit and have exchanged group e-mails about a project on which we are both working, we have never met nor even spoken. I’ve read Salmon and listened to him on the radio over the past couple of years, but that’s the extent of our relationship.
The crux of the dispute is an article that Olender wrote in December, 2007, expressing skepticism about something called the Master Liquidity Enhancement Conduit, or MLEC. Don’t remember it? Don’t feel bad. It was a short-lived idea that came and went in a matter of months during the chaos of the economy falling apart. And we don’t really need to examine it in much detail to address Olender’s complaint.
Olender e-mailed Salmon on May 18, 2011, with a subject line that said: “Still think that buying only ‘high quality loans’ was the purpose of the MLEC?”
He said, in part: “In retrospect you were quite a bull on mortgage securities and you believed that the investment banks did nothing wrong and the mortgage bonds were just peachy good stuff and only subprime was a problem.”
He went on to say:
Your article about my article was very mean and unprofessional. It’s one thing to have a problem with a person’s position, but it’s another to make a personal attack on a person you don’t know. That was a sign you have not been adequately trained as a journalist.
One reason this rankled Olender so many years later, he said, is that “my life is not defined by this single issue, but my Google search results have your insulting article calling me an insane person as the number two entry.”
He’s right. A Google search of his name does turn up Salmon’s attack as the second item. Olender is an attorney who manages a California law firm specializing in immigration and employment law and is an occasional writer.
And he is right, too, that Salmon owes him an apology. Let’s start with the language Salmon used in his critique, in which he discussed what he called “a grossly irresponsible opinion piece…..this incendiary and meretricious column.” He attacks Olender for suggesting that a mortgage-freeze plan was a fraud, aimed at protecting the banks from being sued by investors, and defends the banks as innocent middlemen, a view that has fallen apart in the investigations that followed the real estate collapse and the blow-up of mortgage investment vehicles that were so integral to creating the housing bubble.
Salmon wrote: “The real problem here is that Olender never makes the crucial distinction between subprime mortgage originators, on the one hand, most of whom were not banks at all, and the investment banks, on the other hand, who pooled and tranched and sold off the subprime mortgages to bond investors.” The originators were responsible for the fraudulent loans, he wrote. “The investment banks are just middlemen…”
And again: “But the investment banks were just the middlemen, funneling supbprime mortgages from originators to investors who were desperate or yield.” While we still don’t know the full story of who knew what about the quality of the investments that the banks were selling their customers, we know enough now—including the fact that Goldman Sachs was betting that the investments would fail at the same time it was still marketing them—to view the investment banks with a jaundiced eye.