American International Group

AIG Bailout Had “Poisonous” Effect, Bailout Oversight Panel Says

by Hans Bader on June 10, 2010 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Insurance, Legal, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

“American International Group Inc.’s bailout had a ‘poisonous’ effect on the U.S. financial system because it demonstrated the government would protect Wall Street firms from their own risk-taking, said a Congressional” bailout oversight panel.

Earlier, the Obama administration used the $170 billion AIG bailout to give billions in legally unnecessary payments to the Wall Street firm of Goldman Sachs, which is so rich that it has admitted it didn’t even need the money.  Goldman Sachs, one of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors, is using its political connections to reap record profits.

Obama and Congressional leaders later pushed through a Trojan-horse financial “reform” bill backed by Goldman Sachs that would further enrich Goldman Sachs, which was recently accused of fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

In a party-line vote, Senate Democrats earlier blocked any reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the corrupt, government-sponsored mortgage giants that even Obama administration officials admit were at the “core” of “what went wrong” in the financial crisis.

(Obama received $125,000 in contributions from these mortgage giants as a Senator, second only to the corrupt Senator Chris Dodd, who is retiring this year due to his financial scandals, yet is the chief drafter of the financial “reform” bill.)

At the direction of the Obama administration, Freddie Mac ran up more than $30 billion in losses to bail out mortgage borrowers, some of whom have high incomes.  Federal regulators sought to make Freddie Mac hide the resulting losses from the SEC and the public.)  The Obama administration showered the mortgage giants’ executives with $42 million in compensation.

Fannie and Freddie helped spawn the mortgage crisis by acting as loan toilets, buying up risky mortgages and thus creating an artificial market for junk.  “From the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime.”  They paid their CEOs millions, and engaged in massive accounting fraud — $6.3 billion at Fannie Mae alone — to increase the size of their managers’ bonuses.  As Government-Sponsored Enterprises, they were exempt from the capital requirements that apply to private banks, so they did not have enough reserves to cover their losses when their mortgages started defaulting.

Banking expert Peter Wallison, who warned for years about the risky practices of Fannie and Freddie, said the financial “reform” bill would lead to “bailouts forever,” contrary to Obama’s claims.

Government pressure on banks to make loans in economically-depressed neighborhoods was a major cause of the mortgage crisis.  That pressure will increase under the financial “reform” legislation.  Legislators approved Obama’s proposal to create a new consumer “protection” agency.  But it may harm rather than help consumers.  Why?  “The agency would be in charge of enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that prods banks to make loans in low-income communities.”  It would do so without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness, even though the Community Reinvestment Act was a key contributor to the financial crisis.

More Enron-like Behavior by Administration Officials Comes to Light

by Hans Bader on January 7, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Insurance, Legal, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Earlier, the Washington Post reported on how the Obama administration pressured Freddie Mac not to disclose to investors and the SEC the $30 billion in losses it was incurring as a result of Obama’s mortgage bailouts for undeserving (including high-income) borrowers.

Now, Bloomberg News reports that then-Federal Reserve Bank head (and now Treasury Secretary) “Timothy Geithner, told American International Group Inc. to withhold details from the public about the bailed-out insurer’s payments to banks during the depths of the financial crisis,” and to hide them from the SEC in its SEC filings.  Such conduct is not too surprising coming from Geithner, a sanctimonious and hypocritical tax cheat.  Geithner also used the government’s bailout of AIG to pay billions of dollars to the wealthy Wall Street investment firm of Goldman Sachs, money that it neither needed to stay afloat, nor was legally entitled to.

Earlier this year, Freddie Mac’s CFO killed himself amidst a sea of red ink, as the administration forced Freddie to run up losses on mortgage bailouts, even though economists and real estate experts have criticized those bailouts as harmful to the economy.  Now, the Obama administration is making Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae deliberately run up losses on bailouts and buying up risky loans, even though the government took over Fannie and Freddie in 2008 in the name of ending their risky practices.  It is rewarding their executives for carrying out such terrible policies by showering them with multimillion dollar pay.

The mortgage crisis was caused partly by the reckless government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and partly by the affordable-housing mandates imposed on them.

But Obama’s proposed financial rules overhaul does absolutely nothing about the risky practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, even though he admits that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.”

Instead, it pressures banks to make even more risky loans.  The House has approved Obama’s proposal to create a politically-correct entity called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The agency would be in charge of enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that prods banks to make loans in low-income communities.”  The Community Reinvestment Act was a key contributor to the financial crisis.  But the administration’s proposal would direct the new agency to enforce the Community Reinvestment Act without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness.

Stop Thief! NYT steals Examiner’s AIG scoop with no attribution

by John Berlau on April 17, 2009 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Culture, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony

One week after Washington Examiner ace investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney broke the blockbuster story reporting that American International Group’s post-bailout CEO Edward Liddy owned a large stake in Goldman Sachs. a top recipient of the AIG bailout, the New York Times has decided that this is news “fit to print.” But for some reason, the so-called paper of record didn’t think it was “fit” to give any credit to the original source of this story.

Almost all of the significant details in the Times story  by Mary Williams Walsh, posted last night on its web site, were reported in Carney’s column in the Examiner a week ago (and elaborated on in my post in Open Market): The fact that Liddy — who was installed in his position by former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (and with the approval of  then-Federal Reserve Bank of New York President Tim Geithner, a detail not in the Times story!) — still owns more than 27,000 shares of Goldman Sachs that its valued at more than $3 million; and that this represented a potential conflict of interest because Goldman was a counterparty of AIG that got $13 billion from the taxpyer-funded bailout.

The Times even talks to the same AIG spokeswoman, Christina Pretto, who originally confirmed these details for Carney. But the story doesn’t once reveal to Times readers that all this information had already been broken by the Examiner.

It is highly doubtful the Times hadn’t known of the Examiner piece. Earlier, at the prominent financial blog site Ritholtz.com, prominet risk analyst Chris Whalen wrote a commentary on the issue citing both Carney’s piece and my analysis in Open Market.

The Times’ appropriation in its covering of what I had described to Carney as a “looting” of taxpayers and AIG shareholders can, in a sense, be called thievery on top of thievery.

AIG CEO Liddy owns millions in stock in bailout beneficiary Goldman — Tim Carney blockbuster in DC Examiner

by John Berlau on April 10, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Features, Odds & Ends, Politics as Usual

Everyone should read the blockbuster exclusive in today’s Washington Examiner in which Timothy P. Carney confirms that American International Group CEO Edward Liddy — appointed to his position at the behest of Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner after the government takeover of AIG in September — still owns more than $3 million in stock in Goldman Sachs, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the AIG bailout.

I am privileged to be quoted in this article that both breaks news and puts it into an informative policy context. The dogged investigative reporting conducted for this piece by Carney, a former Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow at CEI, should be enough to garner him several awards, and in my opinion this piece and likely follow-ups may be Pulitzer Prize-worthy material.

A couple weeks ago, after the brouhaha about the “retention” bonuses paid to the AIG Financial Products employees, Liddy’s calm demeanor before Congress and the media helped diffuse the situation. He emphasized that he was making a nominal $1-a-year salary and argued he was doing the CEO stint merely as a public service. Liddy wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed that “my annual salary is $1. My only stake is my reputation.”

But Carney found that Liddy was not telling the whole story about his real stake in the AIG bailout. Namely that Liddy, as Carney notes, has “an acute financial stake in one of AIG’s counterparties—namely, his $3.2 million personal investment in Goldman Sachs.” And under Liddy’s direction, AIG disbursed nearly $13 billion from the taxpayer bailout money to Goldman, in a move many say is more disturbing than the employee bonuses that were the source of the recent controversey.

Everyone from former AIG CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg to liberal Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., have expressed outrage that Goldman and other banks were compensated at full value for their derivative contracts. Goldman had bought billions in credit deafalt swaps from AIG. Had AIG gone into bankruptcy, Goldman and other counterparties would have almost certainly had to take a “haircut” on the contracts due to declining market conditions.

In the article, Carney generously writes that “there is no reason to believe Liddy is influencing AIG actions to unfairly benefit Goldman.” Yet Liddy had to be aware that many were saying Goldman may not have survived the hit if AIG substantially reduced payment. He resigned his position from Goldman’s board of directors when he became CEO of AIG, ostensibly to avoid conflict of interest, but has not seen fit yet to sell his more than 27,000 shares in Goldman stock, which he is listed as holding in the firm’s 2008 proxy statement. Carney reports that “an AIG spokeswoman confirmed for the Examiner that Liddy still owns all these shares.”

Carney points out the paradox of “strange public-private chimeras like AIG spawned in this age of bailouts.” When it bailed out the firm, the government took an 79.9 percent stake in AIG, making AIG in one sense a government entity. Yet, as Carney points out, this “situation represents a potential conflict of interest that would never be allowed in a government agency.”

It also likely wouldn’t fly in a purely private company, where directors and shareholders are on guard against executives’ “related party transactions” that aren’t in the company’s best interest. Yet, because he is running a public-private hybrid, Liddy lacks accountability to both to private shareholders and government ethics rules

Former Treasury Secretary Paulson, himself a former Goldman Sachs CEO, has a lot to answer for in forcing out AIG CEO Robert Willumstad and bringing on Liddy to replace him. So does Geithner, who was heavily involved in the AIG bailout as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Why did they not insist that Liddy divest his holdings or find someone who didn’t have this conflict?

Above all, this shatters the illusion that the government can magaically take over a company, fire the CEO, and run it more efficiently for the taxpayers. I have written before on Open Market that Obama’s firing of Rick Wagoner was not the first time the government forced out a CEO. Even before Paulson ousted Willumstad after the bailout, then- New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer effectively forced out longtime AIG CEO Greenberg on baseless charges that have almost all been dropped. Greenberg built up AIG successful 35-year tenure, and has testified that the issuance housing-related credit defaut swaps at the center of the firm’s problem exploded in the months after he left.

As I tell Carney in concluding paragraph of the story, “The whole AIG experience demonstrates the fallacy that the government can efficiently sack CEOs and replace them.”

With or Without You

by John Berlau on March 30, 2009 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Culture, Deregulate to Stimulate, Features, Mobility, Nanny State, Odds & Ends, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

The ouster of General Motors CEO Rick Wagnoner by the Obama administration isn’t the first time in the recent history of bailouts that the government has forced out a CEO. That first happened in September when Bush admnistration Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson forced out American International Group CEO Robert Willumstad in favor of Paulson’s friend Edward Liddy.

The lesson from AIG is that replacing a CEO is no panacea. There is no love lost for the poor managment of Rick Wagoner. He is the one who went to the government hat in hand, and when the government is paying the piper, it can call the tune. But replacing him won’t solve GM’s long-term problems of too many brands of autos and too large of a workforce. And it is increasingly clear that the bailout itself is an impediment to effective restructuring.

The prospect of an ever-increasing supply of tax dollars is leading parties with auto industry contracts — unions, bondholders, dealers and others — to play a game of chicken. No one wants to renegotiate a contract when they think the government will come in with more money to cover the losses. And the Obama administration, as with AIG, does not have the power of a bankruptcy court to discharge debt.

Allowing the companies to go into bankruptcy is what should have been done from the start. As with multiple businesses such as airlines that have succesfully emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, debts could be discharged and the companies could be restructured in bankruptcy court.

To say that consumers would be discouraged at buying a car in bankruptcy misses the point. Consumers might be more likely to buy a car from a company restructured by a bankruptcy court, as they buy tickets from once-bankrupt airlines, than to buy a vehicle from zombie companies dependent on the next government bailout. This delay likely hurts “satellite” companies like auto parts makers more than a bankruptcy would.

In the meantime, the government should lift antitrust barriers and leave all options on the table for mergers. The merger with Chrysler and Fiat that the government is encouraging may not be the most effective. GM and Chrysler had long considered merging, but may have been blocked because the combined company would be deemed by antitrust regulators to have too large a share of the “light truck” market, never mind that this market itself is shrinking. Given the precarious state of the companies, they should be given a blanket antitrust waiver to make the combinations they deem best for their viability.

The government should also delay the imposition of the recently announced increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. This flawed mandate that adds costs and reduces choices even in a good economy, could be a lethal blow in times such as these.

Let’s drop both the auto bailouts and the mandates. The American auto industy, which has produced such wonderful innovations for so many decades, is too important to be “saved” by Washington’s central planners.”

The AIG Tax Trojan Horse

by John Berlau on March 19, 2009 · 3 comments

in Bailout Watch, Politics as Usual

The massive tax hike being voted on in the House today is a Trojan horse that uses the legitimate outrage over the American International Group bonuses to hit a wide variety of employees, and would be a serious blow to the economic growth we are trying to revive.

The bill would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses of any employee, with some exceptions, whose family income is more than $250,000 and who works for a company receiving funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The tax would hit regardless of the employees’ role in creating problems in the financial system. And many well-managed banks were practically forced by regulators and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to take TARP money so the seriously troubled banks wouldn’t face a stigma.

CEI opposed the creation and further extensions of the TARP, and we want the money paid back to taxpayers as soon as it can be, and also the government to give up its stock ownership as soon as possible, to end the partial nationalization of the financial system.

But using the tax code to punish these firms’ employees is seriously wrongheaded. Many firms, unfortunately, have received government subsidies even before the TARP was created. Sports teams frequently receive subsidies for new stadiums, but we don’t tax athletes at 90 percent! We should end government subsidies to all these firms, but not punish individual employees who compete for the salaries the market will bear.

The tax system is not the way to remedy an ill-conceived bailout. There is no way to separate firms receiving government money from the economy as a whole. This is a big foot in the door for confiscatory taxes that will produce anemic economic growth.

Furthermore, by targeting employees of individual firms with punitive taxes, this may be an unconstitutional “bill of attainder.” The Constitution is very clear that only the courts, not the legislative branch, can single out individuals for punishment.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee*, Democrat of Texas, said on the House floor today that she was aware that the bill might be subject to “constitutional challenge” but was going to vote for it anyway. She and possibly other supporters of the bill overlook that members of Congress, as well as the courts, take an oath to uphold the Constitution. If members have any doubts about the constitutionality of a bill, they are violating their oath by voting for that bill before resolving these doubts. This is one of many reasons why this ill-conceived legislation should go down.

*UPDATE: A previous version of this post misidentified the Member of Congress is question.