Goldman hosed Basis for $100 million of Timberwolf, sent margin calls two weeks after that, and in two more weeks the fund was bankrupt.
The shadiness goes back further than 2007, of course. Wall Street provided the financing that was the lifeblood of predatory lenders like Ameriquest and Countrywide. In many cases, Wall Street was the predatory lender. Giant banks like Washington Mutual and Lehman Brothers cut out the middlemen, becoming one-stop shops of toxic slop. It’s hard to argue in the face of evidence from the likes of Clayton Holdings, that Wall Street didn’t know it was defrauding investors by repackaging fraudulent loans.
And Lehman, for one, had done it all before, in the 1990s:
The vice president, Eric Hibbert, wrote a memo describing First Alliance as a financial “sweat shop” specializing in “high pressure sales for people who are in a weak state.” At First Alliance, he said, employees leave their “ethics at the door.”
The big Wall Street investment bank decided First Alliance wasn’t breaking any laws. Lehman went on to lend the mortgage company roughly $500 million and helped sell more than $700 million in bonds backed by First Alliance customers’ loans. But First Alliance later collapsed. Lehman landed in court, where a federal jury found the firm helped First Alliance defraud customers.
But wait a minute: Why does this need to be explained to leading financial journalists?
Beyond all that, there’s another core problem that Lowenstein doesn’t take into account: When you have a system set up by and for people getting paid millions or tens of millions of dollars a year and that system goes catastrophically awry and destroys the lives of millions of people while costing taxpayers trillions of dollars—and the people who set it up and failed continue to be paid millions or tens of millions of dollars a year (which Lowenstein has, to his credit, railed against), the desire for scalps is going to be high. People want the folks on Wall Street to pay a price for their recklessness. We sense, and reporting has shown, that in an orgy of greed like the one we saw from 2005 to 2007, that lots of crimes were committed, particularly as the music stopped.
So recklessness and “unconscionable risk-taking” might not be illegal, and most of the actions taken by those in positions of power may have been technically legal, but that doesn’t mean finding other ways to penalize them for the unethical actions is a bad idea. We sent Al Capone away for tax evasion, after all. Why is it a bad thing if Dick Fuld gets shackled for something like Repo 105?
I’ll leave the last word to Andrew Ross Sorkin, of all people, who wrote this in December:
If the government spent half the time trying to ferret out fraud at major companies that it does tracking pump-and-dump schemes, we might have been able to stop the financial crisis, or at least we’d have a fighting chance at stopping the next one.
Now that’s courageous, at least for a financial journalist.

Lowenstein's analysis is so logically mangled as to be meaningless to any careful reader.
". . . that people who take big risks should be subject to a criminal investigation; that executives of large financial firms should be criminal suspects after a crash . . ."
But Taibbi and Nocera AREN'T saying this, which is why they bother to write articles detailing why and how they believe THIS crash involved criminal behavior. No one on God's green Earth that I've read says that criminal behavior is the sole cause behind every economic crash, or even behind this one.
Certainly the articles Lowenstein purports to analyze don't say that at all. Even Taibbi's article about Goldman's century-long bubble-riding doesn't make the claims Lowenstein attacks. I'm curious if Lowenstein has read these articles at all.
#1 Posted by Renee Dumas, CJR on Tue 17 May 2011 at 03:54 PM
Excuse me, Mr Lowenstein. There's something on your chin.
#2 Posted by Dan Tomkinson, CJR on Tue 17 May 2011 at 04:21 PM
Oh Jeez!...
Ryan's got his Black Helicopters in Whisper Mode again!
It isn’t just that prosecutors haven’t gone after the bigwigs of Wall Street, it’s that they haven’t even gone after the smaller fry.
Like WHOM, Ryan?... WHO is going unprosecuted? Who are these nefarious "proles" that will lead us to Mr. Big's Evil Lair? Names, please!...
Three pages of beating the same dead anti-capitalist horse from an "armchair prosecutor" with a "populist motive". (I wish I had come up with that one).
If you can provide an example of an actual crime that actually occurred by some actual criminals that is actually going unprosecuted... Please let me know... I'll drive down to my congressman's office today with pitchfork in hand.
But be careful... The last time you put a name to your conspiracy theory, you got your facts wrong and blew away the premise of your story in the process.
Until and unless you can come up with some "fact-thingies" to support your fervent credulity - some actual proof that the Vast Wall Street Conspiracy is anything more than a liberal crack dream, why not do the "journalism" thing instead of your "quixotic commie advocacy" thing?
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 18 May 2011 at 08:14 AM
Padikiller's ability to read an article containing abundant evidence of wrongdoing and then accuse the author of being a factless, Unserious Conspiracy Theorist, is nothing short of amazing.
The name of the "actual crime" you're looking for? Fraud. Keep defending it--it's very pro-capitalist, and I know how important that is to you. Adam Smith's bit about free markets requiring accurate information about prices to work? Not so much.
#4 Posted by TrevorM, CJR on Wed 18 May 2011 at 03:50 PM
Lowenstein is also Warren Buffett's biographer and an avowed shareholder in Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire invested in two financially troubled companies in 2008: Goldman Sachs and General Electric.
Lowenstein is conflicted here; he has financial and professional ties to one of the architects and premier advocates of government assistance to failed banks.
His word on this subject should be taken with a few pounds of salt.
#5 Posted by sunlight, CJR on Wed 18 May 2011 at 04:43 PM
Trevor...
I'm looking for actual "fact"... An actual person who committed an actual crime that an actual regulator or actual prosecutor is actually ignoring. And I'm not seeing such a thing.
What we have here are mere allegations of.. What?.... Fraud, you say?.. Where?... Where is someone lying to someone else to steal money?
Every car dealership in the world will offer double commissions to get rid of the dogs on the lot - this is how business works. We're not talking about "Wall Street" villains plying the alleys of Main Street with bundles of bad loans here. Instead we have savvy businesses talking up crappy loans and more savvy businesses buying them. But who got "deceived"?
Now, cooking the books is a different story and the people who do so should go to jail - But WHO are they, exactly? WHAT crimes are going unpunished? WHO is falling asleep at the switch?
Goldman Sachs may have cooked its books, but it also got hammered by the SEC for doing so and Andrew Cuomo has initiated a criminal investigation - the system is working in this case. No black helicopters here.
There are bad actors to be found on "Wall Street" (as there on Main Street) but there is hardly any pervasive accounting problem - and no evidence that I see that any particular crime is going unprosecuted. Witness Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, etc.
Ryan's insistence that "Wall Street" is getting away with crime is just kooky. WHO is "Wall Street"?
If he can show me an example of criminal activity that is going unpunished, I'm with him. Until then, he'll have to man the helicopters solo.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 18 May 2011 at 04:48 PM
As Ryan acknowledges, some acts of wrongdoing (like Goldman's) have been punished. Hammered is certainly not the word I would use. His larger point is that, based on the limited instances of wrongdoing we do have knowledge of, it's evident that more widespread wrongdoing probably occurred.
If you can read ProPublica's reporting on the crisis and think that the actions of the SEC and the Justice department have been sufficient, you're either blinkered or dishonest: http://www.propublica.org/series/the-wall-street-money-machine
#7 Posted by TrevorM, CJR on Wed 18 May 2011 at 06:44 PM
CJR is simply doing what it teaches its readers (and students) to do: conceal and sugar-coat the indefensible activities of the federal govt and its enablers at the Federal (sic) Reserve (sic) while blaming almost everything on allegedly laissez-faire markets and capitalists. After all, the world's most prolific monopolies of violence, power, and money could not succeed in their "good intentions," toward "democracy" and the "general welfare," without a PR army of "intellectuals."
#8 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 18 May 2011 at 07:58 PM