Um, no? What are you talking about?
Um, no? What are you talking about?
[1] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/the-cdos-that-d...
There's nothing wrong with being in the middle of a line of trades. The crime is when that line becomes a loop and nothing is actually changing hands at either end.
Sure, it's not "taking both sides of the transaction" but it's still screwing investors as a regulated(!!!) banking entity.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/oct/22/goldman-sac...
The only substantiated thing in that article is the Abacus case which is quite different: the counterparty there was IKB, who are a sophisticated investment bank, a million miles away from "one of these philanthropies or endowments or teachers' retirement pension funds in Alabama or Virginia or Oregon". They didn't get screwed, they bet on the US housing market and lost.
I read some sarcastic financial blogs and let's just say the "muppet" theme there is recurring when it comes to the "squid" :)