About a-team Marketing Services
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry

A-Team Insight Blogs

US FCIC Criticises State of Goldman’s Slow Production of Incomplete and Inaccurate CDO and Customer Data

Subscribe to our newsletter

Following the damning evidence provided by the Lehman examiner report earlier this year, proof yet again of the poor state of the industry’s data management systems comes this month from the US Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s (FCIC) recent dealings with Goldman Sachs. The regulatory body, which was established in May last year to examine the causes of the financial crisis, has been investigating data around Goldman’s synthetic and hybrid collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) based on mortgage backed securities (MBSs) and has criticised the firm’s slow and incomplete provision of the required data.

The FCIC has been forced to issue a subpoena to Goldman because it has thus far failed to provide the required data concerning its CDOs, customer names and a log of its dealings with the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI). The commission has been requesting this data since a January 2010 hearing and has repeatedly sent communications to the firm in the ensuing time for it to provide more information.

The first letter sent out by the FCIC was dated 28 January this year and detailed the list of information required to be submitted in a follow up to the hearing. A deadline of 26 February was set for the required information to be provided, largely in an Excel format. For example, the documents requested included an Excel document by which the commission wished to “determine Goldman’s customers names from the customer numbers provided in a previous production concerning Goldman derivative transactions”.

Over the subsequent four months, the commission sent out a total of 15 communications to Goldman, before it decided to issue a subpoena for the data. The data that Goldman sent initially, two months after the February deadline, was described as “incomplete and inaccurate” by the FCIC and this prompted calls for more information.

The commission noted in the following weeks that it was “becoming increasingly concerned with the slow production of documents” and threatened to issue a subpoena. Goldman then claimed it had sent the correct data but the FCIC denied this and noted: “Commission staff did not understand the continual delays and the inability or unwillingness to provide the information requested”.

Finally, Goldman produced five terabytes of documents (basically a data dump of approximately 2.5 billion pages) in one go. The regulatory body, quite understandably, did not wish to have to wade through this data and again voiced its “frustration with the failure to produce specifically identified documents and the misleading nature of Goldman’s production thus far”. To make sure Goldman was aware that a raw data dump was not appropriate, the FCIC provided a spreadsheet to guide the firm in providing the “most pressing information”. Again, the firm sent “an incomplete production”.

Given that it is unlikely that Goldman was intentionally trying to get itself in hot water with the regulator, the most likely explanation for this behaviour is the inability of the firm to be able to pull the relevant data from its systems in a timely enough manner. Much the same as Lehman, the provision of such a vast quantity of data (although 2.5 billion doesn’t compare to Lehman’s 350 billion pages) to the regulator is no use when specific information is required.

The increasing prominence of these regulatory investigations and interrogations of specific data items, be it from a risk management or regulatory reporting perspective, will therefore further raise the profile of a more structured approach to data management. The Goldman case can therefore be added to the long list of recent examples for data managers to use in their endeavours to get senior management buy in to data management projects this year.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: Best practices for compliance with EU Market Abuse Regulation

EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) came into force in July 2016, rescinding the previous Market Abuse Directive and replacing it with a significantly extended scope of regulatory obligations. Eight years later, and amid constant change in capital markets regulation, technology and culture, financial institutions continue to struggle to stay on the right side of the...

BLOG

Corlytics Reports Eye-Watering Fines for 2023 Regulatory Breaches

Corlytics, a provider of regulatory risk intelligence, has released an enforcement data report for 2023 revealing financial crime, data protection, and governance as the main risk categories for financial services with the highest penalties. Some $6.7 billion of fines were imposed for financial crime, most of which were for money laundering and terrorist financing. Looking...

EVENT

TradingTech Summit London

Now in its 14th year the TradingTech Summit London brings together the European trading technology capital markets industry and examines the latest changes and innovations in trading technology and explores how technology is being deployed to create an edge in sell side and buy side capital markets financial institutions.

GUIDE

Risk & Compliance

The current financial climate has meant that risk management and compliance requirements are never far from the minds of the boards of financial institutions. In order to meet the slew of regulations on the horizon, firms are being compelled to invest in their systems in order to cope with the new requirements. Data management is...