New Geography

Tag: AIG

  • More Money for Bailout CEOs

    The day before leaving town to vacation in an opulent $9 million, 5-bedroom home in Hawaii, the Obama administration pledged unlimited financial support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The mortgage giants are already beneficiaries of $200 billion in taxpayer aid. On Christmas Eve, regulatory filings reported that the CEOs of the two firms are in line for $6 million in compensation. Merry Christmas!

    Executive compensation is the subject of many academic studies, but one focused on Fannie Mae from two Harvard Law School professors is especially well-named: “Perverse Incentives, Nonperformance Pay and Camouflage”. Executives are able to take unlimited risks and reap unlimited upside rewards knowing that US taxpayers will foot the bill on the downside. The mortgage-backed securities issued by the two firms remain at the center of the causes-and-effects of the financial meltdown.

    The compensation for Fannie Mae’s senior managers is recommended by the Compensation Committee “in consultation and with the approval of the Conservator”, which is the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The FHFA was created in July 2008 when Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act. At the time, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the $200 billion Act would save 400,000 homeowners – in the first six months, exactly one homeowner was able to refinance under the program. The Act also was supposed to clean up the subprime mortgage crisis – which it did not do as evidenced by the collapse of the global financial markets a few months later.

    Back to the current problem of paying $6 million to run a bankrupt company whose every financial obligation is guaranteed by taxpayer money. Who is on the compensation committee that recommended this pay day? Dennis Beresford from Ernst & Young (E&Y); Brenda Gaines, recently from Citigroup; Jonathan Plutzik, from Credit Suisse First Boston; and David Sidwell, from Morgan Stanley.

    Back in 2004, Ernst & Young was engaged as a consultant to Fannie Mae – right after the Securities and Exchange Commission banned E&Y from taking on new clients. Citigroup took $25 billion in TARP bailout money and Morgan Stanley took $10 billion. Credit Suisse benefited by a mere $400 million as their share of the AIG Financial Products group bailout. Needless to say, this Compensation Committee knows a thing or two about controversies and federal aid!

    Enjoy your luxury Christmas vacation, Mr. President, while 45 out of 50 U.S. states are enjoying statistically significant decreases in employment in the face of rising prices. Please take some time to contemplate the words GE Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt used in describing the leadership traits that need to change in America: “The richest people made the worst mistakes with the least accountability.”

    And to the rest of you out there reading this, take some time to contemplate the words of Bill Moyers as he concluded a rather shocking essay of the role of lobbyists in the recent “healthcare reform” legislation: “Outrageous? You bet. But don’t just get mad. Get busy.”

  • Brother Rabbit’s Bonuses

    New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo delivered a report to Congress on the bonuses paid to the employees of nine recipients of the TARP bailout money. He called it “The ‘Heads I Win, Tails You Lose’ Bank Bonus Culture.” (July 30) AG Cuomo concluded that even “in these challenging economic times, compensation for bank employees has become unmoored from the banks’ financial performance.” The report is only about banks, of course, since all the investment banks and brokerage firms changed their status to “bank” to become eligible for TARP bailout money last fall.

    Some of the banks that took the TARP money, like JP Morgan (NYSE: JM), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) and American Express (NYSE: AXP), did what they could to return it as quickly as possible, including buying back the warrants. It will be very hard, indeed, for the financial institutions to change the public perception now that we have seen their willingness to take any risk, to make money at any cost – only to take a handout from the public coffers when things go badly so they can continue to “make money” for themselves. The banks are entities but they are run by people who have jobs and get bonuses and perks. Former-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s plan to plunder the US Treasury on behalf of his former Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) mates on Wall Street set these banks up as the target of public scorn.

    Late Friday, July 31, the House of Representatives approved a bill that would allow regulators to limit executive compensation at financial institutions with assets greater than $1 billion if they find that the programs would “induce excessive risk-taking” behavior among bank executives. This comes a full eight months after Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) was first subpoenaed by AG Cuomo about executive bonuses. It is a far cry from anything that would create a sense of justice out of a system where two TARP recipients, Citigroup (NYSE: C) and Merrill Lynch, operated in a way that lost $54 billion in 2008, took $55 billion in TARP bailout money, and then paid $9 billion in employee bonuses.

    Despite the hue and cry of the public, these bonuses have continued. In my view they will continue into the future. Although we may think that sticking labels on the banks behavior, or asking Congress to legislate some discipline, will make a difference, it is unlikely to change anything. After the early 2009 bonuses were revealed, the banks claimed that the bonuses were required by contracts and could not be broken without violating the rule of law. They got away with this claim even as contracts with the United Auto Workers were being revised. It’s like a modern version of a folk story by Joel Chandler Harris. “Bred and born in a briar patch, Brother Fox, bred and born in a briar patch!” And with that Brother Banker skipped out just as lively as a cricket in the embers.

    Thanks to David Friedman for bringing the FT article on the report to our attention.

  • Who’s Watching AIG?

    The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing Wednesday – “AIG: Where is the Taxpayer Money Going?” Questions are being raised about whether the bailout better serves the interests of AIG’s customers and trading partners or the interests of U.S. taxpayers.

    The highlight of the Committee’s questioning of Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy came when Chairman Town (D-NY) asked the blunt question: “Why would you give retention bonuses to AIG employees who failed? Plus, the economy is so messed up, where would they go?” On the minds of many committee members were the facts that AIG got $70 billion in TARP money, $50 billion through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Maiden Lane LLC and another $60 billion directly from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the FRB-NY’s AIG Credit Facility). When compared to the fact that AIG is currently worth just $5 billion, the repeated question became: “How will taxpayers be repaid?” Mr. Liddy pointed to the value of some subsidiaries and other assets that can be sold off, but he had to admit that the timing and possibility of AIG repaying taxpayers really “depends on the economy and the capital markets.”

    The Trustees of the AIG Credit Facility Trust testified in the second panel. The Trustees were named by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, under then-President Timothy Geithner, in September 2008. The panel included one non-Trustee – Professor J.W. Verret of George Mason University School of Law. Professor Verret expressed concern over the form of the AIG trust agreement: “I am concerned by the AIG trust because of the precedent it sets. Secretary Geithner has announced his intention to create another trust to manage the Treasury’s investment in Citigroup as well as other TARP participants. If the AIG trust, crafted during the Secretary’s tenure as President of the New York Fed, is used as a model for these new entities, the risk to taxpayers will be multiplied many times over. “ Professor Verret raised three specific problems with the agreement: 1) the agreement specifically expects the Trustees to act in the best interest of the U.S. Treasury, not the U.S. taxpayers; 2) the Trustees cannot be held liable for their actions; and 3) the Trustees can invest on information they gain in the course of their duties.

    At the end of the hearing, the final question went to Representative Norton (D-D.C.). Too many of the AIG Trustees also serve or have served as directors and officers to other TARP recipients. Ms. Norton noted that all of the witnesses are connected to Wall Street and all know each other. Evidently, one of the Trustees, Jill Considine, is involved with a Bermuda company that provides services to hedge funds. Ms. Considine was uncomfortable naming the hedge funds that benefit from her advice because the Bermuda company is private – it is also foreign. Considine took Norton aside when hearing ended, engaging her in an animated conversation – off the record, of course.

    It seems evident that some of the Trustees didn’t recognize the risks AIG was taking when they were in a position to have close contact with not only AIG but their counterparties – those final recipients of the bailout money. If the Trustees missed the AIG risk then, when they were regulators in the self-regulatory industry and serving on Boards at the Federal Reserve Banks, then what can we expect from them now?

  • Layout for the Bailout: $3.8 Trillion and Counting

    Bloomberg.com reporters Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry are reporting a running total of the money the U.S. government has pledged and spent for bailouts and economic stimulus payments. The total disbursed through February 24, 2009 stands at $3.8 trillion; the total commitment is $11.6 trillion. The Federal Reserve is providing the largest share at $7.6 billion, followed by the U.S. Treasury $2.2 trillion and FDIC $1.6 trillion. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with purchases of student loans – bailout money that comes closest to directly bailing out Main Street – total only $760 billion – less than 7 percent of the total.

    The national debt currently stands at $10.8 trillion — versus an authorized limit of $12.1 trillion.

    Last week, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner got into a tiff with the rest of the world (denied by President Obama) by telling them that they should spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on their own stimulus packages.

    The U.S. commitment of $11.6 trillion equals 81 percent of U.S. 2008 gross domestic product (GDP). The $787 billion fiscal stimulus is 5.4 percent of GDP. Just the two-thirds of the stimulus that represents new spending (one-third is tax cuts) is 3.6 percent of GDP. Here’s what financial institutions in various countries got from U.S. taxpayers by way of the AIG bailout:

    Country

    Bailout Benefit

    US

     $   31.1

    France

     $   19.1

    German

     $   16.7

    UK

     $   12.8

    Switzerland

     $     5.4

    Netherlands

     $     2.3

    Canada

     $     1.1

    Spain

     $     0.3

    Denmark

     $     0.2

    Italy

     $     0.2

    Serbia

     $     0.2

  • The Continuing Debate on AIG

    The House of Representatives is debating a 90 percent tax on executive bonus payments made to companies receiving bailout funds. Anything they pass will still have to get through the Senate and past the President’s desk. They are “upset about something they already did,” according to Dan Lungren (R-CA). Congress ignored the opportunity to deal with this back when you and me and 100,000 other voters were telling them not to pass the bailout legislation.

    Executive compensation schemes at American International Group (AIG) have been under investigation by the New York State Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo since last fall. He is ramping up the investigation now, given the news over the weekend of new bonus disbursements, to determine if the bonus contracts are unenforceable for fraud under New York law. AIG agreed with Cuomo last October not to use their own “deferred compensation pool” to pay bonuses – and then bargained with executives to make the payments anyway! AIG execs got contracts in early 2008 that guaranteed their bonuses – information that former Treasury Secretary Paulson and current Treasury Secretary Geithner (former President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank) had when they initiated the original bailout.

    It’s pretty amazing 1) that taxpayers are bailing out a company that’s under criminal investigation; 2) that Treasury didn’t negotiate compensation schemes before they wrote the first check (like they do with auto workers?); and 3) that the bonuses are a bigger story than the fact that more than one-third of the bailout money was shipped overseas.

  • Digging into AIG bonuses and other aid recipients

    On Sunday March 15, 2009, American International Group, Inc. revealed the identities of some of the beneficiaries of about half of the nearly $180 billion the US government has committed ($173 billion actually paid out so far) to support the ailing international financial giant. As we now know, AIG sold credit default swaps (CDS) that paid off if the market value of some bonds fell. (I use the term “bond” here generally to refer to the alphabet soup of CDO, CLO, MBS, etc. – all of which are debt that is sold to the public.) Most CDS only pay off if the borrower fails to make payments – something that hasn’t happened in the case where AIG is making payments. The geniuses at AIG – and we know they are geniuses because they earned $165 million in bonuses for the effort – took on completely unknown risks for, apparently, insufficient premiums, resulting in the need for an emergency $85 billion loan last September from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (courtesy of my buddy Tim Geithner) to “avoid severe financial disruptions”… as if that worked!

    Whatever. So, now AIG is letting us know who got our money: $22.4 billion for payouts on the CDS and $27.1 billion to buy the bonds underlying the CDS (so some of the CDS could be cancelled). That’s about $50 billion so far for derivatives – no one knows how much more they’ll need. Here’s a summary by the country where the recipients are based:

    Country

    CDS
    Payout

    US

    $16.0

    France

    $13.3

    German

    $8.1

    Switzerland

    $3.3

    UK

    $2.0

    Canada

    $1.1

    Netherlands

    $0.8

    Scotland

    $0.5

    Spain

    $0.3

    Denmark

    $0.2

    Numbers in billions. $4.1 billion paid to “other” not included here. Numbers won’t total to $49.5 billion due to rounding.

    There was also $12.1 billion paid to US municipalities (states, cities, school districts, etc.) – where states invested, for example, bond proceeds prior to expenditure. In those cases, the municipalities invested in assets with guaranteed rates of return (another genius idea at AIG!). The bigger numbers belong to the states that had recent large bond issues – for example, $1.02 billion to California which has yet to distribute a dime of the bond money raised for stem cell research (due to on-going litigation).

    AIG took $2.5 billion for their own business needs – like the bonuses? The $165 million bonuses were just for the London-office that specialized in selling those very special CDS. Total bonuses paid were $450 million for all the geniuses at AIG – the AIG who made $6.2 billion in 2007 and lost $37.6 billion in the first 9 months of 2008!

    The most interesting bit, perhaps, are payments of $43.7 billion to securities lenders – those stock and bond holders who lend out their shares to enable short sellers. This means that AIG borrowed stocks so they could short sell them – make an investment that paid off only if the prices fell. (If you don’t know what short selling is, here’s a five minute video that explains it in a light-hearted way.) Bottom line – it gave AIG incentives to push down market prices. And their announcements and actions at the end of 2008 certainly achieved that goal. Way to go, geniuses!

  • Many Investors Have More to Gain by Letting Your Mortgage or Company Fail

    I hate to say “I told you so” but… I told you so. The holders of the credit default swaps (CDS) have more to gain from the failure of the borrower than from accepting payments.

    Bloomberg is reporting a strategy at Citigroup, Inc. to do just that. In one example, they can buy up Six Flags bonds at 20.5 cents on the dollar, pay a small premium to get the CDS and then collect the full face value of the bonds when Six Flags files for bankruptcy – which the CDS holder can be sure happens.

    Normally, before a company goes into bankruptcy, they would meet with the debt holders to try to re-negotiate their debt. Debt holders will usually do this because they have more to gain from the company remaining in operation than otherwise. Sometimes, the company may even get them to exchange their debt for equity, provided there is a good business model that has the potential for future earnings.

    Now, as I’ve described repeatedly, the CDS holders have more to gain from the bankruptcy because they will get their entire investment paid back, with interest, not from the company that issued the debt but from another company that issued the CDS – some company like, for example, AIG!

    Speaking of AIG, there was very little coverage of the Senate Committee hearing Thursday (3/5/2009): “American International Group: Examining what went wrong, government intervention, and implications for future regulation.” It was a stunner! Bottom line? Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) told the panelists that if they asked for another dime for AIG, “You will get the biggest ‘no’” ever heard. The entire committee was incredulous that Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Donald Kohn point-blank refused to tell them 1) who is benefiting from the AIG payouts on CDS and 2) how much more is it going to cost to bailout AIG.

    Stand by, because home foreclosures are on the same course as Six Flags: homeowners attempting to re-negotiate their debt will find that somewhere in the background, a CDS holder has more to gain from the foreclosure because they will get their entire investment paid back, with interest, not from the homeowners but from some company that issue CDS – some company like, for example, AIG!