p******o
发帖数: 9007 | 1 Although Paulson is deeply involved in the deal, neither party wanna get
hime involved in the case. Understandable that GS does not want to annoy a
big client, but why prosecution stops short too? | a***x
发帖数: 26368 | 2 这，你得看下法律条文在来问这样的问题。。。。。
【在 p******o 的大作中提到】
: Although Paulson is deeply involved in the deal, neither party wanna get
: hime involved in the case. Understandable that GS does not want to annoy a
: big client, but why prosecution stops short too?
| p******o
发帖数: 9007 | 3 Of course, I even saw the accusation file from SEC.Did you read the news
this morning neither side would introduce Paulson into the case as ---
WITNESS.
【在 a***x 的大作中提到】
: 这，你得看下法律条文在来问这样的问题。。。。。
| a***x
发帖数: 26368 | 4 这，看来你得继续学习鸟。。。。。
【在 p******o 的大作中提到】
: Of course, I even saw the accusation file from SEC.Did you read the news
: this morning neither side would introduce Paulson into the case as ---
: WITNESS.
| p******o
发帖数: 9007 | 5 有话就直说，最烦这种打哑谜的。
【在 a***x 的大作中提到】
: 这，看来你得继续学习鸟。。。。。
| z***e
发帖数: 1757 | 6 What additional evidence either side can gain from Paulson's testimony? It's
well documented and established that he bet short on that deal. The
question of this trial is whether Mr. Fabulous Fab misrepresented to the
other side about Paulson's role in the deal.
By the way, did GS bet short on this deal as well?
【在 p******o 的大作中提到】
: Although Paulson is deeply involved in the deal, neither party wanna get
: hime involved in the case. Understandable that GS does not want to annoy a
: big client, but why prosecution stops short too?
| p******o
发帖数: 9007 | 7 What I remember is that Paulson and ACA picked the underlyings together. So
did Paulson play a role misleading ACA as well, or did Paulson mislead Fab
too? Synthetic CDO requires a long and a short, so if ACA was lead to think
Paulson is long, wasn't ACA curious to know who else is on the shorting side
, because it said it thought two longs pick the deals?
Remember, ACA is a very sophisticated player as well, it was an affiliate of
BS, and the manager of this deal was a veteran MD from ML.
's
【在 z***e 的大作中提到】
: What additional evidence either side can gain from Paulson's testimony? It's
: well documented and established that he bet short on that deal. The
: question of this trial is whether Mr. Fabulous Fab misrepresented to the
: other side about Paulson's role in the deal.
: By the way, did GS bet short on this deal as well?
| z***e
发帖数: 1757 | 8 Paulson has no duties or obligations to ACA (or, at the minimum, not as much
as GS has), which is why the government did not go after Paulson. It would
be much easier to go after GS as GS clearly has a duty to its client or
prospective investors. Not sure how many meeting both ACA and Paulson are
present.
I am curious as well with respect to what ACA was thinking regarding who is
on the other side of the deal. To be honest, I am not convinced that this
should be the headline case for the financial crisis at all.
So
think
side
of
【在 p******o 的大作中提到】
: What I remember is that Paulson and ACA picked the underlyings together. So
: did Paulson play a role misleading ACA as well, or did Paulson mislead Fab
: too? Synthetic CDO requires a long and a short, so if ACA was lead to think
: Paulson is long, wasn't ACA curious to know who else is on the shorting side
: , because it said it thought two longs pick the deals?
: Remember, ACA is a very sophisticated player as well, it was an affiliate of
: BS, and the manager of this deal was a veteran MD from ML.
:
: 's
| p******o
发帖数: 9007 | 9 Paulson has no obligation to disclose to ACA, true. But when he sit along
with ACA to pick those deal one by one, what is his role, did ACA ever ask
one question. Although they can talk about those deal only and maybe weather
, golf and kids, but I would feel very puzzled that ACA did not ask Paulson
what he was doing there, because after all Paulson is a HF guy, not a broker.
much
would
is
【在 z***e 的大作中提到】
: Paulson has no duties or obligations to ACA (or, at the minimum, not as much
: as GS has), which is why the government did not go after Paulson. It would
: be much easier to go after GS as GS clearly has a duty to its client or
: prospective investors. Not sure how many meeting both ACA and Paulson are
: present.
: I am curious as well with respect to what ACA was thinking regarding who is
: on the other side of the deal. To be honest, I am not convinced that this
: should be the headline case for the financial crisis at all.
:
: So
| a***r
发帖数: 594 | 10 It is very hard to infer the exact positions Paulson took from the news or
even the court docs. But it feels to me that Goldman did what a broker did.
no more no less.
Paulson wanted to short a portfolio, so he created one and asked GS to make
a trade. GS of cource did not want to be the long end of the this deal so
they try to off load.
However, given the size of the trade, GS could NOT find any one to take the
whole long side of the trade. So they tranched it. They engineered the 10-
100 tranche which could be easily AAA rated at that time. This AAA thing
could be market to a very wild range of investors so was much easier to off
load.
This left GS with the 0-10 tranche. Paulson could very well be long in the 0
-10 as Frabrice indicated, effectively shorting the 10-100 tranche. He would
take the limited first loss hit, but we all know the senior tranches got
eroded badly eventually which to Paulson was pure profit.
For GS, they are long on one hand and short on the other, perfectly
statically hedged. Charged Paulson a spread and called it a day.
These are pure speculations on my part. Any insider to comment on the
actually positions taken be various parties?
【在 p******o 的大作中提到】
: Although Paulson is deeply involved in the deal, neither party wanna get
: hime involved in the case. Understandable that GS does not want to annoy a
: big client, but why prosecution stops short too?
| | | p******o
发帖数: 9007 | 11 What you said makes sense too. Long equity and short mezzanine and even
senior tranches is a well recognized strategy.So when GS/Fab told ACA
Paulson long the deal (the wording can be he is long some tranches), they
are not telling a complete lie.
.
make
the
off
【在 a***r 的大作中提到】
: It is very hard to infer the exact positions Paulson took from the news or
: even the court docs. But it feels to me that Goldman did what a broker did.
: no more no less.
: Paulson wanted to short a portfolio, so he created one and asked GS to make
: a trade. GS of cource did not want to be the long end of the this deal so
: they try to off load.
: However, given the size of the trade, GS could NOT find any one to take the
: whole long side of the trade. So they tranched it. They engineered the 10-
: 100 tranche which could be easily AAA rated at that time. This AAA thing
: could be market to a very wild range of investors so was much easier to off
| z***e
发帖数: 1757 | 12 Paulson would be neutral on 0-10 tranches, right? In other words,the whole
deal could be just 10-100 tranches in this example, right?
【在 p******o 的大作中提到】
: What you said makes sense too. Long equity and short mezzanine and even
: senior tranches is a well recognized strategy.So when GS/Fab told ACA
: Paulson long the deal (the wording can be he is long some tranches), they
: are not telling a complete lie.
:
: .
: make
: the
: off
| p******o
发帖数: 9007 | 13 Are you sure you understand what I was talking about?
【在 z***e 的大作中提到】
: Paulson would be neutral on 0-10 tranches, right? In other words,the whole
: deal could be just 10-100 tranches in this example, right?
| z***e
发帖数: 1757 | 14 if Paulson is long on 0-10, who is short on it? If Paulso is short on the
whole 0-100, then wouldn't he be effectively neutral on 0-10, so the whole
deal is only about 10-100?
【在 p******o 的大作中提到】
: Are you sure you understand what I was talking about?
| p******o
发帖数: 9007 | 15 He can long equity tranches, and short any of senior/junior/mezzanine
tranches. Or he can pick any combinations he wants, and leave the rest
tranches either to ACA or GS. So he can both long and short tranches of this
deal.
【在 z***e 的大作中提到】
: if Paulson is long on 0-10, who is short on it? If Paulso is short on the
: whole 0-100, then wouldn't he be effectively neutral on 0-10, so the whole
: deal is only about 10-100?
| z***e
发帖数: 1757 | 16 how is that different from what I said?
this
【在 p******o 的大作中提到】
: He can long equity tranches, and short any of senior/junior/mezzanine
: tranches. Or he can pick any combinations he wants, and leave the rest
: tranches either to ACA or GS. So he can both long and short tranches of this
: deal.
| a***r
发帖数: 594 | 17 what I speculated was that Paulson wanted to find some one to take the other
end of a short bet, and the bigger the size the merrier. Unfortunately, no
one with half a brain wanted to do that with him.
GS managed to engineer the standard trick for him at that time. That is to
create a senior tranche that is AAA rated, we all know how easy it was after
tweaking the subordinations a bit and throw in a few triggers. This AAA
piece of shit can be marketed to a broader range of (i.e. dumber) investors,
and there you go.
technically, whether someone took any position in the 0-100 basket had
nothing to do with the ABACUS deal. So namely, purely technically, it could
be very true that Paulson did buy the equity tranche in ABACUS but in
reality he was pure short on 10-100 or whatever.
In any case, I don't think ACA allegation has any merrit. It was a SYNTHETIC
CDO, so if they were long, someone must have been short. For all they knew,
GS would be holding the short side.
I see maybe 2 issues for GS. #1, it could be that GS approached ACA in this
deal. #2, Paulson's presence in basket selection led ACA to believe they
were betting against GS together, which in itself should be irrelevant. Who
is in the deal does not change the technicals on the deal. For them to
complain about Paulson's role is like they admit they were complete
ammurtures.
【在 z***e 的大作中提到】
: if Paulson is long on 0-10, who is short on it? If Paulso is short on the
: whole 0-100, then wouldn't he be effectively neutral on 0-10, so the whole
: deal is only about 10-100?
| z***e
发帖数: 1757 | 18 agree. now these investors need to give "big boy" rep before entering into a
deal.
other
no
after
investors,
could
【在 a***r 的大作中提到】
: what I speculated was that Paulson wanted to find some one to take the other
: end of a short bet, and the bigger the size the merrier. Unfortunately, no
: one with half a brain wanted to do that with him.
: GS managed to engineer the standard trick for him at that time. That is to
: create a senior tranche that is AAA rated, we all know how easy it was after
: tweaking the subordinations a bit and throw in a few triggers. This AAA
: piece of shit can be marketed to a broader range of (i.e. dumber) investors,
: and there you go.
: technically, whether someone took any position in the 0-100 basket had
: nothing to do with the ABACUS deal. So namely, purely technically, it could
| z***e
发帖数: 1757 | 19 the jury is in. found liable on six counts. |
|
