Posted by: Doug Henwood | May 4, 2009

More government by Goldman

Under a very wussy, New York Times-y headline, “New York Fed Chairman’s Ties to Goldman Raise Questions,” the Wall Street Journal reports that the chair of the New York Fed, Stephen Friedman, added to his already large stock position in Goldman Sachs, a firm he once headed. (Thanks, Paul Whalen, for the pointer.) Friedman’s purchase of the shares came after Goldman turned itself into a bank holding company, a transition that brought it under the direct supervision of the New York Fed. Earlier, of course, Goldman had gotten a $10 billion capital injection from Washington. But even before Goldman became a commercial bank, it had deep and intimate relations with the New York Fed, as does the rest of Wall Street.

Friedman, unsurprisingly, says there’s no conflict of interest. In a deep sense, he’s right: there’s a perfect harmony of interest between Goldman and the U.S. government.

Not that the New York Fed is exactly part of the U.S. government. The regional Feds are formally owned by the member banks in their districts, and their executives, while appointed by the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, aren’t subject to Senate confirmation. Yet they perform regulatory and other functions as if they were government agencies. 

Returning to the micro-level of personal ethics: Friedman’s holdings in Goldman were against Fed rules. He asked for, and got a waiver from the Fed to allow his holdings—and he added to his position while the waiver was being deliberated. According to the WSJ piece: “Because he was wasn’t [sic] allowed to own the stock he had, the Fed doesn’t consider his additional December purchase to be at odds with its rules at the time.” Beautiful.

[That “was wasn’t” is in the original. See Liza Featherstone’s piece on the new WSJ forthcoming in the Columbia Journalism Review, which takes the new Journal to task for axing its copy-editors.]

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Friedman, unsurprisingly, says there’s no conflict of interest. In a deep sense, he’s right: there’s a perfect harmony of interest between Goldman and the U.S. government.

    I agree completely. Here’s how I put it:

    Although I am happy to see Thomas Edsall and Maxine Waters scandalize Goldman-Sachs in this fashion, I must differentiate myself from their conspiracy-mongering. I doubt that Robert Rubin, Neel Kashkari or Mark Patterson have Goldman’s private interest in mind when they advise Obama to approve some plan that benefits their former employer. I take them at their word that they only have the country’s interest in mind for they most assuredly believe that-to paraphrase an old bromide-what’s good for Goldman-Sachs is good for America.

    full: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/working-at-goldman-sachs/

  2. What a pleasure, two bete noires in one shot: govt-bank collusion and the decline of proof-reading!

  3. It’s gone way beyond insulting the way these pricks don’t even make an attempt to put a veneer over their thievery…………

  4. Yep and the problem is even worse in Europe. The worst of it is that it seems the bigger loss that you made, the bigger bonus that you got. Total madness.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: