본 논문은 골드만삭스의 합성CDO상품인 ABACUS 사례를 통해 그동안 외부에 전혀 노출되지 않았던 글로벌 투 자은행의 불법적 투자전략을 분석한다. 2010년 4월 16일 SEC의 제소로 시작된 골드만삭스와 SEC 간 법적 공방 은 7월 15일 골드만삭스가 5억5천만달러의 벌금에 합의하면서 일단락되었다. 그 결과, 골드만삭스는 ABACUS 판 매 시 미국주택시장의 붕괴와 관련한 중요 사실을 허위 표기(상품의 불법성)하거나 허위 통보 또는 누락함(불완전 판매 가능성)으로써 투자자에게 상당한 손실을 끼친 것으로 드러났다. 이번 사건을 계기로 미국의 금융규제는 매우 강화되고 있다. 특히, 2010년 7월 발효된 금융개혁법(Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)은 대형 금융회사의 자기자본거래와 [장외]파생상품거래를 규제하기 시작했을 뿐만 아니라, 구체적인 금융소비자 보호방안까지 포괄하고 있다. 또한 금융업계 내에서도 자율적 인 규제 강화 움직임을 보이고 있다. 2011년 1월 피소자인 골드만삭스는 기업쇄신안을 발표하면서 실추된 자사 이 미지를 제고하고 동시에 금융시장 전체의 신뢰 회복을 위해 노력하고 있다. 미국 정부와 업계의 이같은 노력은 곧바 로 세계 주요 금융시장의 새로운 규제 패러다임으로 전개되는 양상을 보이고 있다. 본 사례연구는 국내 정책당국이 금융회사(외국계 포함)의 부도덕한 투자전략으로 인해 발생할 수 있는 투자자 피 해를 다각적으로 최소화하고, 금융회사의 도덕성과 사회적 책임을 강조하는 의미 있는 계기를 제공할 수 있다. 또한 세계적으로 새롭게 전개되고 있는 규제 강화 패러다임 하에서 국내 금융회사가 글로벌 금융회사의 비즈니스 형태로 전환하여 자리매김하는 데도 일조할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.
This study analyzes unlawful investment strategies of global investment banks, focusing on the case of Goldman Sachs` synthetic CDO product, as known as ABACUS. The legal battle between Goldman Sachs and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began when the SEC filed a complaint on April 16, 2010, and ended up with the settlement on July 15 through which both parties agreed upon that Goldman Sachs should pay a fine of $550 million. During the sales of ABACUS, Goldman Sachs failed to inform its investors of material facts related to the meltdown of the US housing market, and thereby inflicted huge damages on these investors. What Goldman Sachs deliberately omitted from its ABACUS marketing materials was the role that Paulson & Co, one of the parties involved in the product, played in selecting underlying assets that constituted the product, which was expected to affect adversely the investors. Instead, Goldman Sachs included false information that the underlying assets were selected by ACA, a third party with expertise in selecting portfolio assets. Furthermore, although Paulson & Co took short position in the product, Goldman Sachs caused tremendous damages on investors by falsely informing ACA that Paulson & Co took long position just as other investors. As the result of the ruling, one of the main investors of the product, IKB could receive full compensation for their loss, while ABN AMRO, another investor, received only $100 million, much less than its actual losses. In response to the unreasonable compensation, other investors are expected to file a series of lawsuits. Already, ACA, one of the affected investors, filed a $120 million lawsuit against Goldman Sachs in January 2011. Since the outbreak of this event, the US regulations on global financing have been strengthened. The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that came into effect in July 2010 attempts not only to regulate proprietary trading as well as OTC derivatives trading of large financial institutions, but also to include detailed measures to protect financial customers. More importantly, the actions taken by the US will spread to other nations and become a new paradigm in the world`s major financial markets. In addition, financial industries act quickly to self-regulate themselves. In January 2011, the Business Standards Committee established within Goldman Sachs last year released a report including how to revamp itself, in its attempt to reestablish its corporate brand as well as the confidence of the whole financial markets. Apart from how effective the attempts would be, this will definitely affect other financial institutions. This case study will help the Korean policy makers minimize the damages that any immoral investment strategies adopted by both Korean and global financial firms may inflict on Korean investors, and emphasize the morality and social responsibility of financial firms. Also, this may help Korean financial firms advance into a global player under the new global paradigm of toughened regulations.