Bloomberg has an important story today on the bailout of the banks through AIG.
Estimating that an essentially bankrupt company like AIG could have shaved 40 percent off what it owed big banks like Societe Generale and Goldman Sachs (an Audit funder), Bloomberg says the New York Fed’s decision to make its buddies whole (its then-chairman was a former Goldman chairman who would soon start re-loading up on its stock) cost taxpayers more than $13 billion.
In fact, Bloomberg reports that before it flopped into the government’s arms, one of AIG’s divisional chief financial officers had for months been negotiating with its counterparties to take huge haircuts on their credit-default swaps, insurance they bought on their junk assets called collateralized debt obligations.
So why’d the government not do the same—with its much greater leverage having rescued AIG from complete collapse?
One reason par was paid was because some counterparties insisted on being paid in full and the New York Fed did not want to negotiate separate deals, says a person close to the transaction. “Some of those banks needed 100 cents on the dollar or they risked failure,” Vickrey says.
Which is why Dean Starkman called this a backdoor bailout a year ago
Bloomberg says the decision gave Goldman at least $14 billion. But what’s perhaps worse, it gave Societe General, a French bank, $16 billion and Deutsche Bank, a, well, Deutsche bank, $8.5 billion. What were American taxpayers doing bailing out French and German ones? Has anyone done a story on that? Remember, as reporters Richard Teitelbaum and Hugh Son are excellent to point out, this was all done top secret. The Fed wouldn’t release the names of who it had paid until Congress got hacked off nearly six months later.
Edward Grebeck, CEO of Stamford, Connecticut-based debt consulting firm Tempus Advisors, says the most serious breach by the government was to keep the process of approving the bank payments secret.
“It’s inexcusable,” says Grebeck, who teaches a course on CDSs at New York University. “Everybody should be privy to the negotiations that went on. We can’t have bailouts like this happening behind closed doors.”
But that’s the Fed’s modus operandi. Remember that as the debate over regulatory restructuring goes forward. Some folks want to broadly increase its power.
Also interesting here is that the CDO’s AIG purchased in the deal have declined about $7 billion from the $30 billion it paid last year. It’s unclear from Bloomberg’s story whether that adds to the $13 billion loss figure it touts or if it’s included in it. It should have spelled that out.
And Bloomberg is great to push this into the story in noting it’s suing the Fed (emphasis mine):
The Federal Reserve has been reluctant to publish information on its efforts to stabilize the financial system since the crisis began. The Fed has loaned more than $2 trillion, yet it refuses to name the recipients of the loans, or cite the amount they borrowed, saying that doing so may set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders.
With some interesting reporting on that:
Still, officials at AIG object to the secrecy that surrounded the transactions. One top AIG executive who asked not to be identified says he was pressured by New York Fed officials not to file documents with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that would divulge details.
“They’d tell us that they don’t think that this or that should be disclosed,” the executive says. “They’d say, ‘Don’t you think your counterparties will be concerned?’ It was much more about protecting the Fed.”
If I have a quibble with the story it’s that it doesn’t explicitly weave in the spectacle of the huge paydays set for the end of the year, especially at Goldman, which are in large part due to the spectrum of bailouts, including this one.
And remember, AIG had to take a huge haircut. The government bought some 80 percent of it, wildly diluting existing shareholders—as it should have. But AIG only insured the toxic waste, these banks created them—and they get made whole.
Still, this is excellent work.
This is a huge story, but I feel your analysis does not go deep enough. Goldman has stated that they had already laid off all of their AIG exposure, which would have included these guarantees, so (in Goldman's case, anyway) the ultimate loss would have been taken by some other institution. Most likely Soc Gen and Deutche Bank did the same thing.
The people who would have ultimately been left "holding the bag" (and thus received the benefit of the $13 billion incremental payout) could have been hedge funds, Asian banks, sovereign funds or other unnamed investors that were paid to take on AIG risk.
The rationale for this move by the Fed was simply to prevent a systemic risk that would have frozen the credit markets for the foreseeable future. Was that worth $13 billion? Very likely. Did the beneficiaries deserve it? Absolutely not.
#1 Posted by JLD, CJR on Fri 30 Oct 2009 at 06:48 AM
JLD,
If the government hadn't stepped into save AIG there would have been no counterparties left, Goldman would have gone under, and you and I would be in a breadline right now.
The question is how it did that necessary bailout. Do you make Wall Street and foreign banks whole on their wrong bets or do you take a pound of flesh, like, say, a serious equity stake that dilutes shareholders and helps pay back taxpayers when/if the company recovers?
#2 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Fri 30 Oct 2009 at 08:57 AM
Thanks for your reply. I don’t think we disagree, but I feel you missed my point. We weren't talking about the $100+ billion AIG rescue, only the incremental $13 billion swap payouts.
And most likely Goldman, SG and Deutche did not make "wrong bets," as they had already sold their AIG positions off to someone else. So the question is who are the "stuffees" that bought the AIG exposure (and who ended up with the taxpayers $13 billion)?
The problem here is that revealing the details of these trades would ultimately politicize them, so that a German or French bank would, in the future, think twice before taking a US counterpart risk as it may end up being adjudicated by Congress, or by public opinion. Avoiding this is, I think, worth the $13 billion because the alternative would cripple the financial markets.
#3 Posted by JLD, CJR on Fri 30 Oct 2009 at 09:32 AM
President Obama bailed out the banks.
However, the banks went on to take homes from people in record numbers of foreclosures.
A large number of those homes are still on the market and empty.
Many are showing the affects of nonuse.
The worst thing for a house is to be empty.
All kinds of things can happen to it from vandalism to natural damage.
In time, the property will have less value.
Instead of working with those who are having financial problems due to the economy, the banks just take.
The banks have been bailed out.
They were helped with incredible amounts of money.
Yet they will not help the people.
They would rather have a house sit there and rot away instead of letting people stay in them to avoid being homeless.
Where is Obama when it comes to people with little or no money?
He will help the rich, but not the poor.
Investment firms are buying houses at well below their values for future sales, thus making big profits.
The firms visit a house and look for any and everything that needs fixing or an upgrade.
Even if something is in great shape, they will say it is out of date and needs to be replaced.
In the end, they get the house cheap.
Why is this allowed?
The rich get richer while the poor get, well, you know.
Greed ruined the economy in the first place.
Now it is ruining lives.
The future looks scary right now.
The people are accepting what is going on instead of rising up.
We are being taken.
Our own tax dollars are even being used against us.
It is time to wake up or forever be a slave of a system that is not on your side.
George Vreeland Hill
#4 Posted by George Vreeland Hill, CJR on Fri 10 Jun 2011 at 09:50 PM