Watching the Senate hearingson Goldman Sachs is both educational and entertaining.
I call it a "rumble" for rich white guys.
Some of the Senators don't fully understand Goldman Sachs' business, and some of the executives have trouble answering clear, direct questions.
Was it legally wrong for Goldman Sachs not to disclose everything it knew about Abacus to buyers? Was it, at the very least, unethical? Or should ACA and others have done more due diligence and assumed everyone involved was hedging their bets with short positions? Should ACA have hedged as well?
Someone suggested to me on Twitterthat we might better understand what happened by replacing the word "Abacus" with the old Ford Pinto, the car made infamous for blowing up when rear ended.
Imagine this testimony instead: