I am still not understanding a certain strain of business-press culture that seems inclined to run interference for investment banks rather than investigate them.
This would not be my reflex in the aftermath of a multi-trillion-dollar meltdown, but then I may not be as sophisticated as some.
Conde Nast Portfolio this issue uncorks a puzzling two-part feature, “Conspiracy Theory, Exposed,” and “The Usual Suspects,” that purports, in an ironic tone, to debunk unfavorable rumors supposedly floating around Wall Street about Goldman Sachs Group, the fabled investment bank/welfare case.
The subheadline is:
Blankfein. Steel. Thain. Paulson. Kashkari. See a pattern? The Goldman Sachs “conspiracy” to take over the U.S. financial system.
Pretty funny, so far.
This passage gives you the flavor of where this is going:
Now, with Goldman emerging from the financial crisis battered but still on top, the Street is seeing something more insidiously silly: a bona fide Goldman conspiracy. “A lot of people think that they must have gotten where they are because of some unfair advantage,” hedge fund manager Bill Fleckenstein says. “Nobody likes to think that someone flat out beat ’em.”
Beat ‘em to what? The U.S. Treasury? And who is Fleckenstein, and why is quoted saying the same thing in both pieces?
“A lot of people think that they must have gotten where they are because of some unfair advantage,” hedge fund manager Bill Fleckenstein says.
Fleckenstein! We meet again!
The second piece lists eight rumors about Goldman, each more outlandish than the last. One rumor, for instance, is that Goldman engineered the collapse of Bear Stearns because it had held a “grudge” since Bear’s refusal to participate in the bailout of Long Term Capital in 1998. Another is that it saved Merrill Lynch out of concern for the reputation of Goldman alumnus and Merrill CEO John Thain. See if you can untangle this business-press sudoku:
The news: On the weekend that the government allowed Lehman to fail, Merrill Lynch, led by C.E.O. John Thain, sold itself to Bank of America for a tidy premium. Days later, the Britain-based bank Barclays agreed to buy Lehman’s core assets for pennies, wiping out Lehman’s shareholders.
The facts: Thain was a frequent adviser to Tim Geithner, who was then president of the New York Fed. Thain also worked as Goldman’s co-president under Paulson.
The conspiracy theory: To protect Thain’s sterling reputation (and Goldman’s too), Geithner and Paulson urged him to find a buyer immediately. If he hadn’t, Merrill would have followed Lehman Brothers into oblivion.
What is this, one wonders?
Here’s the alleged rumor about why New York Fed President Tim Geithner and Paulson bailed out Citigroup.
The conspiracy theory: Geithner and Paulson came to the rescue of their friend. The bailout preserved Rubin’s big gig—he made more than $62 million from 2004 to 2007—despite claims he championed some of Citi’s riskiest strategies.
These rumors are pure straw men, allegations so ridiculous they have the net effect of marginalizing any suspicion of Goldman and its influence. And yet, of course, there are legitimate questions to ask about Goldman, its officers, and its ex-officers now in government. A better use of resources would be to explore these, in my view. But no.
In this way, this piece resembles another recent cover story by Fortune, which implied that anyone who saw the possibility of criminal prosecutions resulting from the credit crisis was part of an “angry mob.”
Now, remember, in the case of Goldman, this is a firm whose employees, from CEO to janitor to pastry chef, averaged $500,000 a year, or better, each, for years, until compensation was tragically cut last year to barely above the poverty line, then ended up as the eighth-leading recipient of government aid, underwritten, one should hastened to point out, by a strapped middle class that hasn’t seen its incomes rise for eight years.