Financial Services AIG Hearing Panel 2 (Liddy)

The hearing can be view on the committee stream or CSPAN3.

The witnesses are: 

Panel two 

Kanjorski: Pink ladies respond properly or please leave the room. Signs DOWN!!!

Kanjorski administers oath.

Kanjorski: We’ve had occasion to visit personally 2-3 months ago and 4-6 weeks ago a telephone conversation that wasn’t as great. Mr. Liddy is not a person that is being paid for the CEO position he occupies at AIG, impressed into federal service and he responded to their call. He is former CEO of one of our largest insurance companies. I wanted to make that clear bc I’m sure that you and your family have had a lot of abuse in the last few days. I think it only fair that we set record straight. When we discovered potential bonus payments, I urged you to suppress payment. My understanding that AIG people and my staff would cooperate and transfer docs to lend assistance. Specifically, we wanted to see whether we could vitiate this contract. As of Saturday last we have received no communication regard papers. Only thing we received was a letter indicating that payment was made.

[Note, this whole exchange suggests–rather implausibly–that Kanjorski knew about the bonuses before Geithner did.]

Kanjorski: Sometimes insurance companies delay payment until they’re sued. This appears to be a rushed payment. One of the last payments would have been a denial of the right to pay on the contract. Not a bad remedy. If you had taken that position, these bonus recipients would have been in the same position as the US, worst that could have happened would have been penalty. I thought you were missing gravity of this situation. 

Liddy: Why pay these people at all. Trying desperately to prevent uncontrolled collapse of that business. Only way to avoid systemic shock to the economy that the US government help was meant to prevent. We concluded that the risk to the company and the financial system and the economy was too high and that we would have happen what the involvement in AIG was supposed to prevent. I’ve asked employees of AIGFP to step up and do the right thing, those who received retention in excess of $150,000 to give up half. Some have already given up 100% of those payments. Obviously we are meeting at a high point of public anger. As a businessman I’ve seen the good side of capitalism. I’ve now seen its bad side. Mistakes were made on a scale few could have imagined possible. On behalf of my colleagues I want to thank the Fed and Treasury and taxpayer. Most improtantly to protect taxpayers.

[Wait. Mr insurance in the last panel said that insurance assets are untouchable. Were they not kept untouchable???? He needs to be asked whether grandma’s life insurance is still safe, bc we’re getting different messages here.]

Kanjorski: You’ve just annnounced that some employees that received those bonuses. Why couldn’t that have been negotiated for the last two months. Why not make that available to this committee, Fed, Treas?

Liddy: Working on it, made it publicly available in 10Ks and 8Qs. Decision I made as much risk assessment as blindly following legal advice. Still $1.6 trillion in that portfolio. There’s risk that that could blow up. It could cause irreperable damage to what we’ve tried to do here.

Kanjorski: If those assets blow up, total destruction or come back for additional funds.

Liddy: Yes, in cooperation with Fed, we could preserve that unit and continue to wind down. $165 million is a very large number. In context of $1.6 trillion it was a good number. 

Kanjorski: Bernanke assented to this?

Liddy: They have the ability to weigh in.

Kanjorski: Why wasn’t this committee made aware? Why did you make the payments on a Saturday night?

Liddy: No intent to deceive. They were due. With the Fed.

Kanjorski: you did not discuss this with your staff. 

Liddy: We wanted to do what was right with the contracts. We’ve been talkign with teh Fed literally for 3 months.

Kanjorski: And with the secty Treas?

Liddy: No, Fed decides how much we talk to Treas. We’ve asked if they want a separate communication channel.

Kanjorski: You know TARP is going to run out?

[Can we fire Helicopter Ben here, while we’re firing Geithner?]

Liddy: Another element. If something happens to AIG, and puts at risk all the money that has been put into it. Can we stabilize the AIGFP and run it down.

Kanjorski: Are we to assume you’re going to continue this process of talking only to the Fed and not informing Congress and the American people, we assumed that the Fed was communicating with others. 

Garrett: I would presume that even if Treas not in those meetings that the info was flowing back. WH trying to get Treas to clawback. Is WH second-guessing Treas must have known through a period of time, both through Fed, and Treas from Wall Street.

Liddy: I talked to [Geithner] last week, and he indicated that the first he had heard about this was the week earlier. 

Garrett: Is there an exit strategy?

Liddy: There is.

Garrett: is it really going to engage itself.

Liddy: Sell back whatever assets we can. Ring fence it, and give it to Fed as satisfaction of debt. There is an exit strategy. But very market dependent.

Garrett: Testimony on earlier, adds up to $400 billion. Why is that number different?

Liddy: Credit default, but also oil contracts, derivatives. Measure how many dollars of notional exposure $2.7 to 1.6. $80 billion, n0w $10 billion in CDS. 

Kanjorski: The pink ladies, the signs are going to be removed, or you’re going to be removed. Officers: take the signs. If I see any more signs on camera, you’re going to be physically removed from this room. 

Frank: A good thing no one was wearing a t-shirt with a slogan. Repeat what Geithner and others has said. Liddy not responsible for bonuses. I disagree with how he’s handled it, but there ought to be a clear distinction between those who created it and Liddy. I have said several times to make changes, to make Federal govt to assert stronger ownership rights, if we sued, as an owner, we’d have a stornger stance than as a regulator. I also have said there ought to be people removed. I am very critical of the people who put the contracts in place. Pool of money but losses capped at $65 million. Is it possible that the company could have lost money but still bonus pool. 

Liddy: No performance bonuses. We said to people you have a job, that job is going to go away, if you stay to wind down.

Frank: No performance bonuses. Did those who left get retention bonuses?

Liddy: Those who wound down their part of the business.

Frank: What would be the period of time after they left they got retention bonuses.

Liddy: Pay the debt down first so teh rating agencies. Fed has invested two tranches. $40 billion TARP, and $38 billion through the Fed. That’s all. First Fed debt, then TARP dollars. 

Frank: Submit in writing whether we should be dealing with orderly resolution procedure. Some are giving bonuses back. Send us names who have not given bonuses back. 

Liddy: If I can be assured it will remain confidential.

Frank: Then we’ll subpoena them. 

Liddy: Threats directed at my executives. Piano wire around their neck.

Frank: I will consult with the law enforcement people. But I do want to keep that request on the table.  If we give into these threats, a lot of information will never be made public. 

Bachus: M2M

Liddy: M2M is a good concept run amuck. When liquidity completely dries up, you have to keep marking it down. 

Liddy $40 billion TARP, $38 billion Fed. Fed invested in our distressed assets. 40-50-60 cents on the dollar, acquire assets. They will do very well on that investment. 

[Shorter Liddy: I still believe in the shitpile!!]

Bachus: In the market they’re trading at 90 cents on teh dollar.

Liddy: [Nice try, but not really. ] They’re trading at 30 to 70 cents on the dollar. 

Ackerman: You have no upside. You have no right to be subjected to threats. $165 million is less than 1/2 of one percent. Not worth the angst this country is going through. Cut your losses. 

Liddy: The legal side. What we can’t do is have an event that causes AIGFP to get into cost default. It will be bankruptcy. 

[Ackerman, don’t interrupt this–we need to understand this.]

Liddy: My fear is the damage is done that they’ll return it with their resignation. 

Liddy: I’m talking about the $1.6 trillion.  Credit default swap needs more visibility.

Ackerman: Transparency.

Castle: Interested in events that occurred when you came to AIG, Fed govt role. 

Liddy: Fed and Treas, they’ve primarily encouraged us to deal with one overseer, primarily with Fed.

Castle: Fed has been at board meetings.

Liddy: goes to participation that lead up to board meetings.

Castle: You assumed they had shared that info with Treas and Congress.

Liddy: I had a conversation with Geithner and he indicated he had only become aware a week earlier. We try to keep Congress informed.

Castle: If Geithner was head of NYFR, would he not have know from them?

[ding ding ding ding]

Castle: Did he participate in any of the meetings while still at Fed?

Liddy: Yes, but once he was nominated he recused himself. 

Castle: Fed could say yeah or nay. Did they have the right? Or did you just assume they could have said something. 

Castle: They did not say nay on the part of the bonuses. 

Liddy: There was incredible angst on the part of everyone, including the Fed. The conclusion was that the risk was too great. 

Castle: Can Liddy submit a list of where the Fed was and who was there?

Liddy: Wed on’t have it available to us now. Yes. 

Ackerman: Quick clarification. You said cooperate with Cuomo in NY. He has subpoenaed those names. Will you cooperate with subpoena?

Liddy: I’ll talk to my GC about it and we’ll do the right thing.

Ackerman: Does that include with complying with legal requests from AG. It’s yes or no.

Liddy: If someone can just assure me that it’s not going to be a list of names and dollars and pictures. It would be our intent to comply with the subpoena. 

Sherman: We learned that savings bank and insurance will be just fine if the parent went into receivership.  They told us they had experts in CDS that were making between $100,000 and $150,000 a year with no bonuses. And none of them have the experience in bringing down an entire company. I don’t want to go home and say we may have some chance of getting some of the money back. If we pass the tax bill, we’re sure to get all the compensation back. If the Fed knew and didn’t tell us, then it calls into question their commitment to democracy. Can I count on you to provide every doc you give the Fed.

Liddy: I’d like the opportunity to talk to my GC about that. 

Sherman: You’re going to have to keep us informed. I’d like a chart focusing on future bonuses and high compensation. How many are getting over half a million, million, or two million.  Can you furnish that for the record.  Are employees able to consult with criminal defense attorneys.

Liddy: Only if there’s an assertion of criminal wrong-doing. 

Sherman: You have an obligation to tell your shareholders. We’d save the $30 billion, but we’d invalidate these bonus contracts. You seem to have informed one or two people about that. The other issues is the contracts seem to have been entered into  in contemplation of huge losses. Both these issues raise issues of criminal liability.

Manzullo: You didn’t consider changing the contracts.

Liddy: I started from different position, from risk.

Manzullo: [Reviews amounts]

Liddy: Top people in AIGFP. Top people in AIG are receiving no bonus. 

Manzullo: When Kashkari testified, he said the top people who were responsible had been removed. 

Liddy: I think he meant AIG.

Manzullo: I was questioning $4 million bonus. His statement that the key people who made it go sour had been removed. Those people getting bonuses were people in charge when it collapsed.

Liddy: We’re not paying Cassano and other architects.

Manzullo: An executor more than $4.6 million in bonus? 

Liddy: Very talented people who are unwinding that $1.6 trillion. 

[There’s a big problem here–Liddy says the CDS people are gone, but he’s saying that the other derivatives are STILL too complex to unwind by themselves. Either this stuff is still toxic and you pay them $1 million and therefore the same wacky shit that brought this down, or it’s not that complex and they can leave.]

Manzullo: Your testimony is inconsistent with Kashkari. He said the people who are responsible are gone. 

Liddy: Some people left once they unwound their business. 

Capuano: Did you expect these bonuses to piss off Americans. Do you believe honestly in your heart that these are the only people that are capable of doing this job?

Liddy: No I don’t. 

Capuano: Do you believe there’s a plan?

Liddy: I do. 

Capuano: You didnt’ consider replacing these people bc the contracts are too complex. Did you consider going to court. By the time those lawsuits were settled, you’d be bankrupt or private and profitable.

Liddy: Had we done that more than likely those people would have walked out the door tomorrow. To the extent something happens in one of those trades, we get into a spiral. 

Capuano: Do you have any plans to fire them?

Capuano: You could have fired these people and replaced them with people who are unemployed on Wall Street. In your former life you’re with Allstate. That’s a contract with Allstate. Did you honor every single one of those contracts.  If you had a difference of opinion on those issues. Let the Courts decide. 

Liddy: Each has a book of business 31-33 books of business. We’ve brought in other people as backstops. 

Liddy: There are a number of people at AIG working hard to pay back the American taxpayer. You’d be proud of them.

Capuano: Not right now I’m not.

Biggert: Would the executives have received those bonuses if AIG went into bankruptcy? Because the money came from the Fed they were able to get the bonuses.  Did taxpayers get to vote on these bonuses. Did you hear from these trustees? 

Liddy: They were just appointed mid-February. I have met with them on a number of occasions. Reviewed them with Fed. 

Biggert: They were appointed after. Did they review this? Who are the trustees.

Liddy: [can’t name them] I can get you that list. 

Biggert: can you give me three good reasons you should have received that money?

Liddy: Prevent a very disorderly event that could have brought down the whole corporation. We thought it was wiser to err on the side of caution to see if we could keep those individuals in place. 

Baca: During the last Admin that came up with these contracts.

Liddy: My predecessors.

Baca: Before Obama took over. So it was under the last admin. Doesn’t bonus mean you’re performing something that is good.

Liddy: Wind down your responsibility within AIGFP.

[It was in here where Liddy claimed these millionaires are "basic" Americans.]

Hensarling: You were one of the good guys. On page 4 you talk about federal regulators making the decision not to let AIG to fail. Any company requiring $170 billion has failed. It is now a conduit for counter-party transfers for federal money. You speak of a plan in your testimony to maximize the value of the core businesses. Will this make the American taxpayerwhole?

Liddy: The markets have to "behave." Since October that has proved not to be the case. We think we can still pay back the federal govt. 

Hensarling; I spent 10 years in private sector. You had to perform exceedingly well, the company had to preform exceedingly well. Do the recipients of these bonuses share your enthusiasm? Why don’t you tie bonuses to making the taxpayer whole?

Liddy: Not in taxpayer’s best interest to go there. 

Hensarling: Where is the skin in the game for the people who are supposed to turn this around?

Lynch: Agreements. Bonus pool capped. Regardless of losses, bonuses will be given out. Is that consistent with fiduciary responsibility.

Liddy: Not familiar with that contract. No performance bonuses in 2008.

Lynch: Retention. While you’re looking at it 3.06.a, the effect of M2M losses on bonus pool, bonus pool not effected by any losses of M2M arising from CDO portfolio. You’ve immunized yourself from stupidest decisions made by AIG. You’ve immunized your bonus pool from that stupid decision. This is like the captain and the crew of the ship reserving the life boats. We’re going to take the life boats for the crew and the captain. I believe this is reversible. That is simply unbelievable, I think it’s probably illegal, we should challenge this as shareholders. Do you have anything to say for yourself.

Liddy: You have generously used the word "you" in your statement. I was not there. I take offense at the use of the word "you" there.

Lynch: I have people in my district who don’t have a 401K, a lot of them are out of work right now. Think about those people and how they feel about having to pick up the tab.

Liddy: I did not put these in place. Omnibus contract retention and performance.

Lynch: I’m a contract attorney. 

Liddy: There were no performance bonuses. We did not pay anything in accordance with those clauses. 

Campbell: Future of this company. $2.7 trillion to $1.6 trillion. If markets were as they are today, they don’t get better don’t get worse. Run down that $1.6 billion, what kind of loss would you expect? 

Liddy: Rundown can happen in orderly way. Goal is not to lose any money. Entirely possible as long as someone there monitoring book of business. 

Campbell: Do you think it likely?

Liddy: It will probably cost a couple of billion. 

Campbell: Commercial property and loss, down 24% in fourth quarter, business shrinking in both volume and margins. 

Campbell: Will that business be profitable in Q1 this year? Was it profitable in Q4 last year? Property casualty and life side? They could just replace it with another carrier.

Liddy: If there was enough capacity. 

Campbell: What is the status of life insurance. Is that business profitable?

Liddy: profitable. If you seel fixed annuities. No one in industry is selling those. We’re down same as industry. Persistency has stabilized. 

Campbell: Why not sell it now?

Liddy: No buyers.

Miller: Transparency. Kashkari said he didn’t understand question about counter-parties.  Did your lawyers consider whether this was an attempt to loot the company?

Liddy: I asked "are these valid contracts, can we break them?"

Miller: Was AIG solvent were they arms length contracts or sweatheart contracts. Have you seen St. Denis’ testimony?

Liddy: There is no evidence of wrong-doing in any of this.

Miller: This isn’t evidence of cooking the books?!?!?! USG doesn’t owe anyone for the debt of AIG.

Liddy: AIG owes the American people $80 billion.

Miller: what you owe your counter-parties, that’s not a debt of US government.

Liddy: No, a debt of AIG. 

Miller: Shareholders bear the loss. Unsecured creditors bear the loss. Are we maintaining market discipline to pay your counter-parties. 

Liddy: We owe those counterparties that money. Not paying them is an event of default which forces us into bankruptcy. 

Miller: Are you going to investigate wrong-doing on part of executives. Civil liability? Can you sue them. You seem to be terrified they might sue you. 

Liddy: Judgement was on a risk basis, if we don’t have those people. 

image_print
150 replies
  1. Leen says:

    On a Bill Moyers special Moyers stated that last fall Paulson had stated that the efforts to block executive compensation would not “hold water”

    So who will be the sacrificial lamb?

    Will we ever get the names of those who have received the executive compensation?

  2. radiofreewill says:

    Here’s an Oxdown Diary from Prof. Dean Baker talking about “Getting Lehman Wrong a Second Time.”

    http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/4261

    “The problems that followed from Lehman did not just stem from the fact that the government was not honouring Lehman’s debts. This was an uncontrolled bankruptcy of a huge investment bank in a world where the official line was still that everything was under control. The Washington Post had even run a column the day before Lehman’s collapse ridiculing those who were making negative comments about the state of the economy.”

  3. RieszFischer says:

    Kanjorski: Pink ladies respond properly or please leave the room. Signs DOWN!!!

    Those pink ladies– they just don’t know how to behave.

  4. RoyalOak says:

    I can’t believe he is calling these “retention” bonuses when it’s been widely reported that some of these people don’t even work for AIG any more!

    • MarkH says:

      I can’t believe he is calling these “retention” bonuses when it’s been widely reported that some of these people don’t even work for AIG any more!

      If I understand his testimony he was saying they were bonuses to retain them until they had finished winding down their books. Apparently they wound down their books, left the company and were then paid the bonuses.

      It looks bad the order in which things happened, but who knows whether, in that industry, this is unusual.

  5. Hugh says:

    EPU’ed

    Liddy was CEO of Allstate from 1999-2006. He was on Goldman Sachs Board of Directors from 2003-2008 so all during the time of the bubbles, speculation spree, and the meltdown.

  6. phred says:

    “repay the government to the maximum extent possible”

    Doesn’t sound like they will ever be able to fully pay us back. We have to stop this bs now. We need a bank holiday, take the whole mess over and restructure before any more tax dollars go down the rabbit hole in the vain hope of saving the uber-rich.

    • MarkH says:

      Doesn’t sound like they will ever be able to fully pay us back. We have to stop this bs now. We need a bank holiday, take the whole mess over and restructure before any more tax dollars go down the rabbit hole in the vain hope of saving the uber-rich.

      Well, we are 80% owners and we have a new CEO and some people he picked to wind down the books, so it IS a lot like a restructuring.

      What’s stopping them NOW do for us? We would lose a lot more doing that.

  7. foothillsmike says:

    Did Liddy say that AIG wanted to return the investment of the American People to the maximum extent possible.

    • MarkH says:

      Kanjorski: So why did you pay these bonuses late on a Saturday?
      Liddy: We weren’t trying to hide this from anybody.

      Actually Liddy responded again later and said the contract specified that date and it just happened to be a Saturday.

  8. Elliott says:

    Former Allstate Chairman Edward Liddy tapped (again) by Paulson

    When U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson chose former Allstate Chairman Edward M. Liddy to head American International Group Inc. after the government’s bailout of the insurance giant, he was turning to an old buddy he knew he could trust.
    Five years ago, when Paulson ran investment house Goldman Sachs Group Inc., he picked Liddy to join that board.

    interesting interactive diagram of all his connections.

      • marymccurnin says:

        Paulson = Liddy
        Liddy was former Allstate Chairman
        Allstate had to be fined to pay claims after Katrina.
        Allstate did not pay many claims.
        Just another in a long list fraudulent acts by our world wide fascist corporate structure.
        Enron and Katrina were just the beginning.

  9. Leen says:

    Those pink ladies will probably suffer more consequences for shedding the light on serious crimes than those who have committed the crimes

    • dosido says:

      someone quoted Voltaire this morning on Stephanie Miller:

      “It’s dangerous to be right when the government is wrong”

  10. selise says:

    kanjorski is an asshole. insists that signs can not be seen – usually the rule is that the signs can not block anyone’s view or disrupt the hearing. that seems to me a fair rule. insisting that the signs can not be seen is just too much.

  11. Hugh says:

    Liddy AIG exit strategy:

    Sell what assets we can
    Ring fence them if they can’t

    How successful have these been? I thought they were having trouble finding buyers for the other divisions. And as for ring fencing (keeping them from going down with AIGFP and the parent company), that leaked AIG report tried to say that in fact if AIG went down then all of the units would go down with it. That report sounded a lot like blackmail.

    Shorter version: I don’t know what the hell Liddy is talking about.

  12. selise says:

    very interesting that the info on bonuses went through the fed and congressional staff – not geithner.

    i’m no fan of geithner, but if that’s true then that’s evidence that he’s being made a scapegoat for the fed’s and congress’s fuck ups.

    • frandor55 says:

      But isn’t it Geithner’s job to know about bonuses and the like? It makes him out be incompetent rather than malevolent.

      • selise says:

        not the way liddy described it. that’s why i wrote “if that’s true”

        even so, doesn’t change my mind about the need to fire geithner. just don’t think that would be enough. our problems are much more pervasive.

        • Praedor says:

          At this point I would be happy with “people’s courts”. The key players under suspicion ARE guilty enough of related sins, if not the specific sins, such that when they swing, justice is STILL being done.

        • Leen says:

          and according to a Bill Moyers special on the bailout. Last fall Hank Paulson stated that the efforts to block executive compensation would not “hold water”

          Paulson gave me the creeps last fall as he hurried Reps to bail bail bail

        • dosido says:

          I also felt the Frontline special on the bailout had huge holes in how it all went down. Nothing against Frontline, I found it surprising and felt more info may “out” later.

          very odd, too, how Lehman went down. who is doing the choosing of seats on the lifeboat and who benefits? Hmmm.

  13. Leen says:

    so why did our reps fold their hands on blocking executive compensation? And who were the greedy fuckers who pushed hard in those last hours?

    Was Paulson part of the team that made sure they (the greedy fucks) received their taxpayers compensation packages

    • Praedor says:

      Reid is covering on this issue. He is asked who was responsible and he dodges.

      We MUST know who pushed it, who voted for it, and THEY MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE ASAP.

  14. Hugh says:

    Liddy first we will pay off the Fed debt then the TARP money. I believe that this will happen approximately at the same time pigs learn to fly . . . F-16s.

  15. Leen says:

    Liddy “I want to protect our people” You bet your ass you do and have

    Those are words…what executive has ever had anything done to them? Print their names..all ready Print their names

    • dosido says:

      I was glad to hear BF say “I am not persuaded” (to withdraw his request or agree to restrictions)

  16. Leen says:

    Liddy more concerned with the thieves that he protects than the pitiful and pathetic peasants (who are obviously venting their frustrations through useless and hollow threats) yet have been seriously abused, ripped off and for time ad infinitum .

    They (congress, AIG) have the power and have seriously abused that power the peasants are watching in horror.

    • Rayne says:

      As pointed out above, Liddy wasn’t hired by AIG as CEO, he got the job (and now death threats) because he was serving on behalf of us as the new majority owners of AIG.

      Liddy may or may not have the kind of directors and officers insurance on his acts which CEO’s typically have in his position when hired under normal circumstances. He’s obligated as an executive to ensure the safety of his employees whether we as major shareholders are happy with the employees’ performance or not. If something were to happen in the way of violent acts against the employees right now, Liddy would be sued and might well be within his rights to expect us as the major shareholders to indemnify and defend him against any lawsuits by employees, heirs and assigns.

      In saying he’s worried about AIG employees, he’s protecting our interests. We don’t need more lawsuits to eat our money.

  17. Praedor says:

    All you need to know to see how the whole giveaway to Goldman Sachs (that is ALL this is about) is going to play is here.

    Besides doing all they can to feed their masters at Goldman Sachs, Geithner, Summers, Bernanke (and OBAMA) are tossing money at liabilities that are simply MUCH bigger than all the money in the world. It CAN’T work. Nationalization is the ONLY fix here. It is the least costly to you and me, and the fastest way to resolve the whole shitpile. First up for nationalization after AIG should be Goldman Sachs, then Citi, then BoA, then JPMorgan, then Wells fucking Fargo.

    Oh, and STOP SENDING MONEY TO FOREIGN BANKS AND COMPANIES. Sheesh. This should go without saying.

    • selise says:

      i like that guest post from naked capitalism too. with regards to this meltdown i’m not so sure that goldman sachs is any more american than deutsche bank. i’ll repeat a bit from brad sester that i think is on point:

      The fact that several of AIG’s largest counterparties are European financial firms is by now well known. What is I think less well known is that the expansion of the dollar balance sheets of “European” financial firms — the BIS reports that the dollar-denominated balance sheets of major European financial institutions (UK, Swiss and Eurozone) increased from a little over $2 trillion in 2000 to something like $8 trillion (see the first graph in this report) — played a large role in the US credit boom.

      As the BIS (Baba, McCauley and Ramaswamy) reports, many European banks were growing their dollar balance sheets so quickly that many started to rely heavily on US money market funds for financing. And if an institution is borrowing from US money market funds to buy securitized US mortgage credit, in a lot of ways it is a US bank, or at least a shadow US bank.

      Consequently I think it is possible to think of AIG as the insurer-of-last resort to the United States’ own shadow financial system. That shadow financial system just operated offshore. There was a reason why investors in the UK were buying so many US asset backed securities during the peak years of the credit boom.

      my bold.

      • MarkH says:

        i’ll repeat a bit from brad sester that i think is on point:

        The fact that several of AIG’s largest counterparties are European financial firms is by now well known. … played a large role in the US credit boom.

        As the BIS (Baba, McCauley and Ramaswamy) reports, many European banks were growing their dollar balance sheets so quickly that many started to rely heavily on US money market funds for financing. And if an institution is borrowing from US money market funds to buy securitized US mortgage credit, in a lot of ways it is a US bank, or at least a shadow US bank.

        Isn’t it fascinating how hedge funds and money market funds can be used that way without being regulated as banks. This is the first I’ve heard of a MMF loaning money. I always thought they invested in very short-term paper to avoid risk and longer-term uncertainties.

  18. Rayne says:

    Jeebus, Marcy, that bit about “insurance assets are untouchable” is f*cking scary.

    Because that’s exactly the kind of thing that would end up in a swap.

    Instead of cleaning up iffy assets, they’d lump in a bundle of those with a “better” bundle of assets with a fairly predictable loss rate to improve the overall package — and then they might not add any reserves for the bad part of the bundle, leaving only the reserves accruing for the better part of the bundle.

    The parties and questions not being asked here are about the auditing process; auditors internal, external, state, feds and other counterparty businesses should have been checking for assurances that life/health insurance was properly reserved at appropriate levels, and not impacted by any other risks (as in, kept separate from the swaps written on underlying CDO’s).

    Where are the freaking auditors?? why aren’t they here saying anything about the level of reserves or separation of lines of business?

    • MarkH says:

      Jeebus, Marcy, that bit about “insurance assets are untouchable” is f*cking scary.

      Because that’s exactly the kind of thing that would end up in a swap.

      That’s why it’s such a joke that these are called ‘hedges’. How can they hedge if they’re not using those insurance assets? What assets back those CDS hedges? NONE. Pure fraud is all I see!

  19. Hugh says:

    Liddy: Mark to market is a good concept run amok.
    Can’t mark to market if there is no market.

    Well, first there is a market but it values these crap assets far lower than what banks want to sell them at. Second, this logic suggests that mark to market is only valid on the upside of a bubble since on the downside banks don’t like the prices that they would have to sell at.

    • MarkH says:

      Great news! Here is a nice blog about outlawing credit default swaps. At the bottom it is mentioned that Congressman Peterson has introduced a bill to do just that.

      We need to get behind this and light a fire to force this through.

      Regulation needs to encompass a few more things than just naked CDSs.

  20. dosido says:

    retain skill? those people have nothing to gain by helping the american people and everything to lose by changing their game.

    They really need to hire people already in prison eg Andy Fastow.

  21. Hugh says:

    My question is what has Liddy been doing since last September when he took over at AIG.

    Now Liddy is saying that AIGFP may send back their bonuses with their resignations. Why wasn’t Liddy watching AIGFP like a hawk? How is it that all this crept up on him? It all seems like the kind of stuff you would do right off the bat.

    Then he says that AIGFP is through with the CDSs but that they have $1.3 trillion in who knows what still out there. What is he talking about?

    • acquarius74 says:

      Liddy said that there had been 2 or 3 trillion in CDSs which has been shrunk down to the 1.2Trillion. How were they shrunk? Sold? to whom??. Written off as losses?

      Watch Goldman Sachs – I read a blurb (forget where) that Goldman was interested not in selling the toxic assets, but in buying them.

      So, they’re going to buy @ pennies on the dollar, manipulate the buttons and switches and smoke machines that create a rise in the market, thus jacking up the value of what they’ve bought, then sell high. uh..like the Robber Barons did in 1929?

      I’m no pro, but I ain’t blind and deaf either. Hope I’m wrong.

      • Rayne says:

        I’m going to hazard a guess that some of the shrinkage was offsets through arbitrage of sorts. If they held multiple swaps with the same counterparties they could have made a wash of credits and debits against multiple instruments.

        And yes, there probably were write-offs, too.

  22. phred says:

    Interesting. AIG has been working exclusively with the Fed, which apparently (from this morning) GAO can’t audit. That’s pretty handy.

  23. Hugh says:

    Liddy: Great deal of angst in the Fed and with Liddy over bonuses but they were too scared about what might happen if they didn’t pay them. Sure sounds like blackmail or bullshit to me.

    • Praedor says:

      Yup. Prosecute for extortion and claw back not only the bonus money, but their ill-gotten base salaries too. One cannot be allowed to benefit (at all) from a criminal enterprise.

  24. selise says:

    from marcy’s notes:

    Liddy: Fed and Treas, they’ve primarily encouraged us to deal with one overseer, primarily with Fed.

    Castle: Fed has been at board meetings.

    Liddy: goes to participation that lead up to board meetings.

    Castle: You assumed they had shared that info with Treas and Congress.

    Liddy: I had a conversation with Geithner and he indicated he had only become aware a week earlier. We try to keep Congress informed.

    Castle: If Geithner was head of NYFR, would he not have know from them?

    [ding ding ding ding]

    Castle: Did he participate in any of the meetings while still at Fed?

    Liddy: Yes, but once he was nominated he recused himself.

    Castle: Fed could say yeah or nay. Did they have the right? Or did you just assume they could have said something.

    Castle: They did not say nay on the part of the bonuses.

    my bold

  25. Leen says:

    Liddy protecting “his people”

    What evidence does Liddy have that any of those verbal threats have ever been acted upon? They are going to try to block any release of names of the greediest (4 Million retention bonuses) based upon verbal threats from the peasants

      • Leen says:

        Liddy “I have to protect my people” from those people who are verbally threatening “my people” (because they are basically powerless)

        “my people” who does that sound like?

        • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

          Leen, it sounds like a mature adult looking out for people under his responsibility.
          (Having been threatened myself, I can definitely say this thing is out of control if it’s come to this point. People who are unstable will find any name in the paper to take out their own insanity, and that is not right. It’s dangerous and people need to recognize that Liddy is showing integrity by protecting people for whom he feels some responsibility.)

          Again, people need more than 2 minutes to ask questions; they get so agitated by the time their shard of time comes along that they feed the panic. That’s not a good process.

  26. Hugh says:

    Liddy: Despite what the contracts say we not are paying people like Cassano.

    Oh really, then why are you paying the bonuses.

    Liddy: The top people at AIGFP are gone.

    So who is getting all of these huge bonuses? Oh the guys who were working on other derivative trading.

  27. GregB says:

    Now is the time to get the GOP back on case calling for privatizing social security.

    Get them to state their opinions publicly.

    -G

  28. GregB says:

    Ah, these are the same pricks that were laughing about Aunt Millie losing her pension to Enron manipulations.

    Call Sarkozy and ask him to fax over guillotine blueprints stat.

    Please note that I want fair trials first.

    -G

  29. Hugh says:

    Liddy is apparently saying that the people who received bonuses at AIGFP did not work in the CDS side of the business but they are helping to wind up those CDSs.

    Doesn’t this blow up the argument that the people at AIGFP had to be kept on and paid bonuses because they alone understood these CDSs, precisely because the people who had written and knew them were gone?

    • foothillsmike says:

      He is saying that there are other financial products (w/ $1.7 trillion) that need to be managed on a daily basis.

      • Hugh says:

        He is saying that there are other financial products (w/ $1.7 trillion) that need to be managed on a daily basis.

        What I am wondering about is what these trillion dollar plus products are and what is the risk associated with them. We were told that AIGFP was in the CDS business. Now it looks like it was into much more. If these are fairly secure instruments, they could be managed by others. If they are shaky then we should have been told more about them.

    • MarkH says:

      Doesn’t this blow up the argument that the people at AIGFP had to be kept on and paid bonuses because they alone understood these CDSs, precisely because the people who had written and knew them were gone?

      I thought he said it was just to ensure they stayed to wind down their books since otherwise everybody there knew the FP was going to be closed down and they might just leave to look for work elsewhere.

      Would you stay at a company which was closing down?

  30. Hugh says:

    Liddy: You would proud of some of the people now working at AIG trying to get back every single dollar to taxpayers.

    Congressman: Not right now I’m not.

  31. Rayne says:

    Unfortunately, Liddy’s right, somebody has to wind down the swaps and they have to be people who know the business. It’s exotic as hell; I’ve known very bright hedge fund traders who’d never dream of getting into this area.

    How do we wind this down? It’s the proverbial ticking bomb and needing somebody who knows whether to cut the red or the blue wire…

    • Hugh says:

      Unfortunately, Liddy’s right, somebody has to wind down the swaps and they have to be people who know the business.

      But, as Liddy as testified, the people unwinding them are not “experts” in these kinds of swaps. Those people have already left. And let’s face it even if they had been kept on there is no evidence that people who wrote this trash would be the best ones to know how to unwind it.

      I would think under the circumstances the best people for this kind of job would be outsiders (both accountants and lawyers) with a knowledge of swaps.

      • ShotoJamf says:

        “I would think under the circumstances the best people for this kind of job would be outsiders (both accountants and lawyers) with a knowledge of swaps.”

        Bullseye. No doubt about it.

        • timbo says:

          With maybe a good riot or two to get the ball rolling? That’s what the Fed seems to be encouraging at this point…through lack of foresight?

      • Rayne says:

        After what I saw at a Fortune 50 company with regard to swaps and derivatives and their insurance captive, I agree it could take some people with knowledge of swaps — but there have been a LOT of outsiders already involved in this who should have done something, were obligated to do so in many cases, and didn’t do a damned thing.

        Ask anybody in the insurance business how many layers of auditors there are to do business here in the U.S. — and yet none of the auditing firms or departments involved could see this and give appropriate warning.

        Swaps may not be regulated, but if this stuff was wound into their insurance business, there were points at which auditing was certainly involved. And nothing happened. Nothing.

        The insurance captive for which I worked had at one point five different auditing organizations working on their records — two midwest states which require an on-site audit every 3 years, the IRS under the terms of a lawsuit settlement, internal auditors and external auditors. AIG must have been crawling with auditors all the time, and yet NOTHING.

        Knowing this, how will bringing in more outsiders fix this? I think we are at a point where we have the DOJ do it while they begin to break up the different subsidiaries.

  32. alank says:

    The message I keep hearing from Liddy in his testimony makes the following ring true:

    Shadowy Group Seeks Bonuses, Golf Retreats

    American intelligence experts are analyzing a new terror video from the American International Group (AIG) in which the leader of the shadowy organization demands billions of dollars from the United States.

    In the four-minute tape, which surfaced over the weekend and caused deep concern among U.S. officials, a man believed to be the chairman of AIG says that if his organization is not paid its ransom, “chaos and destruction will rain down on the American economy.”

    “If we are not paid billions more in bonuses and corporate golf retreats, America will be made to suffer,” the man threatens.

    Intelligence analysts said that the man, AIG chairman Edward M. Liddy, appears to be speaking at a luxury beach resort that offers few clues as to his exact location, although there is “good intelligence” pointing to the Ritz Carlton in the Cayman Islands.

    “We have some reason to believe that he and other AIG executives are there, based on a series of intercepted room service orders from the all-day dining menu,” one analyst said.

    Reacting to the video, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano raised the nation’s terror alert level to orange, meaning “taxpayers are about to get reamed again.”

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also released a response to AIG’s latest demands, but intelligence experts said they would need several weeks to decipher Mr. Geithner’s response.

  33. Rayne says:

    Somebody needs to ask Liddy whether he is making any effort to prepare the company’s subsidiaries for sale.

    That would be one key step towards profitability, towards getting a return on our money, and getting the good business well away from the ticking time bomb.

  34. ShotoJamf says:

    This continuing meme that the contracts were just too complicated/volatile to have been managed by anyone other than those who penned them is utter crap. I can find any number of individuals who could step in today and make this stuff run like a Swiss watch. So hey Liddy? How about you give that shit a rest, huh?

  35. ShotoJamf says:

    That reduction of risk down to 1.6T (or whatever) meme presupposes that another shoe is not going to drop, in which case all bets are off. Why isn’t any dipshit congresstard calling him on that?

  36. alank says:

    Btw, it seems silly to be addressing the chap who arrives only as the fixer in the bailout. More pointed questions might better be put to predecessors in the following order:

    Maurice R. Greenberg
    Martin J. Sullivan
    Robert B. Willumstad

  37. BooRadley says:

    I don’t understand the financial instruments, but I do understand leverage. When you’re backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, it provides enormous leverage over counterparties. My concern is that AIG became a hole through which counter-parties, such as Goldman Sachs, could simply rip off the taxpayers.

    The “deals” AIG is winding down, appear rife with fraud in many respects. AIG’s real purpose in surviving, appears to have been to cover up the essential fraud associated with all these up.

    • Hugh says:

      We have heard very little about how the CDSs were wound down.

      Why were they being settled at full value even though they weren’t in default?

      Why weren’t the collaterl calls renegotiated (as you say) using the leverage of the US government?

      How much of this business involved naked CDSs?

      How much went to hedge funds either directly or through banks?

      • phred says:

        Yep. I would like details on the $1trillion Liddy claims has been “unwound”. How much of that was just paying off counterparties at full value?

  38. ShotoJamf says:

    Hugh @108

    ”If they are shaky then we should have been told more about them.”

    That could be the other shoe that turns all the much-vaunted progress into another steaming pile…

  39. phred says:

    Who’s the pinhead who just said AIG is “now nationalized”? We wouldn’t be here if that were true.

    • Cujo359 says:

      It’s nationalized in the sense that we now have to make the company profitable. It’s privatized in the sense that we’ll never see that profit.

      • phred says:

        More critically we have no control over how the business gets unwound, what debts are written off. It’s about more than just profit/loss, it is a question of control.

  40. foothillsmike says:

    Why does our society pay these guys on Wall St tens of millions per year and the POTUS gets $400K?

  41. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Driveby, but two points:
    1. Listening, I find the threats against AIG frightful. Things shouldn’t be this unhinged.

    2. Am I the only one around here who finds themselves wondering whether those ‘bonuses to unwind’ derivative code was extortion paid to the AIGFP division in London for not changing passwords in the dark of night, and finding (or writing) any potential Trojan Horses in that derivative code?

    Am I nuts with respect to #2?

    • Mormaer says:

      I agree and that is why they do not want to name the recipients of said blackmail er bonus er deferred compensation er productivity bonus. They do not want any cops involved.

    • BooRadley says:

      1. My fear is that those threats Liddy read were actually written by the people receiving the bonuses to attract sympathy. In my experience, written death threats are filled with obscenities and usually don’t reflect much formal education. JMO.

      2. Sounds good to me.

    • Leen says:

      as Christy pointed out earlier…when the cameras are turned off that is when the deals are made.

      The Reps were tap dancin for the public

      • selise says:

        no doubt. don’t know how many of these damn hearings i’ve listened to now. mostly i just end up infuriated about how dumb and/or crooked my congress critters are (with some very few exceptions).

  42. Hugh says:

    I have to admit I got tired of Liddy, the guy Goldman chose to run AIG and who really seems to have dropped the ball pretty much across the board on how AIGFP has been handled, being described as “one of the good guys.”

    • MarkH says:

      Liddy, the guy Goldman chose to run AIG and who really seems to have dropped the ball pretty much across the board on how AIGFP has been handled

      Really? Got specifics on where he messed up?

  43. Leen says:

    why our are members acting like they are in complete shock. when they gave this money with few restrictions

  44. Gitcheegumee says:

    10 Things You Didn’t Know About AIG CEO Edward Liddy
    By Debra Bell
    Posted March 18, 2009
    1. Edward M. Liddy was born Jan. 28, 1946, in New Brunswick, N.J.

    2. Liddy graduated from Catholic University of America in 1968 and earned a master’s degree in business administration from George Washington University in 1972.

    3. He worked at Ford Motor Co. before joining G. D. Searle & Co. in 1981, when Donald Rumsfeld was CEO; in 1988, he joined Sears, Roebuck & Co.

    4. Liddy oversaw Allstate’s spinoff from Sears in 1995 and was named CEO of Allstate four years later. In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma cost the insurer more than $5 billion combined. Allstate quickly started an effort to scale back the coverage of homes in catastrophe-prone regions.

    5. Just before Liddy took over as Allstate CEO, he told a meeting of about 200 managers that some of them would not be around in a year. Later, he ousted the finance chief and investment officers.

    6. In September 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson chose Liddy to head American International Group. Five years earlier, when Paulson was running Goldman Sachs Group, he also selected Liddy to join that board.

    7. In October 2008, just days after AIG received an emergency $85 billion loan from the government, about 70 executives spent a week at the St. Regis resort in Monarch Beach, Calif. The group ran up a bill that included $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals, and $23,000 for the spa.

    8. In November 2008, AIG froze executive salaries. Liddy agreed to an annual base salary of $1 in 2008 and 2009.

    9. Liddy has served on the boards of Northwestern University and the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. He is also a life trustee and former national chairman of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

    10. Liddy and his wife, Marcia, have three children.

  45. Gitcheegumee says:

    THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2009 4:00:00 PM
    State Farm, Allstate dismissed from Louisiana Katrina case
    BY JOHN O’BRIEN

    Scruggs
    NEW ORLEANS (Legal Newsline) – Two insurance giants will be dismissed from a whistleblower lawsuit over their post-Hurricane Katrina practices because they are already facing one initiated by disgraced plaintiffs attorney Richard “Dickie” Scruggs.

    Wednesday, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of allegations that State Farm Insurance Cos. and Allstate Insurance Co. cheated the federal flood insurance program, yet reinstated the suit against several other defendants.

    The suit was filed by Branch Consultants, a group of former claims adjusters, who said several insurance companies misrepresented the amount of damage done during 2005’s Katrina by wind (covered by policies) and water (covered by the federal program).

    The opinion from a three-judge panel said that forcing Allstate and State Farm to fight a suit in Louisiana similar to one filed in Mississippi would contradict the False Claims Act’s goal of preventing “parasitic” whistleblower cases.

    A pair of former employees at E.A. Renfroe & Co., sisters Kerri Rigsby and Cori Rigsby Moran, obtained thousands of pages of documents from State Farm, which was working for the company, and Scruggs filed a whistleblower suit against State Farm and Allstate in 2006.

    A 2006 order from U.S. District Judge William Acker ordered Scruggs to return the documents to State Farm, but he instead gave them to Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, who had filed his own suit against five companies.

    He claimed the order allowed him to turn the documents over to a law enforcement official. Eventually, Scruggs and the sisters were held in civil contempt and ordered to pay $65,000.

    Scruggs has spent the last six months in a federal prison in Kentucky after pleading guilty to attempting to bribe a state judge, and recently had 2 1/2 years added to his five-year sentence when he pleaded guilty to attempting to bribe another state judge.

    Scruggs first made a name for himself in asbestos cases, representing shipyard workers. After that, his work led to the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, which has an estimated worth of $246 billion for the 52 participating territories and states. _______________________________

    BTW, Richard Scruggs is Trent Lott’s brother-in-law.____________________

    WONDER HOW MUCH AIG LOST ON KATRINA? AIG HAD BOUGHT US PORTS FROM DUBAI PORTS_INCLUDING NOLA PORT.

  46. ralphbon says:

    Obama’s high dudgeon in response to AIG’s argument — ie, that those who’ve shit the bed are the best qualified to unshit the bed — would ring less hollow if he himself had not made a point of putting champion bed-shitters like Larry Summers in charge of his economic team, evidently on the same theory.

Comments are closed.