PDA

View Full Version : New York Fed’s Secret Choice to Pay for AIG Swaps Hits Taxpayers



Winehole23
10-27-2009, 10:57 AM
New York Fed’s Secret Choice to Pay for AIG Swaps Hits Taxpayers (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a7T5HaOgYHpE)

(javascript:togShareLinks('shr_v');)[/URL]


By Richard Teitelbaum and Hugh Son


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=iyJkjW0HATh8

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) -- In the months leading up to the September 2008 collapse of giant insurer [URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=AIG%3AUS"]American International Group Inc. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a7T5HaOgYHpE#), Elias Habayeb (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Elias+Habayeb&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) and his colleagues worked nights and weekends negotiating with banks (http://www.aig.com/aigweb/internet/en/files/CounterpartyAttachments031809_tcm385-155645.pdf) that had bought $62 billion of credit-default swaps from AIG, according to a person who has worked with Habayeb.



Habayeb, 37, was chief financial officer for the AIG division that oversaw AIG Financial Products, the unit that had sold the swaps to the banks. One of his goals was to persuade the banks to accept discounts of as much as 40 cents on the dollar, according to people familiar with the matter.
Among AIG’s bank counterparties were New York-based Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GS%3AUS) and Merrill Lynch & Co., Paris-based Societe Generale SA (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GLE%3AFP) and Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank AG (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=DBK%3AGY).



By Sept. 16, 2008, AIG, once the world’s largest insurer, was running out of cash, and the U.S. government stepped in with a rescue plan. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the regional Fed office with special responsibility for Wall Street, opened an $85 billion credit line (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/) for New York-based AIG. That bought it 77.9 percent of AIG and effective control of the insurer.
The government’s commitment to AIG through credit facilities (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=FARWOAIG%3AIND) and investments would eventually add up to $182.3 billion.



Beginning late in the week of Nov. 3, the New York Fed, led by President Timothy Geithner (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Timothy+Geithner&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), took over negotiations with the banks from AIG, together with the Treasury Department and Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Ben+S.+Bernanke%3Fs&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) Federal Reserve. Geithner’s team circulated a draft term sheet outlining how the New York Fed wanted to deal with the swaps -- insurance-like contracts that backed soured collateralized-debt obligations.



Subprime Mortgages



CDOs are bundles of debt including subprime mortgages and corporate loans sold to investors by banks.



Part of a sentence in the document was crossed out. It contained a blank space that was intended to show the amount of the haircut the banks would take, according to people who saw the term sheet. After less than a week of private negotiations with the banks, the New York Fed (http://www.newyorkfed.org/) instructed AIG to pay them par, or 100 cents on the dollar. The content of its deliberations has never been made public.



The New York Fed’s decision to pay the banks in full cost AIG -- and thus American taxpayers -- at least $13 billion. That’s 40 percent of the $32.5 billion AIG paid to retire the swaps. Under the agreement, the government and its taxpayers became owners of the dubious CDOs, whose face value was $62 billion and for which AIG paid the market price of $29.6 billion. The CDOs were shunted into a Fed-run entity called Maiden Lane III.
Habayeb, who left AIG in May, did not return phone calls and an e-mail.



Goldman Sachs



The deal contributed to the more than $14 billion that over 18 months was handed to Goldman Sachs, whose former chairman, Stephen Friedman (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Stephen+Friedman&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), was chairman of the board of directors of the New York Fed when the decision was made. Friedman, 71, resigned in May, days after it was disclosed by the Wall Street Journal that he had bought more than 50,000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock following the takeover of AIG. He declined to comment for this article.


In his resignation letter, Friedman said his continued role as chairman had been mischaracterized as improper. Goldman Sachs spokesman Michael DuVally (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Michael+DuVally&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) declined to comment.



AIG paid Societe General $16.5 billion, Deutsche Bank $8.5 billion and Merrill Lynch $6.2 billion.



New York Fed



The New York Fed, one of the 12 regional Reserve Banks that are part of the Federal Reserve (http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/releases/statisticsdata.htm) System, is unique in that it implements monetary policy through the buying and selling of Treasury securities in the secondary market. It also supervises financial institutions in the New York region.
The New York Fed board, which normally consists of nine directors, in November 2008 included Jamie Dimon (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Jamie+Dimon&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Friedman. The directors have no direct role in bank supervision. They’re responsible for advising on regional economic conditions and electing the bank president.



Janet Tavakoli (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Janet+Tavakoli&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), founder of Chicago-based Tavakoli Structured Finance Inc., a financial consulting firm, says the government squandered billions in the AIG deal.



“There’s no way they should have paid at par,” she says. “AIG was basically bankrupt.”



Citigroup Inc. agreed last year to accept about 60 cents on the dollar from New York-based bond insurer Ambac Financial Group Inc. to retire protection on a $1.4 billion CDO.



Unwinding Derivatives



In March 2009, congressional hearings and public demonstrations targeted AIG after it was disclosed it had paid $165 million in bonuses that month to the employees of AIGFP, which is unwinding billions of dollars in derivatives under the supervision of Gerry Pasciucco (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Gerry+Pasciucco&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a former Morgan Stanley managing director who joined AIG after the CDS payments were mandated.
Far more money was wasted in paying the banks for their swaps, says Donn Vickrey (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Donn+Vickrey&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) of financial research firm Gradient Analytics Inc. “In cases like this, the outcome is always along the lines of 50, 60 or 70 cents on the dollar,” Vickrey says.



A spokeswoman for Geithner, now secretary of the Treasury Department, declined to comment. Jack Gutt (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Jack+Gutt&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a spokesman for the New York Fed, also had no comment.



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.



A Range of Options



People familiar with the transaction say the New York Fed considered a range of options, including guaranteeing the banks’ CDOs. They say that by buying the securities, AIG got the best deal it could.



According to a quarterly New York Fed report (http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/maidenlane3.html) on its holdings, the $29.6 billion in securities held by Maiden Lane III had declined in value by about $7 billion as of June 30.



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.”
Secret Deliberations



The deliberations of the New York Fed are not made public. In this case, even the identities of the AIG counterparties weren’t disclosed until March 2009, when U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Christopher+Dodd&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), head of the Senate Finance Committee, demanded they be made public.


Bloomberg News has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking copies of the term sheets related to AIG’s counterparty payments, along with e-mails and the logs of phone calls and meetings among Geithner, Friedman and other New York Fed and AIG officials. The request is pending.


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.



Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, sued in November 2008 under the Freedom of Information Act for disclosure of details about 11 Fed lending programs. In August, Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Loretta+Preska&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) ruled in Bloomberg’s favor, saying the central bank had to provide details of the loans.



The Fed has appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the data remain secret while the appeal proceeds.



‘Cataclysmic Financial Crisis’



Information on the borrowers is “central to understanding and assessing the government’s response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression,” attorneys for Bloomberg said in the Nov. 7 suit.



Questions about the New York Fed transactions may be answered by Neil Barofsky (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Neil+Barofsky&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. He is working on a report, which may be released next month, on whether AIG overpaid the banks. TARP is the vehicle through which the Treasury invested more than $200 billion in some 600 U.S. financial institutions.



William Poole (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=William+Poole&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, defends the New York Fed’s action. The financial system had suffered through months of crisis at the time, he says. The investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. had been swallowed by JPMorgan; mortgage packagers Fannie Mae (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=FNM%3AUS) and Freddie Mac had been taken over by the government; and the day before AIG was rescued, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. had filed for bankruptcy.



‘Enough Trouble’



“I think the Federal Reserve was trying to stop the spread of fear in the market,” Poole says. “The market was having enough trouble dealing with Lehman. If you add, on top of that, AIG paying off some fraction of its liabilities (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=AIG%3AUS), a system which is already substantially frozen would freeze rock-solid.”



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 (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=AIG%3AUS) 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.”



‘An Outrage’



Friedman’s role remains controversial. In December 2008, weeks after the payments to the banks were authorized in November, Friedman bought 37,300 shares of Goldman stock at $80.78 a share, according to SEC filings. On Jan. 22, he bought 15,300 more at $66.61.



Both purchases took place before the payments to Goldman Sachs were publicly disclosed under pressure from Senator Dodd in March. On Oct. 26, Goldman Sachs (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GS%3AUS) stock closed at $179.37 a share, meaning Friedman had paper profits of $5.4 million.



Jerry Jordan (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Jerry+Jordan&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, says Friedman should have resigned from the New York Fed as soon as it became clear that Goldman stood to benefit from its actions.



“It’s an outrage,” Jordan says. “He needed to either resign from the Fed board or from Goldman and proceed to sell his stock.”



98,600 Goldman Shares



Friedman remains a member of Goldman’s board (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GS%3AUS) and held a total of 98,600 shares of the firm’s stock as of Jan. 22.



Vickrey says that one reason the New York Fed should have insisted on discounted payments for AIG’s CDSs is that the banks likely had hedges against their insured CDOs or had already written down their value. On March 20, Goldman Sachs CFO David Viniar (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=David%0AViniar&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1) said in a conference call with investors that Goldman was protected.



“We limited our overall credit exposure to AIG through a combination of collateral and market hedges,” Viniar said. “There would have been no credit losses if AIG had failed.”



In any event, former St. Louis Fed President Poole says the entire process should have been public and transparent. “There should be a high bar against not disclosing,” Poole says. “The taxpayer has every right to understand in detail what happened.”

RandomGuy
10-27-2009, 12:11 PM
New York Fed (http://www.newyorkfed.org/) instructed AIG to pay them par, or 100 cents on the dollar [for the CDS of AIG]

WTF?!?!

I want somebody's head on a stick.

Winehole23
10-27-2009, 12:20 PM
Instead, AIG and it's counterparties we given the US taxpayer to suck on, to tide them over.

http://dirtymartini.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/lollipop1.jpg

Winehole23
10-27-2009, 12:31 PM
There is little doubt now: to whet their appetites for the for the bonanza the very same megacompanies stand to reap from the next financial panic.

RandomGuy
10-27-2009, 12:51 PM
At some point, we should make insane financial risk-taking with trillions of dollars a capital (HA!) offense.

:hang


CDS should be regulated either by state gaming commissions as bets, or by state insurance departments as insurance.

They are not fucking financial instruments created by innovative financiers, they are either gambling or insurance, so let's not bullshit ourselves that the essence of those transactions is different than what they are.

Winehole23
02-01-2012, 07:30 AM
More than half of the derivatives- trading business of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GS:US), Morgan Stanley and three other large banks could fall largely outside the Dodd- Frank Act if they succeed in lobbying regulators to exempt their overseas operations, government records show.



The debate over the reach of Dodd-Frank has been among the most contentious aspects of the regulatory overhaul enacted by President Barack Obama (http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/) after the 2008 credit crisis. The banks have met with regulators, testified to Congress and filed dozens of letters contending that they will suffer a competitive disadvantage if the regulations apply to their foreign arms.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-30/goldman-sachs-among-banks-lobbying-to-exempt-half-of-swaps-from-dodd-frank.html

TDMVPDPOY
02-08-2012, 02:44 AM
bump, questionaire

u guys know how the govt bailed out t he banks that went bankrupt and paying out the ppl who had deposits with them.....

did the govt also paid out the shareholders of those companies also?? cause if they did...FAIL.

Winehole23
02-08-2012, 10:01 AM
Not sure, but that would be surprising to me. The FDIC insures depositors, not investors.

coyotes_geek
02-08-2012, 10:22 AM
bump, questionaire

u guys know how the govt bailed out t he banks that went bankrupt and paying out the ppl who had deposits with them.....

did the govt also paid out the shareholders of those companies also?? cause if they did...FAIL.

Simple answer: No.

Complex answer: No, but kinda sorta yes to a small extent in certain cases.

Shareholders weren't getting checks from the govt, but if you owned shares in a bank that were on their way to $0 and the govt bailout kept those shares from falling all the way to $0, then there's a case to be made that benefitted shareholders. But that's more side effect than intent of the program. Nothing to get worked up over IMO. In AIG's case it just meant that shareholders "only" lost 99% of their investment instead of 100%.

Winehole23
02-08-2012, 10:29 AM
I thought TDMVPDPOY was talking about banks that defaulted and got reorganized by the FDIC, but I could be wrong...

coyotes_geek
02-08-2012, 10:34 AM
If he was, then I'm pretty sure all those shareholders got wiped out. I thought he was also asking about the AIG's, BAC's, C's and other banks/financial institutions that are still with us in some form.

Winehole23
02-08-2012, 10:37 AM
the reference to paying out depositors hooked me

EVAY
02-08-2012, 10:42 AM
Simple answer: No.

Complex answer: No, but kinda sorta yes to a small extent in certain cases.

Shareholders weren't getting checks from the govt, but if you owned shares in a bank that were on their way to $0 and the govt bailout kept those shares from falling all the way to $0, then there's a case to be made that benefitted shareholders. But that's more side effect than intent of the program. Nothing to get worked up over IMO. In AIG's case it just meant that shareholders "only" lost 99% of their investment instead of 100%.

This is the answer to the question exactly.

EVAY
02-08-2012, 10:45 AM
You know, after the election Geitner was kept on and made Treasury Head in order to assuage the fears of the financial sector.

He has recently been quoted as saying that he "knows that he will not be asked to stay on if the President is reelected".

I have been nervous because I know that Wall Street likes Geitner (why the hell not, huh?), but now, I think that maybe the Prez has found out just how shady this whole thing has become.

EVAY
02-08-2012, 10:48 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-30/goldman-sachs-among-banks-lobbying-to-exempt-half-of-swaps-from-dodd-frank.html

This is what amounts to 'brass on their face' from banks. And I am livid that Republican members of Congress would support their position.

IMO, if Romney starts talking in the general election about over-regulating Wall Street as a bad thing from this administration, it could cause him to lose on just this sort of thing.

I wish I knew if that would be a better thing or a worse thing.

I don't see a good alternative in this election so far.

Winehole23
02-08-2012, 10:56 AM
Obama is reported to have chafed at Geithner's independence and refusal to coordinate with the WH in 2009. Obama knew how dirty this deal was. I think he just dislikes Geithner.

At this point, what possible benefit would be attached to keeping him on?

EVAY
02-08-2012, 12:54 PM
Obama is reported to have chafed at Geithner's independence and refusal to coordinate with the WH in 2009. Obama knew how dirty this deal was. I think he just dislikes Geithner.

At this point, what possible benefit would be attached to keeping him on?

You think that Obama knew about the deal before he became President?

Remember, most of these things happened before the Inauguration.

The only possible benefit to keeping him on is that I shudder to think who might get appointed.

I fear what would happen to the markets if a flame-thrower got put in. If it were someone like Elizabeth Warren I would be okay, but if it was someone like the equivalent of Holder at Justice I would be upset.

TDMVPDPOY
02-08-2012, 12:56 PM
Simple answer: No.

Complex answer: No, but kinda sorta yes to a small extent in certain cases.

Shareholders weren't getting checks from the govt, but if you owned shares in a bank that were on their way to $0 and the govt bailout kept those shares from falling all the way to $0, then there's a case to be made that benefitted shareholders. But that's more side effect than intent of the program. Nothing to get worked up over IMO. In AIG's case it just meant that shareholders "only" lost 99% of their investment instead of 100%.

this is the problem i have here with the bailout, where the shareholders benefitted from the bailout that kept their investment and company afloat...

why didnt the shareholders bail out their company?
-how come the bank didnt have a capital raising/sell debentures....
-hence why didnt these fuckers called up all secured debtors who owes them credit...
-hence why didnt the bank called up all the mortgage holders, im certain its in the policy contracts....

yet the got a bailout and turned around and resold that shit in other forms of dodgy schemes...

Winehole23
02-08-2012, 01:08 PM
You think that Obama knew about the deal before he became President?

Remember, most of these things happened before the Inauguration.At the time of the deal, no. But I think Obama knew who Tim Geithner was when he appointed him.


The only possible benefit to keeping him on is that I shudder to think who might get appointed. Good point. Things can always get worse.

Does my aversion to that possibility overpower my dislike for Tim Geithner? No way.

I fear what would happen to the markets if a flame-thrower got put in. If it were someone like Elizabeth Warren I would be okay, but if it was someone like the equivalent of Holder at Justice I would be upset.RE: Eric Holder, please see Tim Geithner, above

EVAY
02-08-2012, 01:08 PM
this is the problem i have here with the bailout, where the shareholders benefitted from the bailout that kept their investment and company afloat...

why didnt the shareholders bail out their company?
-how come the bank didnt have a capital raising/sell debentures....
-hence why didnt these fuckers called up all secured debtors who owes them credit...
-hence why didnt the bank called up all the mortgage holders, im certain its in the policy contracts....

yet the got a bailout and turned around and resold that shit in other forms of dodgy schemes...

Well, what you describe is the way that capitalism is supposed to work. At the very least, the Boards of Directors of these companies should have thrown out management instead of approving mega-bonuses, but they didn't. Then the shareholders should have voted out the Boards and the Senior management, but none of that happened either. Why? It is in their economic interest to keep it going.

That is why the government bailed them out too...it was in the interest of the nation's and the world's economic viability not to let them fail.

Let's face it guys...for the last 45 years or so the entire planet's economic system is virtually nothing more than a socially constructed reality by which we all agree that dollars mean X and Yen mean Y, etc., etc. Ever since the U.S. removed itself from the gold standard, there is no standard, just socially constructed realities.

EVAY
02-08-2012, 01:09 PM
At the time of the deal, no. But I think Obama knew who Tim Geithner was when he appointed him.
Good point. Things can always get worse.


RE: Eric Holder, please see Tim Geithner, above

Agreed. I truly am worried. But I don't have a clue what to do about it.

TDMVPDPOY
02-08-2012, 01:14 PM
Well, what you describe is the way that capitalism is supposed to work. At the very least, the Boards of Directors of these companies should have thrown out management instead of approving mega-bonuses, but they didn't. Then the shareholders should have voted out the Boards and the Senior management, but none of that happened either. Why? It is in their economic interest to keep it going.

That is why the government bailed them out too...it was in the interest of the nation's and the world's economic viability not to let them fail.

Let's face it guys...for the last 45 years or so the entire planet's economic system is virtually nothing more than a socially constructed reality by which we all agree that dollars mean X and Yen mean Y, etc., etc. Ever since the U.S. removed itself from the gold standard, there is no standard, just socially constructed realities.

the funni part is the govt had no say how these morons run their company and redistribute the bailout money....

lol the directors all gettin bonuses from bailout money when they basically did shit all to earn that bailout when it was all the govt doing....im surprised no charges were laid, let alone the govt and stupid shareholders didnt get rid of the directors of the insolvent companies

EVAY
02-08-2012, 01:21 PM
the funni part is the govt had no say how these morons run their company and redistribute the bailout money....

..im surprised no charges were laid, let alone the govt and stupid shareholders didnt get rid of the directors of the insolvent companies

To me, this is as great a sign of corruption as anything else. Geithner has to be protecting these guys, or surely a busload of them would be in the clink by now.

Did you read the book or see the documentary Too Big to Fail?

If not, see the HBO documentary. It is faster than the book, well acted and gives you essentially the same information.

TDMVPDPOY
02-08-2012, 01:41 PM
i wonder how much did the govt had at stake in these corporations running whatever money they had invested with them, dont forget the sovereign govts that also invested into these dodgy schemes that was run by these banks who didnt get bailed like the depositers...


with billions on the books and computers all in the red, but the actual physical monies are in the safes....so whats the difference of disclosing here when they can just withdraw the money from the banks safes and start depositing them into fake accounts?

coyotes_geek
02-08-2012, 01:43 PM
this is the problem i have here with the bailout, where the shareholders benefitted from the bailout that kept their investment and company afloat...

why didnt the shareholders bail out their company?
-how come the bank didnt have a capital raising/sell debentures....
-hence why didnt these fuckers called up all secured debtors who owes them credit...
-hence why didnt the bank called up all the mortgage holders, im certain its in the policy contracts....

yet the got a bailout and turned around and resold that shit in other forms of dodgy schemes...

Meh. I think you're making too big of a deal over the shareholders. I'd be pissed at who got the money, not at the shareholders who just managed to avoid a total loss because someone else was getting the money.

TDMVPDPOY
02-08-2012, 01:53 PM
Meh. I think you're making too big of a deal over the shareholders. I'd be pissed at who got the money, not at the shareholders who just managed to avoid a total loss because someone else was getting the money.

fck the shareholders, investing into shares they know what the risks involve for good yields, they already accept the risks of price flunctuations in shares, so why did they deserve a bailout???

govt shouldve just bought all their shares at whatever market value it was at the time and nationalize the banks....

coyotes_geek
02-08-2012, 02:30 PM
They didn't get a bailout. The bank got the bailout, not the shareholders who owned it. Depending on the situation, that bailout to the bank may have prevented the shareholders from taking a 100% loss on their investment.

TDMVPDPOY
02-11-2012, 04:49 AM
i think i found the perfect solution to the bank bailouts

fck the shareholders should accept the loss just like every other ordinary person who invest in shares in other companies that didnt get a bailout, cause they know what they are investing into and dont deserve a bailout like those who are into low risk investments...

the govt didnt get shit back from the banks, shouldve just allowed them to default and buy the bank or start up a new one with slate credit debt, to get their money back would either privatised the govts share holding or issue shares back to the market...

the amount of money wasted in the bailouts, the govt couldve just started up their own bank and you will see the amount of ppl switchin to the govts bank...

Winehole23
02-11-2012, 09:47 AM
the amount of money wasted in the bailouts, the govt couldve just started up their own bank and you will see the amount of ppl switchin to the govts bank... During the great depression, before deposit insurance, something like this happened in the USA. Busted banks are now reorganized by the FDIC. 420 or so banks have failed in the US since 2008.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html


In contrast, in the five years prior to 2008, only 11 banks had failed.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_United_States_%282008 %E2%80%93present%29

Winehole23
09-04-2015, 03:21 PM
hard to believe:


In August, the US Treasury Department responded to a 2013 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records of former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s (http://www.treasury.gov/about/history/Pages/hmpaulson.aspx) communications during the 2008 bailout of American International Group (AIG) by claiming that the agency could not find any records.


The FOIA request was filed in May of 2013 and the agency notified the requester about the completion of the records search in August of 2015. The FOIA request sought records related to the 2008 AIG bailout, specifically, records of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s communications about AIG from June 1, 2008 to January 20, 2009.


The Treasury Department claimed in response to the FOIA request that they could not find any records, writing “A comprehensive search of Treasury’s official correspondence tracking system failed to locate or identify any responsive records.”

http://shadowproof.com/2015/09/02/treasury-department-claims-paulson-never-officially-discussed-aig-bailout/

Winehole23
12-03-2015, 11:42 AM
Fed restricts bailouts to only five or more insolvent firms at a time:


The Federal Reserve took the final step to ensure it can’t repeat the extraordinary measures taken to rescue American International Group Inc. and Bear Stearns Cos. in 2008, adopting formal restrictions on its ability to help failing financial firms.


Under the revised authority approved in a 5-0 vote Monday, the Fed would only be able to save firms in a broad-based scenario including at least five entities at the same time. The changes are designed to reflect Congress’ intention in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act to prevent the central bank from bailing out individual companies.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/fed-adopts-emergency-lending-limits-banning-aig-style-bailouts

Winehole23
12-03-2015, 11:44 AM
S&P bank ratings downgraded on the news:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/jpmorgan-bofa-citigroup-among-eight-big-u-s-banks-cut-by-s-p

boutons_deux
12-03-2015, 01:02 PM
Fed restricts bailouts to only five or more insolvent firms at a time:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/fed-adopts-emergency-lending-limits-banning-aig-style-bailouts

well, the BigFive banks take the biggest risks, will need the biggest bailouts so this is bullshit "limit".

btw, the Repugs want to repeal, kill Frank-Dodd/CFPB completely.

boutons_deux
12-03-2015, 01:03 PM
S&P bank ratings downgraded on the news:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/jpmorgan-bofa-citigroup-among-eight-big-u-s-banks-cut-by-s-p

the banks just have to respond to S&P shakedown by paying them more to up their ratings.

RandomGuy
12-04-2015, 02:05 PM
S&P bank ratings downgraded on the news:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/jpmorgan-bofa-citigroup-among-eight-big-u-s-banks-cut-by-s-p

Read that.

Good to see free market discipline being restored.

RandomGuy
12-04-2015, 02:06 PM
well, the BigFive banks take the biggest risks, will need the biggest bailouts so this is bullshit "limit".



To some degree, yes, BUT, that still limits it somewhat and sends a fairly clear signal to the markets, even if the distinction doesn't mean as much as it might seem at first glance.

Any step towards forcing big banks to be more prudent is a good one, IMO.