Showing posts with label Goldman Sachs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Goldman Sachs. Show all posts

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Think Before You Double Down on an Investment

A new heart attack is available at KFC! The Double Down features two pieces of fried chicken, bacon, an indistinguishable mixture of cheese, and an unidentifiable sauce to now bring you a sandwich as close to toxic as the American fast food business has ever been. Unfortunately KFC neglected to complement the Double Down with a side of Lipitor. Nonetheless, don’t expect the Double Down to be a big hit at Goldman Sachs.

Like KFC, Goldman is in the business of selling cutting-edge poisonous products – not purchasing them – all to add a few extra zeros to the bottom line. Fortune Magazine reported that Goldman raked in mere $1 billion in fees from its sale of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) last year, which pales in comparison to its $12 billion in profit for the year. Rather than including a disclosure of the true risk behind these securities, Goldman went ahead and sold them with a Triple-A rating. I hate when they forget to put the toy in with the Happy Meal.

While Goldman was wrong for not fully disclosing the true risk behind the CDOs, the financial giant is not in the wrong for having put them on the market. As it should, the SEC has filed charges of fraud against Goldman, which, however, should not to be confused with charges against Goldman for the actual sale of CDOs and other now-worthless mortgage-backed securities. Creating a product that people want and selling it to them – so long as they know what they are getting themselves into – is perfectly acceptable, and it falls on the individual to make informed consumption decisions.

Take the tobacco industry for example. In the past, consumers were buying cigarettes under the false understanding that cigarettes had no long term health effects. When it came to light that cigarettes were in fact dangerous and caused cancer, Big Tobacco faced class action lawsuits and multibillion dollar settlements due to its inadequate disclosure of the health risks of smoking cigarettes. In a very similar fashion to that of Big Tobacco, Goldman now faces a lawsuit for its own misleading statements and marketing materials regarding the financial risk of investing in CDOs.

Although it may be considered unethical, Goldman cannot be blamed for the actual selling of CDOs and other mortgage-backed securities. Like the fast-food and tobacco products, financial investment products carry a certain level of risk, and consumers electing to purchase the product assume the attached risk. Although firms may be frowned upon for selling the above-mentioned products, it is ultimately the choice of the consumer to make the purchase. Without buyers, there would be no sellers, and businesses cannot be blamed for making a product that consumers want to buy.

Had Goldman provided truthful and accurate information as to the true risk of the financial products it was selling, it would not be in the wrong and very likely not facing any charges from the SEC. Just as cigarettes may give you lung cancer and fast food may cause you to gain weight, financial investment products may cause you to lose money. So long as the customers are fully aware of any and all risk associated with their purchasing and consumption decisions, transactions involving these types of products are completely allowable.

It is the function of businesses in an economy to provide a wide variety of goods and services, and consumers ultimately must make informed purchase decisions for themselves. Others can always be blamed for incorrect or poor decisions, but at the end of the day, it is the individual who gives the final stamp of approval. Although investors are right in pointing fingers at companies like Goldman in this situation, it is important to remember to be very careful going forward. Read the side of the cigarette carton, read the nutrition facts before going through the drive-thru, and thoroughly research before making investment decisions.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

The Man for the Job

CIT Group hired ex-Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain earlier this week, marking Thain’s first return to work after resigning from Merrill in January of 2009. CIT, a commercial lender to small and midsize businesses, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November of last year and anticipates Thain will restore investor confidence about future expectations for the firm as it emerges from bankruptcy. Thain, on the other hand, is marred by his controversial exit from Merrill involving questionably high bonuses and mounting investment banking losses. Critics cite these controversies in arguing Thain was a poor choice to head CIT; however, Thain’s education, work experience, and desire to restore his legacy make him the ideal CEO.

In selecting a company head, the most important factor in the decision-making process is arguably education and work experience. Firms ideally want a leader from an excellent educational institution – preferably the Ivy League – and that leader should also have vast, relevant work experience. Strong performance at an elite school indicates the candidate is intelligent and possesses a strong capability to learn. Work experience shows that the candidate has gained a wealth of industry and product expertise, and he or she has been exposed to a wide variety of company situations and market scenarios. Additionally, the candidate will be able to fix and prevent problems, as well as recognize and expand upon opportunities. Thain has a bachelor’s degree from MIT and a Harvard MBA, and in terms of work experience, Thain was president and COO of Goldman Sachs, CEO of the New York Stock Exchange, and CEO of Merrill Lynch. That kind of a resume speaks for itself – Thain’s work experience coupled with his strong academic credentials prepares him well for the job.

CEOs tend to have big egos, which is unfortunate in most cases as CEOs have made extremely risky business decisions and made high or illegal demands for compensation. However, Thain’s ego is actually a good thing in this situation, because he needs to restore his legacy after it was tarnished during his final days at Merrill Lynch. Thain rose to the top of Goldman Sachs, one of the most elite and prestigious financial firms on The Street, later leaving fortune for fame as he took the helm of the New York Stock Exchange. Following the money, Thain left to be the CEO of Merrill Lynch, and after earning $84 million in 2007, he was at the peak of his career. Merrill suddenly began accumulating massive losses due to investments in mortgage-backed securities and other risky assets. In preventing an almost certain bankruptcy, Thain negotiated the sale of Merrill to Bank of America, and because he believe he “saved” the company, he requested a $40 million dollar bonus. Public and governmental scrutiny obviously fell upon this request, which he lowered to $10 million, then to $0, and now he has been quoted in interviews as saying he never requested a bonus at all. He resigned from Merrill, and his legacy as it stands is the greedy CEO who took down Merrill. He, nor any other CEO wants to be remembered that way. With this in mind, Thain will take over at CIT, wanting to be remembered as the man who saved CIT.

At the surface, it may not appear to be a wise decision to hire a greedy CEO who has run the largest multibillion dollar financial corporations to now lead a somewhat smaller CIT, but as mentioned above, his past experience and need to repair his image make him a perfect candidate. The market shares this sentiment – CIT shares rose 3.5% after the announcement was made.