Here We Go Again: Goldman Subpoenaed

Tyler Durden's picture

2010. All over again:

  • GOLDMAN SACHS SAID TO GET SUBPOENA FROM MANHATTAN PROSECUTOR
  • VANCE SAID TO SUBPOENA GOLDMAN SACHS OVER LEVIN PANEL REPORT

From Bloomberg:

“We don’t comment on specific regulatory or legal issues,
but subpoenas are a normal part of the information request
process and, of course, when we receive them we cooperate
fully,” said David Wells, a company spokesman.

The request relates to the U.S. Senate’s Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations report on Wall Street’s role in
the housing market collapse, which accused New York-based
Goldman Sachs of misleading buyers of mortgage-linked
investments, the people said. That report was referred to the
U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange
Commission, which are also investigating.

A message left for Erin Duggan, chief spokeswoman for
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., wasn’t immediately
returned.

A subpoena is a request for information and doesn’t mean
the company is a target of a criminal investigation. Analysts
including Sanford C. Bernstein’s Brad Hintz have said they don’t
expect the firm to be criminally prosecuted.

 

And as a reminder here is why Brad Hintz hopes that should his research ever bring down Bernstein, that the firm will also be TBTProsecute:

“If an alleged violation is identified during a Goldman investigation, we expect a reasoned response from the Justice Department,” Hintz wrote. “In a worst case environment, we would expect a ‘too big to fail’ bank such as Goldman to be offered a deferred-prosecution agreement, pay a significant fine and submit to a federal monitor in lieu of a criminal charge.”

He kept his “outperform” rating on Goldman Sachs. The stock fell $2.32, or 1.6 percent, to $138.41 at 9:55 a.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Goldman Sachs has declined 16 percent this year through yesterday.

“As politicians continue to criticize the firm and the public scrutiny persists, we believe that Goldman’s clients will begin to rethink their relationship with the firm and the franchise will ultimately suffer,” he wrote. “With approximately 17 percent of the ownership in the hands of current and former partners, this control group has ample motivation to make amends with politicians and the public in order to reduce the threat to its franchise.”