Goldman Sachs sold mortgage securities to clients while secretly betting against them. When you sell risk rather than hold it, origination volume becomes the only incentive.
Hyle Editorial·
In 2006, Goldman Sachs was selling mortgage-backed securities to pension funds while simultaneously purchasing credit default swaps that would pay out when those securities failed. They were selling a product they had bet against to clients who didn't know the bet existed. The Senate called it a conflict of interest. Goldman called it hedging.
By early 2007, Goldman's mortgage department had gone "net short" — positioning the firm to profit when the housing market collapsed. Meanwhile, their salesforce continued marketing mortgage securities to clients as safe investments. Internal emails later revealed one trader describing a security as "one shitty deal." The same trader helped structure it.
The 2008 financial crisis wasn't an accident. It was the inevitable result of a system where banks originated loans, packaged them into complex securities, sold those securities to investors, and then bet against them. When you don't hold risk, you have no incentive to ensure the underlying loans are sound. Volume becomes the only metric that matters.
The Assembly Line: From Your Mortgage to a CDO
The transformation of American mortgages into global financial instruments followed a precise industrial process. Understanding this machinery is essential to understanding why the crisis was systemic, not accidental.
Step 1: Origination Without Accountability
Traditional banking worked on a simple principle: if a bank lent you money, it expected you to pay it back. The bank held the loan on its books. If you defaulted, the bank lost money. This created alignment between lender and borrower.
The securitization model broke this alignment. Mortgage brokers originated loans, collected their fees, and sold the loans to investment banks within days. The brokers had no skin in the game. Their income depended on volume, not quality.
[!INSIGHT] When Washington Mutual's loan officers were compensated based on loan volume rather than loan performance, they had every incentive to approve as many mortgages as possible. Quality control became an afterthought. Between 2004 and 2007, WaMu originated $277 billion in subprime mortgages.
Step 2: The Packaging Machine
Investment banks purchased thousands of mortgages and pooled them into mortgage-backed securities (MBS). These pools were then sliced into tranches with different risk profiles and returns. The highest-rated tranches received AAA ratings despite containing subprime loans, because the structure promised that senior tranches would be paid first.
The rating agencies — Moody's, S&P, and Fitch — were paid by the banks issuing the securities. This created a fundamental conflict: banks could shop for ratings, pressuring agencies to deliver favorable assessments or lose business to competitors.
“"We are meeting with your group this week to discuss the rating. It would be helpful if you could explain what benefit there is to us having a rating from your agency. We are not seeing it. We are looking for a rating agency that is willing to work with us.”
— Email from a bank to a rating agency, 2006
Step 3: The CDO Alchemy
Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) represented the peak of financial engineering complexity. Banks took the lower-rated tranches from multiple MBS pools — the risky slices that investors didn't want — and repackaged them into new securities. Through mathematical sleight of hand, these largely subprime components received AAA ratings.
Goldman Sachs's Abacus 2007-AC1 deal exemplified the structure. The bank allowed hedge fund manager John Paulson to select which mortgages would go into the CDO. Paulson, who had spent 2005 and 2006 researching the housing market, chose mortgages he believed would fail. He then bought credit default swaps against the CDO.
Investors who purchased Abacus notes weren't told that Paulson had selected the underlying mortgages, or that he was betting against them. They lost approximately $1 billion. Paulson's firm made the same amount.
The Short Position: Betting Against Your Own Product
The most damaging revelations from post-crisis investigations concerned timing. When did banks begin betting against mortgage securities while still selling them to clients?
Goldman Sachs's mortgage department committee first discussed going "net short" in December 2006. By February 2007, the firm had reduced its mortgage exposure and began purchasing credit default swaps that would increase in value if mortgage securities declined.
Yet throughout early 2007, Goldman's sales force continued marketing mortgage-related securities. In one case, traders sold $300 million in securities backed by subprime mortgages while the firm's own position was net short. The sales materials made no mention of Goldman's bearish view.
[!INSIGHT] The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations concluded that Goldman "marketed the securities to clients without disclosing the firm's own conflicted position." Goldman executives testified that market makers routinely take positions opposite to clients and that disclosure was not required.
The Legal Defense: Market Making vs. Principal Trading
Goldman's defense rested on a distinction between market making and proprietary trading. Market makers facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers. They hold inventory and take positions as part of their business. Disclosure of these positions, the argument went, would destroy the market-making function.
Critics countered that Goldman wasn't merely holding inventory. The firm had actively constructed securities based on input from a counterparty who was betting against them, without disclosing this to buyers. This went beyond normal market-making into structured product creation with asymmetric information.
In 2010, Goldman settled SEC charges related to Abacus for $550 million without admitting wrongdoing. It remains one of the largest penalties ever paid by a Wall Street firm.
The Incentive Structure That Broke the System
The fundamental problem wasn't complexity or even conflict of interest. It was incentive misalignment at every level of the mortgage food chain.
Mortgage brokers were paid per loan, not per loan that performed. They had every reason to approve applications regardless of creditworthiness.
Investment banks collected fees for underwriting and distributing securities. Once sold, the risk transferred to buyers. The banks' profit came from volume, not long-term performance.
Rating agencies were paid by issuers, not investors. They competed for business by offering favorable ratings. Standards deteriorated in a race to the bottom.
Investors relied on ratings and disclosures that didn't reveal the full picture. Pension funds, municipalities, and foreign banks purchased securities they didn't fully understand.
[!NOTE] The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 attempted to address these misalignments by requiring securitizers to retain at least 5% of the credit risk of assets they securitize. This "skin in the game" requirement aimed to ensure that those who package loans have ongoing exposure to their performance.
Why It Matters Today
The 2008 crisis revealed what happens when originators can sell risk entirely rather than hold it. The same dynamic appears in other markets: student loan securitization, auto loan ABS, and even some forms of corporate debt.
The growth of the private label securitization market since 2020 suggests the machinery hasn't been dismantled — it's been refined. Risk transfer remains fundamental to modern finance. The question is whether post-crisis reforms have adequately aligned incentives, or whether new iterations of the same pattern are building.
“"The problem is not that risk exists. The problem is when those who create risk can transfer it entirely to parties who don't understand it, while profiting from both the transfer and the failure.”
Key Takeaway: When banks originate, package, and sell mortgages without retaining risk, their incentives shift from ensuring loan quality to maximizing origination volume. The ability to bet against securities they sold to clients represented the extreme expression of this misalignment — profit from creating the product, profit from distributing it, and profit from its failure.
Sources: Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, "Wall Street and the Financial Crisis" (2010); Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report (2011); SEC v. Goldman Sachs & Co. (2010); Internal Goldman Sachs emails released by Senate Subcommittee.
This is a Premium Article
Hylē Media members get unlimited access to all premium content. Sign up free — no credit card required.
