The Real AIG Scandal: 
It's not the bonuses. It's that AIG's counterparties are getting paid back in 
full.
By Eliot Spitzer March 17, 2009
http://www.slate.com/id/2213942/

".....a big part of AIG's business model was not to pay on insurance it had 
issued." - Eliot Spitzer



AIG's Manhattan, N.Y., office
Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is 
obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's 
counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of 
taxpayer dollars? 

For the answer to this question, we need to go back to the very first decision 
to bail out AIG, made, we are told, by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, 
then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, 
and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last fall. Post-Lehman's collapse, they feared a 
systemic failure could be triggered by AIG's inability to pay the 
counterparties to all the sophisticated instruments AIG had sold. And who were 
AIG's trading partners? No shock here: Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, 
UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and on it goes. 
So now we know for sure what we already surmised: The AIG bailout has been a 
way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had 
received TARP money already. 

It all appears, once again, to be the same insiders protecting themselves 
against sharing the pain and risk of their own bad adventure. The payments to 
AIG's counterparties are justified with an appeal to the sanctity of contract. 
If AIG's contracts turned out to be shaky, the theory goes, then the whole 
edifice of the financial system would collapse. 

But wait a moment, aren't we in the midst of reopening contracts all over the 
place to share the burden of this crisis? From raising taxes-income taxes to 
sales taxes-to properly reopening labor contracts, we are all being asked to 
pitch in and carry our share of the burden. Workers around the country are 
being asked to take pay cuts and accept shorter work weeks so that colleagues 
won't be laid off. Why can't Wall Street royalty shoulder some of the burden? 
Why did Goldman have to get back 100 cents on the dollar? Didn't we already 
give Goldman a $25 billion capital infusion, and aren't they sitting on more 
than $100 billion in cash? Haven't we been told recently that they are 
beginning to come back to fiscal stability? If that is so, couldn't they have 
accepted a discount, and couldn't they have agreed to certain conditions before 
the AIG dollars-that is, our dollars-flowed?

The appearance that this was all an inside job is overwhelming. AIG was nothing 
more than a conduit for huge capital flows to the same old suspects, with no 
reason or explanation. 

So here are several questions that should be answered, in public, under oath, 
to clear the air:

  What was the precise conversation among Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson, and 
Blankfein that preceded the initial $80 billion grant? 

  Was it already known who the counterparties were and what the exposure was 
for each of the counterparties? 

  What did Goldman, and all the other counterparties, know about AIG's 
financial condition at the time they executed the swaps or other contracts? Had 
they done adequate due diligence to see whether they were buying real 
protection? And why shouldn't they bear a percentage of the risk of failure of 
their own counterparty? 

  What is the deeper relationship between Goldman and AIG? Didn't they almost 
merge a few years ago but did not because Goldman couldn't get its arms around 
the black box that is AIG? If that is true, why should Goldman get bailed out? 
After all, they should have known as well as anybody that a big part of AIG's 
business model was not to pay on insurance it had issued.

  Why weren't the counterparties immediately and fully disclosed? 

Failure to answer these questions will feed the populist rage that is 
metastasizing very quickly. And it will raise basic questions about the 
competence of those who are supposedly guiding this economic policy.

- Eliot Spitzer




__._,_.___







 



 


__,_._,___
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"ShadowGovernment" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/ShadowGovernment
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

<<inline: 090317_BP_aigTN.jpg>>

Reply via email to