FE REFLECT

Why the Goldman Sachs-AIG story won’t go away

Bloomberg

Posted: Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 2244 hrs IST
Updated: Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 2244 hrs IST


Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

: Jonathan Weil

How did so much taxpayer money end up in the coffers of American International Group Inc’s too- big-to-fail customers? The more we find out, the more it becomes obvious we still don’t know the half of it.

To believe AIG’s disclosures, you’d have thought its executives decided on their own last year to pay 100 cents on the dollar to the various banks that had bought $62 billion of credit-default swaps from the company. Now, it turns out the decision to make the banks whole wasn’t AIG’s. It was made by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, back when its president was the current US treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, and its chairman was Goldman Sachs director Stephen Friedman. (Friedman resigned in May, after WSJ reported he had bought more than 50,000 shares of Goldman stock following AIG’s takeover.)

Before AIG was seized, its executives had been negotiating for months with the banks, trying to get them to accept discounts of as much as 40 cents on the dollar, Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

Then, late in the week of November 3, the New York Fed took over the negotiations with the banks from AIG, together with the Treasury Department (at the time run by former Goldman boss Henry Paulson) and Chairman Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve Board. Less than a week later, the New York Fed instructed AIG to pay the counterparties in full.

Judging by the result, you might think Geithner’s team was on the banks’ side, rather than AIG’s.

AIG wound up paying $32.5 billion to retire the swaps, $13 billion more than if it had paid, say, 60 cents on the dollar. The New York Fed also arranged to pay the banks $29.6 billion for collateralised-debt obligations backed by subprime mortgages and other loans, a tad less than half their face value. (The swaps were side bets by the banks that rose in value as the CDOs fell.) It probably made sense for the counterparties to reject AIG’s initial settlement offers. They had their own investors to look after. And once the government took control of AIG, it couldn’t credibly threaten to force the company into bankruptcy proceedings. The premise of the government’s seizure, after all, was that AIG was too big to fail. But why the rush to pay the banks in full once Geithner’s team took over the talks? The public has never gotten satisfactory...

More from FE Special

Single Page Format 1 - 2 - Next
Discuss this story on expressindia forums

Post Comments

Comments: (Limit 3,000 characters)
Name
Message
Email ID
Subject
TERMS OF USE:
The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
I agree to the terms of use.

Comments
Flowers & Cakes DeliveryExpress Classifieds
Post and view free classifieds ad
Express Astrology
Know what's in the stars for you