The Goldman Sachs Scandal
The Goldman Sachs Scandal
The Goldman Sachs Scandal
On April 16, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it was
suing Goldman Sachs and one of its employees. The SEC alleged that Goldman materially
misstated and omitted facts in disclosure documents for a synthetic CDO product it originated
called Abacus 2007-AC1. Goldman was paid a fee of approximately US$15 million for its
work in the deal. The allegation is that Goldman misrepresented to investors that an
independent selection agent, ACA, had reviewed the mortgage package underlying the credit
default obligations, and that Goldman failed to disclose to ACA that a hedge fund, Paulson &
Co., that sought to short the package, had helped select underlying mortgages for the package
against which it planned to bet.
Implement a personal trading policy within the firm. Make it clear to employees what
they can and what they can't do in relation to the trading of securities in their personal
accounts. Determine which employees are ‘'covered'' by the policy.
Create a restricted list of securities which employees are prevented from trading in.
This list should cover all securities with which the firm posses insider information or
which the firms portfolio is actively trading in.
Implement a trade-pre-clearance process within the firm. Make sure that all covered
employees obtain permission prior to placing a trade in a ‘covered' security.
Have ‘covered' employees submit a list of their accounts and the accounts of all direct
family and the accounts of individuals over whom they have discretionary authority.
Have each employee attest that this is a full list of their accounts.
Have all employees submit copies of their trade confirms and brokerage statements to
the compliance department on a monthly basis.
Disclosure of facts:
The case was also of disclosure of facts. In this case all the necessary facts must be
disclosed to the investors and the related parties as it was the duty of Goldman sachs
for which it has taken US$15 million. But on ethical ground goldman sachs has
proved to be very wrong .
A class of securities, created by the National Securities Market Improvement Act, that
enjoys federally imposed exemptions from state restrictions and regulations. Most stocks
trading in the U.S. are covered securities.
Recommendation:
In the above case it was not only the matter of the companies’ image or the legal issues
involved with it which would effect company`s postion but also on ethical ground it broke the
trust of the investors in terms of the trustworthy company in which they were investing their
money which was termed as world`s biggest investment bank. And even in the mind of the
general public they broke the trust.
In this case I would have studied the full case and if Goldman sachs was found guilty than on
ethical ground it was the prior duty of the company to compensate the investor, as there is no
shortage of funds to the company. As we go by the present status of the company the
company is generating high profits.
If they compensate their investors their public image as well as their company`s image will
be retained.
For future prospective a internal as well as outsider auditor committee must be formed so that
these type of scams of insider trading and misrepresentation of details to the dealing parties
can be avoided.