You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.

The Goldman VaR Exemption Question Escalates

Tyler Durden's picture




It seems only yesterday that Zero Hedge had some questions in regard to Goldman's VaR Fed exemption. No response was received from 85 Broad. Today it appears several Congressmen, lead by Alan Grayson, are willing to drive a sharp stick pretty deep into the hornets' nest, by sending a letter directly to Wall Street Don Ben Bernanke, demanding an explanation exactly to the question of Goldman's VaR Exemption.

Among the reasons provided as casue for potential alarm are the following:

1) In the letter granting a regulatory exemption to Goldman Sachs, you stated that the SEC-approved VaR models it is now using are sufficiently conservative for the transition period to bank holding company. Please justify this statement.

2) If Goldman Sachs were required to adhere to standard Market Risk Rules imposed by the Federal Reserve on ordinary bank holding companies, how would its capital requirements differ from the current regulatory regime?

3) What is the difference in exposure to the taxpayer between these two regulatory regimes?

4) What is the difference in total risk to the portfolio between these two regulatory regimes?

5) Goldman Sachs stated that “As of June 26, 2009, total capital was $254.05 billion, consisting of $62.81 billion in total shareholders’ equity (common shareholders’ equity of $55.86 billion and preferred stock of $6.96 billion) and $191.24 billion in unsecured long-term borrowings.” As a percentage of capital, that’s a lot of long-term unsecured debt. Is any of this coming from the Government? In this last quarter, how much capital has Goldman Sachs received from the Federal Reserve and other government facilities such as FDIC-guaranteed debt, either directly or indirectly?

6) Many risk-management experts, most notably best-selling author Nassim Taleb, note that VaR models can dramatically understate risk. What is your overall view of Taleb’s argument, and of the utility of Value-at-Risk models as regulatory tools?

Zero Hedge had a rather comparable battery of questions, and believes it would be in the general interest of whatever remains of the general investing public, the one that for some reason or another still has not lost all faith in a fair and efficient marketplace, compliments of several major monopolists who have usurped exchanges and ECN as their personal taxpayer and speculator funded piggy banks.

 




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 14:27 | Link to Comment ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

Let's end the charade - GS is a giant hedge fund wrapped in a BHC shell.

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 14:32 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

Considering this request in the context of the current pressure on the Fed via HR1207 makes it doubly interesting.  The Congressmen are almost daring Bernanke to say "none of your business."

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 14:36 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 14:47 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:14 | Link to Comment aldousd
aldousd's picture

You're right! Fuck it, lets all go home! Six-Packs and Letterman tonight at my house!

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 14:49 | Link to Comment zeropointfield (not verified)
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:59 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 19:27 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 14:52 | Link to Comment Gabriel Gray
Gabriel Gray's picture

I gotta hand it to Grayson, the guy is relentless. I would advise him not to take any flights that may accidentally cross into Russian airspace.

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 18:46 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 19:47 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 14:56 | Link to Comment DebtorShredder
DebtorShredder's picture

What if China started diversifying out of Treasuries, but wanted to buy companies via hostile takeovers?

Could they?

Maybe Goldman is in charge of making sure that stock prices are inflated, as a defense.

 

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:09 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 16:28 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 17:11 | Link to Comment aldousd
aldousd's picture

Sounds like a good novel, sure, but wouldn't that be just as likely as any other story one might concoct? I mean,you could make stuff up all kinds of ways like that... China seems like it's one of a few that make a list worthy of discussion in that respect, but without any evidence it's still just a dart thrown in the dark, even though there are only a few spots on the board, how would you know it's the bullseye?

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 17:19 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Wed, 07/29/2009 - 00:23 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 14:56 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:00 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 22:18 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:07 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:13 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:10 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:10 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:13 | Link to Comment Cursive
Cursive's picture

Seriously, it's like GS is run by the Duke brothers from Trading Places.  The arrogance of GS is legendary.  It won't be Dan Ackroyd or Eddie Murphy, but somebody is going to take these bastards down the hard way.

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:20 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 16:29 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 19:31 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:15 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:16 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:17 | Link to Comment mmlevine
mmlevine's picture

If he doesn't respond, what happens?  Who gets the next letter?

There is no where left to go.

 

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:17 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:33 | Link to Comment Miles Kendig
Miles Kendig's picture

Congress?  The Fed don't need no stinking congress!

 

 

 

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 15:44 | Link to Comment Moe Speeks
Moe Speeks's picture

what a shambles our country has become, a disgrace to the american people.

the simple fact of the matter is that Goldman Sachs runs the United States now.

 

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 16:31 | Link to Comment rapier
rapier's picture

Risk? What risk? GS doesn't have any stinking risk. Wake up, smell the coffee.

Mon, 07/27/2009 - 17:34 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 07/28/2009 - 02:01 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 07/28/2009 - 02:50 | Link to Comment ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

in case you missed it.

 

http://nymag.com/news/business/58094/

Tue, 07/28/2009 - 22:14 | Link to Comment mcnetgb
mcnetgb's picture

Fantastic graph in the OCC report  (here :graph 5a

http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-72a.pdf

 

GS credit exposure to risk based capital is 1, 048%

Avg credit exposure to risk based capital for the other 4 of 5 largest US banks 236.8%

 

Since var is a variable in the capital requirement, this provides a nice graphic of one the benefits enjoyed by GS. Its a sweet deal to take 3X more risk than your competitors while enjoying a free gov't backstop for it. I say calculate the cost of the benefit (Cost of Capital X Capital shortfall relative to peers), reserve it from earnings, and deduct it from the bonus pool.  At a minimum this should be retained as capital at the firm.

 

Fri, 08/07/2009 - 18:37 | Link to Comment mcnetgb
mcnetgb's picture

While you're waiting for a response from the Fed the 10Q provides some insight into item 2 in the exemption request you posted the other day

GSGI has requested that (1) through December 31, 2009, GSGI and Bank be permitted to use certain Value-at-Risk ("VaR") models approved by the SEC... to determine their capital requirements for specific risk under the Market Risk Rules; (2) through December 31, 2009, GSGI and Bank be permitted to use methods approved by the SEC to determine their capital requirements under the Market Risk Rules for those trading assets, including distressed debt and restricted stock investments that the SEC did not require to be included in the VaR-based models of GSGI and Bank; and (3) GSGI be allowed to use methods approved by the SEC to calculate risk-based capital requirements for its nonfinancial equity investments that are subject to the Board's Credit Risk Capital Rules


: P 124. 10Q

Market Risks NOT included in VAR

1.2 Billion (10% sensitivity- not sure what that means or how to make it comparable to Var)  

 

REPORTED VAR IS ONLY 220 Million, which does NOT include this 1.2 BILLION risk exposure

1.2B = 524m Debt Risk+ 617M Equity Risk

 

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!