http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-05/aig-s-bob-lewis-chief-risk-officer-during-crisis-steps-down-from-insurer.html
This whole situation is getting harder and harder to believe.
This guy was the chief risk officer, how could he have not known?
American International Group Inc. Chief Risk Officer Robert Lewis is resigning after saying this year that the insurer underestimated the risk of derivative contracts tied to subprime mortgages.
“We were wrong about how bad things could get,” Lewis told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in June. “What ended up happening was so extreme that it was beyond anything we had planned for.”
An Understatement’
Lewis said he didn’t know that derivatives backing mortgage-linked securities had collateral-call provisions until after Goldman Sachs Group Inc. made its first demand in July 2007, according to the FCIC documents. When asked if the provisions caused consternation within AIG, Lewis said, “I would say that’s an understatement.”
“I only became aware of the collateral calls completely in the latter part of 2007,” Lewis said at the FCIC hearing.
Showing posts with label AIG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AIG. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Time to Investigate Blankfein and Paulson (More AIG Shenanigans Edition)
Time to Investigate Blankfein and Paulson (More AIG Shenanigans Edition)
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/06/30/time-to-investigate-blankfein-and-paulson-more-aig-shenanigans-edition/
Those CDO's that blew up, were filled with MERS recorded mortgage contacts.
Now just how will the current day mortgage drama with MERS affect the sorted dealings of what now be seen for what it actually was.
The covering up of a mass ponzi scheme that had become exposed.
It's time to take another look at the crime that Congress, the Treasury and the FED all aided to cover up for the mortgage banking industry.
I think it's time "WE" all take a new look at an old problem with fresh eyes.
The New York Times has unearthed a damning tidbit about the bailout of AIG:
When the government began rescuing it from collapse in the fall of 2008 with what has become a $182 billion lifeline, A.I.G. was required to forfeit its right to sue several banks — including Goldman, Société Générale, Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch — over any irregularities with most of the mortgage securities it insured in the precrisis years.
Yves here. How one reacts to this depends in no small measure as to how one views the salvage operation. For all intents and purposes, the rescue of AIG was merely a way to save the banks; the credit default swaps had been too big a source of faux capital (for US firms, via risk-dumping, and for Eurobanks, as part of a regulatory arbitrage) to let the insurer go. So any effort by the officialdom to aid the banks, most notably by paying out 100% on credit default swap exposures (which had already been written down by counterparties to less than par) was simply an effort to funnel more cash to the banks. Since we’ve had massive backdoor bailout mechanisms in addition to the overt ones, this orientation should come as no surprise.
But then we get to the funny business. Why a broad waiver? Why shouldn’t AIG (and by extension, taxpayers) not recover in the event of fraud? And we turn again to the ambiguous standing of AIG. By all rights, it ought to be owned by the government. The reason it isn’t is that we don’t do nationalization in America, and full ownership would require AIG’s debts to be consolidated with government debt. So another way to read this requirement is that the Fed and Treasury were opposed to having fraud at the banks exposed, period.
That is a very troubling stance for bank regulators to take. And experts agreed:
“Even if it turns out that it would be a hard suit to win, just the gesture of requiring A.I.G. to scrap its ability to sue is outrageous,” said David Skeel, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “The defense may be that the banking system was in trouble, and we couldn’t afford to destabilize it anymore, but that just strikes me as really going overboard.”
“This really suggests they had myopia and they were looking at it entirely through the perspective of the banks,” Mr. Skeel said.
Yves here. Also note that the banks mentioned by the Times account for a significant proportion of the Maiden Lane III exposures (the $62.9 billion CDO portfolio; note this does not include all CDO guarantees assumed by the Federal Reserve; seven Goldman Abacus trades stayed with AIG and were salvaged via credit extensions to AIG). An analysis by Tom Adams and Andrew Dittmer showed the significance of Merrill, Goldman, and SocGen (percentages based on par amount):
1. Merrill as both packager and counterparty 7.7%
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/06/30/time-to-investigate-blankfein-and-paulson-more-aig-shenanigans-edition/
Those CDO's that blew up, were filled with MERS recorded mortgage contacts.
Now just how will the current day mortgage drama with MERS affect the sorted dealings of what now be seen for what it actually was.
The covering up of a mass ponzi scheme that had become exposed.
It's time to take another look at the crime that Congress, the Treasury and the FED all aided to cover up for the mortgage banking industry.
I think it's time "WE" all take a new look at an old problem with fresh eyes.
The New York Times has unearthed a damning tidbit about the bailout of AIG:
When the government began rescuing it from collapse in the fall of 2008 with what has become a $182 billion lifeline, A.I.G. was required to forfeit its right to sue several banks — including Goldman, Société Générale, Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch — over any irregularities with most of the mortgage securities it insured in the precrisis years.
Yves here. How one reacts to this depends in no small measure as to how one views the salvage operation. For all intents and purposes, the rescue of AIG was merely a way to save the banks; the credit default swaps had been too big a source of faux capital (for US firms, via risk-dumping, and for Eurobanks, as part of a regulatory arbitrage) to let the insurer go. So any effort by the officialdom to aid the banks, most notably by paying out 100% on credit default swap exposures (which had already been written down by counterparties to less than par) was simply an effort to funnel more cash to the banks. Since we’ve had massive backdoor bailout mechanisms in addition to the overt ones, this orientation should come as no surprise.
But then we get to the funny business. Why a broad waiver? Why shouldn’t AIG (and by extension, taxpayers) not recover in the event of fraud? And we turn again to the ambiguous standing of AIG. By all rights, it ought to be owned by the government. The reason it isn’t is that we don’t do nationalization in America, and full ownership would require AIG’s debts to be consolidated with government debt. So another way to read this requirement is that the Fed and Treasury were opposed to having fraud at the banks exposed, period.
That is a very troubling stance for bank regulators to take. And experts agreed:
“Even if it turns out that it would be a hard suit to win, just the gesture of requiring A.I.G. to scrap its ability to sue is outrageous,” said David Skeel, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “The defense may be that the banking system was in trouble, and we couldn’t afford to destabilize it anymore, but that just strikes me as really going overboard.”
“This really suggests they had myopia and they were looking at it entirely through the perspective of the banks,” Mr. Skeel said.
Yves here. Also note that the banks mentioned by the Times account for a significant proportion of the Maiden Lane III exposures (the $62.9 billion CDO portfolio; note this does not include all CDO guarantees assumed by the Federal Reserve; seven Goldman Abacus trades stayed with AIG and were salvaged via credit extensions to AIG). An analysis by Tom Adams and Andrew Dittmer showed the significance of Merrill, Goldman, and SocGen (percentages based on par amount):
1. Merrill as both packager and counterparty 7.7%
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Secret Banking Cabal Emerges From AIG Shadows: David Reilly
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aaIuE.W8RAuU
I'd say more like Timmy played the "system" rather than saved the system.
Congress never agreed to the bailout money being spent for the purpose of buying
credit default swaps, the "People" would have strung them up if they had.
This should be seen for exactly what it was: The junkies were caught without a fix and Timmy copped them a score on money they fronted from us the taxpayer, even after we told congress in an exceptionally loud voice.....NO BAILOUT
The House heard "Us" but the Senate chose to just ignore "The People", so that Timmy could do his dealing, and now because of Timmy's dealings the FED is the proud owners of all the garbage that Timmy arranged to buy for them, and the 30 million dollar a month payment for it, has only just begun and the FED is now foreclosing on people to ensure that, that payment is met.
Saving the System
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was head of the New York Fed at the time of the AIG moves. He maintained during Wednesday’s hearing that the New York bank had to buy the insurance contracts, known as credit default swaps, to keep AIG from failing, which would have threatened the financial system.
The hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also focused on what many in Congress believe was the New York Fed’s subsequent attempt to cover up buyout details and who benefited.
By pursuing this line of inquiry, the hearing revealed some of the inner workings of the New York Fed and the outsized role it plays in banking. This insight is especially valuable given that the New York Fed is a quasi-governmental institution that isn’t subject to citizen intrusions such as freedom of information requests, unlike the Federal Reserve.
This impenetrability comes in handy since the bank is the preferred vehicle for many of the Fed’s bailout programs. It’s as though the New York Fed was a black-ops outfit for the nation’s central bank.
Geithner’s Bosses
The New York Fed is one of 12 Federal Reserve Banks that operate under the supervision of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, chaired by Ben Bernanke. Member-bank presidents are appointed by nine-member boards, who themselves are appointed largely by other bankers.
As Representative Marcy Kaptur told Geithner at the hearing: “A lot of people think that the president of the New York Fed works for the U.S. government. But in fact you work for the private banks that elected you.”
And yet the New York Fed played an integral role in the government’s bailout of banks, often receiving surprisingly free rein to act as it saw fit.
I'd say more like Timmy played the "system" rather than saved the system.
Congress never agreed to the bailout money being spent for the purpose of buying
credit default swaps, the "People" would have strung them up if they had.
This should be seen for exactly what it was: The junkies were caught without a fix and Timmy copped them a score on money they fronted from us the taxpayer, even after we told congress in an exceptionally loud voice.....NO BAILOUT
The House heard "Us" but the Senate chose to just ignore "The People", so that Timmy could do his dealing, and now because of Timmy's dealings the FED is the proud owners of all the garbage that Timmy arranged to buy for them, and the 30 million dollar a month payment for it, has only just begun and the FED is now foreclosing on people to ensure that, that payment is met.
Saving the System
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was head of the New York Fed at the time of the AIG moves. He maintained during Wednesday’s hearing that the New York bank had to buy the insurance contracts, known as credit default swaps, to keep AIG from failing, which would have threatened the financial system.
The hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also focused on what many in Congress believe was the New York Fed’s subsequent attempt to cover up buyout details and who benefited.
By pursuing this line of inquiry, the hearing revealed some of the inner workings of the New York Fed and the outsized role it plays in banking. This insight is especially valuable given that the New York Fed is a quasi-governmental institution that isn’t subject to citizen intrusions such as freedom of information requests, unlike the Federal Reserve.
This impenetrability comes in handy since the bank is the preferred vehicle for many of the Fed’s bailout programs. It’s as though the New York Fed was a black-ops outfit for the nation’s central bank.
Geithner’s Bosses
The New York Fed is one of 12 Federal Reserve Banks that operate under the supervision of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, chaired by Ben Bernanke. Member-bank presidents are appointed by nine-member boards, who themselves are appointed largely by other bankers.
As Representative Marcy Kaptur told Geithner at the hearing: “A lot of people think that the president of the New York Fed works for the U.S. government. But in fact you work for the private banks that elected you.”
And yet the New York Fed played an integral role in the government’s bailout of banks, often receiving surprisingly free rein to act as it saw fit.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Goldman reveals where bailout cash went
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2010-07-24-goldman-bailout-cash_N.htm
By Karen Mracek and Thomas Beaumont, Des Moines Register
It's enough to make you sick.
Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.
"We thought originally we were bailing out AIG. Then later on ... we learned that the money flowed through AIG to a few big banks, and now we know that the money went from these few big banks to dozens of financial institutions all around the world."
Grassley said he was reserving judgment on the appropriateness of U.S. taxpayer money ending up overseas until he learns more about the 32 entities.
Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.
Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.
Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse. Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.
Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel.
"I think we didn't get the information because they consider it very embarrassing," Grassley said, "and they ought to consider it very embarrassing."
By Karen Mracek and Thomas Beaumont, Des Moines Register
It's enough to make you sick.
Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.
"We thought originally we were bailing out AIG. Then later on ... we learned that the money flowed through AIG to a few big banks, and now we know that the money went from these few big banks to dozens of financial institutions all around the world."
Grassley said he was reserving judgment on the appropriateness of U.S. taxpayer money ending up overseas until he learns more about the 32 entities.
Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.
Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.
Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse. Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.
Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel.
"I think we didn't get the information because they consider it very embarrassing," Grassley said, "and they ought to consider it very embarrassing."
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Goldman lied
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/29/96779/goldman-admits-it-had-bigger-role.html#ixzz0sMNx7tIe
Oh what the heck it's only a case of perjury, if we can overlook money laundering for the Mexican drug cartels, this shouldn't even register on the attention scale.
Reversing its oft-repeated position that it was acting only on behalf of its clients in its exotic dealings with the American International Group, Goldman Sachs now says that it also used its own money to make secret wagers against the U.S. housing market.
A senior Goldman executive disclosed the "bilateral" wagers on subprime mortgages in an interview with McClatchy, marking the first time that the Wall Street titan has conceded that its dealings with troubled insurer AIG went far beyond acting as an "intermediary" responding to its clients' demands
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/29/96779/goldman-admits-it-had-bigger-role.html#ixzz0sOz7cnkO
Oh what the heck it's only a case of perjury, if we can overlook money laundering for the Mexican drug cartels, this shouldn't even register on the attention scale.
Reversing its oft-repeated position that it was acting only on behalf of its clients in its exotic dealings with the American International Group, Goldman Sachs now says that it also used its own money to make secret wagers against the U.S. housing market.
A senior Goldman executive disclosed the "bilateral" wagers on subprime mortgages in an interview with McClatchy, marking the first time that the Wall Street titan has conceded that its dealings with troubled insurer AIG went far beyond acting as an "intermediary" responding to its clients' demands
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/29/96779/goldman-admits-it-had-bigger-role.html#ixzz0sOz7cnkO
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Barofsky Says Criminal Charges Possible in Alleged AIG Coverup
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aVHMZwNcj2B0&pos=10
No lol that smell wasn't from Hank crappin in his pants back then, but there is a big possibility that it could be from Timmy crappin in his now.
Neil Barofsky was unpacking boxes in December 2008 when the stench of sewage wafted through the hallways at the 168-year-old Main Treasury Building. The space assigned to him as head of the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or SIGTARP, was shoehorned into the basement, three floors below U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s offices.
No lol that smell wasn't from Hank crappin in his pants back then, but there is a big possibility that it could be from Timmy crappin in his now.
Neil Barofsky was unpacking boxes in December 2008 when the stench of sewage wafted through the hallways at the 168-year-old Main Treasury Building. The space assigned to him as head of the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or SIGTARP, was shoehorned into the basement, three floors below U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s offices.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
N.Y. case against Greenberg "devastating": judge
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63J51F20100420
No none of the corruption started yesterday kids. It's been going on a long time.
But if your a big enough corporation you can pay enough money to make your problem disappear.
New York state prosecutors have "a devastating case" against Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, the former American International Group Inc chief executive accused of fraud over a reinsurance transaction 10 years ago, the presiding judge said in court on Tuesday.
The transaction at issue long preceded taxpayer bailouts of about $180 billion for AIG after it nearly collapsed from mortgage-related losses. The revelation of the GenRe case contributed to Greenberg's ouster in 2005.
"This transaction is material because it was designed to, and did in fact, mislead investors about AIG's reserves," Ellenhorn told the court.
Federal prosecutors have obtained five criminal convictions and two guilty pleas of former General Re and AIG officials over the transaction, including a conviction of Ferguson. He was sentenced to two years in prison.
Last August, Greenberg agreed to pay $15 million to settle U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charges that he altered AIG's records to boost results between 2000 and 2005.
Three months later, Greenberg and AIG resolved years of litigation that followed his exit. AIG agreed to reimburse him and others for as much as $150 million of legal expenses.
No none of the corruption started yesterday kids. It's been going on a long time.
But if your a big enough corporation you can pay enough money to make your problem disappear.
New York state prosecutors have "a devastating case" against Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, the former American International Group Inc chief executive accused of fraud over a reinsurance transaction 10 years ago, the presiding judge said in court on Tuesday.
The transaction at issue long preceded taxpayer bailouts of about $180 billion for AIG after it nearly collapsed from mortgage-related losses. The revelation of the GenRe case contributed to Greenberg's ouster in 2005.
"This transaction is material because it was designed to, and did in fact, mislead investors about AIG's reserves," Ellenhorn told the court.
Federal prosecutors have obtained five criminal convictions and two guilty pleas of former General Re and AIG officials over the transaction, including a conviction of Ferguson. He was sentenced to two years in prison.
Last August, Greenberg agreed to pay $15 million to settle U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charges that he altered AIG's records to boost results between 2000 and 2005.
Three months later, Greenberg and AIG resolved years of litigation that followed his exit. AIG agreed to reimburse him and others for as much as $150 million of legal expenses.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Bombshell in AIG 10Q
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/a...al-Relief.html
Oh so AIG does admit, that it knew they were writing credit default swaps
for the explicit purpose of getting around capital requirements - either by banking regulators or (possibly worse) EU sovereign regulations.
Sniff, sniff is that admitted fraud I smell?
A total of $150.0 billion in net notional amount of the super senior credit default swap (CDS) portfolio of AIGFP as of December 31, 2009, represented derivatives written for financial institutions, principally in Europe, which AIG understands to have been originally written primarily for the purpose of providing regulatory capital relief rather than for arbitrage purposes. The net fair value of the net derivative asset for these CDS transactions was $116 million at December 31, 2009.
So AIG "understands" that $150 billion of credit-default swaps were written by AIGFP to European Institutions (no note by the way as to exactly what's in there - or who owns them) for the explicit purpose of getting around capital requirements - either by banking regulators or (possibly worse) EU sovereign regulations.
When did they come to "understand" this? Did they write these swaps originally knowing that their essential purpose was to evade capital requirements, or was this a "recent" revelation of some sort?
Indeed, the section goes on to say
Oh so AIG does admit, that it knew they were writing credit default swaps
for the explicit purpose of getting around capital requirements - either by banking regulators or (possibly worse) EU sovereign regulations.
Sniff, sniff is that admitted fraud I smell?
A total of $150.0 billion in net notional amount of the super senior credit default swap (CDS) portfolio of AIGFP as of December 31, 2009, represented derivatives written for financial institutions, principally in Europe, which AIG understands to have been originally written primarily for the purpose of providing regulatory capital relief rather than for arbitrage purposes. The net fair value of the net derivative asset for these CDS transactions was $116 million at December 31, 2009.
So AIG "understands" that $150 billion of credit-default swaps were written by AIGFP to European Institutions (no note by the way as to exactly what's in there - or who owns them) for the explicit purpose of getting around capital requirements - either by banking regulators or (possibly worse) EU sovereign regulations.
When did they come to "understand" this? Did they write these swaps originally knowing that their essential purpose was to evade capital requirements, or was this a "recent" revelation of some sort?
Indeed, the section goes on to say
Friday, February 26, 2010
AIG posts $8.9 billion loss
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AIG-posts-89-billion-rb-4019897031.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=
It's time to cut the apron strings on this loser
American International Group Inc (NYSE:AIG - News) reported a quarterly loss of $8.9 billion on Friday and warned that it may need additional U.S. government support, even as it tries to pay back taxpayers after a $182.3 billion bailout.
AIG shares fell 14 percent in premarket trading.
The insurer said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that without additional government support, "in the future there could exist substantial doubt about AIG's ability to continue as a going concern."
AIG, which is nearly 80 percent-owned by the government, reported an adjusted loss of $7.2 billion, or $53.23 per share, compared with an adjusted loss of $38.5 billion, or $287.69 per share, a year earlier.
It's time to cut the apron strings on this loser
American International Group Inc (NYSE:AIG - News) reported a quarterly loss of $8.9 billion on Friday and warned that it may need additional U.S. government support, even as it tries to pay back taxpayers after a $182.3 billion bailout.
AIG shares fell 14 percent in premarket trading.
The insurer said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that without additional government support, "in the future there could exist substantial doubt about AIG's ability to continue as a going concern."
AIG, which is nearly 80 percent-owned by the government, reported an adjusted loss of $7.2 billion, or $53.23 per share, compared with an adjusted loss of $38.5 billion, or $287.69 per share, a year earlier.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Secret AIG Document Shows Goldman Sachs Minted Most Toxic CDOs
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ax3yON_uNe7I
The banks should have to explain how they managed to buy protection from AIG primarily on securities that fell so sharply in value, says Daniel Calacci, a former swaps trader and marketer who’s now a structured-finance consultant in Warren, New Jersey. In some cases, banks also owned mortgage lenders, and they should be challenged to explain whether they gained any insider knowledge about the quality of the loans bundled into the CDOs, he says.
‘Too Uncanny’
“It’s almost too uncanny,” Calacci says. “If these banks had insight into the underlying loans because they had relationships with banks, originators or servicers, that’s at the least unethical.”
The identification of securities in the document, known as Schedule A, and data compiled by Bloomberg show that Goldman Sachs underwrote $17.2 billion of the $62.1 billion in CDOs that AIG insured -- more than any other investment bank. Merrill Lynch & Co., now part of Bank of America Corp., created $13.2 billion of the CDOs, and Deutsche Bank AG underwrote $9.5 billion.
These tallies suggest a possible reason why the New York Fed kept so much under wraps, Professor James Cox of Duke University School of Law says: “They may have been trying to shield Goldman -- for Goldman’s sake or out of macro concerns that another investment bank would be at risk.”
Poor Performers
Goldman Sachs spokesman Michael DuVally declined to comment.
The banks should have to explain how they managed to buy protection from AIG primarily on securities that fell so sharply in value, says Daniel Calacci, a former swaps trader and marketer who’s now a structured-finance consultant in Warren, New Jersey. In some cases, banks also owned mortgage lenders, and they should be challenged to explain whether they gained any insider knowledge about the quality of the loans bundled into the CDOs, he says.
‘Too Uncanny’
“It’s almost too uncanny,” Calacci says. “If these banks had insight into the underlying loans because they had relationships with banks, originators or servicers, that’s at the least unethical.”
The identification of securities in the document, known as Schedule A, and data compiled by Bloomberg show that Goldman Sachs underwrote $17.2 billion of the $62.1 billion in CDOs that AIG insured -- more than any other investment bank. Merrill Lynch & Co., now part of Bank of America Corp., created $13.2 billion of the CDOs, and Deutsche Bank AG underwrote $9.5 billion.
These tallies suggest a possible reason why the New York Fed kept so much under wraps, Professor James Cox of Duke University School of Law says: “They may have been trying to shield Goldman -- for Goldman’s sake or out of macro concerns that another investment bank would be at risk.”
Poor Performers
Goldman Sachs spokesman Michael DuVally declined to comment.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Pay czar: AIG bonuses are 'outrageous' but legal
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pay-czar-AIG-bonuses-are-apf-2452378554.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=
Yeah yeah, here we go again. Blood suckers got to eat to right?
Executives in AIG's financial products division are getting $100 million richer, and the White House pay czar calls the bonuses "outrageous."
However, Kenneth Feinberg said the payments are contractual obligations entered into years ago.
Yeah yeah, here we go again. Blood suckers got to eat to right?
Executives in AIG's financial products division are getting $100 million richer, and the White House pay czar calls the bonuses "outrageous."
However, Kenneth Feinberg said the payments are contractual obligations entered into years ago.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Who was paidoff in the AIG bailout
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/revealed-see-who-was-paid_n_438933.html
It wasn't just Goldman this little present was given to.
But by and large Goldman made out like a bandit
A key question at the heart of the controversial bailout of AIG is just how much money the government lost. The Federal Reserve and Treasury Department have worked to keep that number secret and to conceal who was on the winning end.
An unredacted document obtained by the Huffington Post list the damage in detail. Goldman Sachs alone, for instance, got $14 billion in government money for assets worth $6 billion at the time -- a de facto $8 billion subsidy, courtesy of taxpayers.
The list was produced as part of a congressional investigation led by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee into the federal bailout of AIG.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, then led by now-Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, purchased a slew of souring assets from the world's biggest banks for 100 cents on the dollar in November and December 2008. A scathing report by a government watchdog
It wasn't just Goldman this little present was given to.
But by and large Goldman made out like a bandit
A key question at the heart of the controversial bailout of AIG is just how much money the government lost. The Federal Reserve and Treasury Department have worked to keep that number secret and to conceal who was on the winning end.
An unredacted document obtained by the Huffington Post list the damage in detail. Goldman Sachs alone, for instance, got $14 billion in government money for assets worth $6 billion at the time -- a de facto $8 billion subsidy, courtesy of taxpayers.
The list was produced as part of a congressional investigation led by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee into the federal bailout of AIG.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, then led by now-Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, purchased a slew of souring assets from the world's biggest banks for 100 cents on the dollar in November and December 2008. A scathing report by a government watchdog
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
AIG and NY FED: Who's involved
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1906-AIG-and-NY-Fed-Whos-Involved.html
There is a big rush on now to have Bogus Ben reconfirmed for his position as head of the FED.
The vote is set to be cast tomorrow in spite of the turbulent weather of fraud and coercion accusations that seem to be growing daily.
The hand holding that can actually be seen deserves to be delved into with the highest scrutiny.
Bogus Ben's scent left at the scene of the crime is still found lingering in the air.
Collusion at this time seems to be a very strong point that can't be ruled out, and until it is, Bogus Ben's position should NOT be voted on for reconfirmation.
lest Congress wishes themselves to be seen as willing participants in the collusion, and cover up of the fraud that has now reared it's ugly head
Things like this are a tad hard to rebury, Hank worked very hard to make sure that you'd never see what the makeup of "the real deal was"
•It appears that The Fed was neck-deep in all of this - Zerohedge published an article which appears to document that Soc Gen had pledged reference securities at the Fed Discount Window that had a value of 49 cents on the dollar, probably without a material haircut! In other words this French firm was funding itself with money from our Federal Reserve with securities pledged at "par" that were in fact worth less than half and for which the taxpayer was on the hook for.
There is a big rush on now to have Bogus Ben reconfirmed for his position as head of the FED.
The vote is set to be cast tomorrow in spite of the turbulent weather of fraud and coercion accusations that seem to be growing daily.
The hand holding that can actually be seen deserves to be delved into with the highest scrutiny.
Bogus Ben's scent left at the scene of the crime is still found lingering in the air.
Collusion at this time seems to be a very strong point that can't be ruled out, and until it is, Bogus Ben's position should NOT be voted on for reconfirmation.
lest Congress wishes themselves to be seen as willing participants in the collusion, and cover up of the fraud that has now reared it's ugly head
Things like this are a tad hard to rebury, Hank worked very hard to make sure that you'd never see what the makeup of "the real deal was"
•It appears that The Fed was neck-deep in all of this - Zerohedge published an article which appears to document that Soc Gen had pledged reference securities at the Fed Discount Window that had a value of 49 cents on the dollar, probably without a material haircut! In other words this French firm was funding itself with money from our Federal Reserve with securities pledged at "par" that were in fact worth less than half and for which the taxpayer was on the hook for.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Two at Fed Had Doubts Over Payout by A.I.G.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/business/27aig.html?hp
Weeks after rescuing the American International Group with an $85 billion taxpayer loan in late 2008, Federal Reserve Board officials rejected a proposal that would have forced the insurer’s trading partners to return $30 billion in cash that they had received from A.I.G. in the preceding months.
The Fed chose instead to let the banks keep the cash and to receive additional billions from taxpayers. This decision was made, internal documents show, after two Fed governors expressed concern that such a plan might be “a gift” to the company’s trading partners, including Goldman Sachs and Société Générale, a major French bank. The documents were provided to Congressional investigators by the Federal Reserve and were obtained by The New York Times.
Lawyers for the Fed argued in the documents that it did not have the legal authority to guarantee A.I.G.’s obligations
Weeks after rescuing the American International Group with an $85 billion taxpayer loan in late 2008, Federal Reserve Board officials rejected a proposal that would have forced the insurer’s trading partners to return $30 billion in cash that they had received from A.I.G. in the preceding months.
The Fed chose instead to let the banks keep the cash and to receive additional billions from taxpayers. This decision was made, internal documents show, after two Fed governors expressed concern that such a plan might be “a gift” to the company’s trading partners, including Goldman Sachs and Société Générale, a major French bank. The documents were provided to Congressional investigators by the Federal Reserve and were obtained by The New York Times.
Lawyers for the Fed argued in the documents that it did not have the legal authority to guarantee A.I.G.’s obligations
Monday, January 25, 2010
SEC mulled national security status for AIG details
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60N1S220100124
This just gets better and better lol
They use the term "national security" for everything they want to keep secret don't they.
U.S. securities regulators originally treated the New York Federal Reserve's bid to keep secret many of the details of the American International Group bailout like a request to protect matters of national security, according to emails obtained by Reuters.
This just gets better and better lol
They use the term "national security" for everything they want to keep secret don't they.
U.S. securities regulators originally treated the New York Federal Reserve's bid to keep secret many of the details of the American International Group bailout like a request to protect matters of national security, according to emails obtained by Reuters.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
AIG more NY FED concealment
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1868-AIG-More-NY-Fed-Concealment.html
Karl's definitely got a case going on.
I can clearly see where the NY FED has a very serious case of conflicting interests going on, very much like the Federal Reserve itself.
It's becoming very obvious and seriously can't be denied as to whose interest come first.
The question is, how much longer will "The People" settle for this back stabbing garbage?
The New York Fed has said its focus in AIG disclosures has been "ensuring accuracy and protecting taxpayers interests during a time of severe economic distress."
Accuracy only occurs with scrutiny and disclosure. With the public generally and market participants specifically, being able to view the transactions that took place, including their terms.
Without that there is no "accuracy" - only corruption, secrecy and deceit. With secrecy comes mischief and and cover to permit lies.
The NY Fed argues it has the right to do this, as does the FOMC.
I disagree.
The NY Fed may be a bank with commercial interests but when it acts at the direction of, directly or indirectly, the FOMC and The Fed generally it acts as a fiduciary of the Taxpayer and Congress.
Karl's definitely got a case going on.
I can clearly see where the NY FED has a very serious case of conflicting interests going on, very much like the Federal Reserve itself.
It's becoming very obvious and seriously can't be denied as to whose interest come first.
The question is, how much longer will "The People" settle for this back stabbing garbage?
The New York Fed has said its focus in AIG disclosures has been "ensuring accuracy and protecting taxpayers interests during a time of severe economic distress."
Accuracy only occurs with scrutiny and disclosure. With the public generally and market participants specifically, being able to view the transactions that took place, including their terms.
Without that there is no "accuracy" - only corruption, secrecy and deceit. With secrecy comes mischief and and cover to permit lies.
The NY Fed argues it has the right to do this, as does the FOMC.
I disagree.
The NY Fed may be a bank with commercial interests but when it acts at the direction of, directly or indirectly, the FOMC and The Fed generally it acts as a fiduciary of the Taxpayer and Congress.
Monday, January 11, 2010
AIG, autos offset Treasury bank bailout profits
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60A4XU20100111
OK I understand the hit from AIG and the auto makers, but the 27 billion on the home affordable modification program has me stumped. We all know that very few home loans were ever actually modifidied, so it couldn't possibly from that, unless we were paying people to do actually nothing, so the only other thing that it could possibly pertain to is the $8000.00 tax credit for first time buyers.
- U.S. taxpayer profits from bank bailout investments are being offset by estimated losses from American International Group and automakers and mortgage payment cuts for struggling homeowners, a U.S. Treasury report showed on Monday.
The Treasury estimated net losses on its $700 billion bailout program at $68.5 billion for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009.
The December report for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, showed that the fiscal 2009 net loss included estimated losses of $30.4 billion for AIG and $30.4 billion for automakers, with $27.1 billion in losses from the Home Affordable Modification Program.
OK I understand the hit from AIG and the auto makers, but the 27 billion on the home affordable modification program has me stumped. We all know that very few home loans were ever actually modifidied, so it couldn't possibly from that, unless we were paying people to do actually nothing, so the only other thing that it could possibly pertain to is the $8000.00 tax credit for first time buyers.
- U.S. taxpayer profits from bank bailout investments are being offset by estimated losses from American International Group and automakers and mortgage payment cuts for struggling homeowners, a U.S. Treasury report showed on Monday.
The Treasury estimated net losses on its $700 billion bailout program at $68.5 billion for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009.
The December report for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, showed that the fiscal 2009 net loss included estimated losses of $30.4 billion for AIG and $30.4 billion for automakers, with $27.1 billion in losses from the Home Affordable Modification Program.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Geitner's handwriting on the call?
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1833-Aig-And-Geithner-More-Lies.html
Oh my my, look what Karl found.
Are we ready to prosecute yet?
“Matters relating to AIG securities law disclosures were not brought to the attention of Mr. Geithner,” Thomas Baxter, general counsel of the New York Fed, said yesterday in a letter to Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, and Edolphus Towns, Democrat of New York. “In my judgment as the New York Fed’s chief legal officer, disclosure matters of this nature did not warrant the attention of the president.” Geithner, who helped orchestrate the bailout of AIG when he led the New York Fed, is now Treasury Department secretary.
Oh really?
Oh my my, look what Karl found.
Are we ready to prosecute yet?
“Matters relating to AIG securities law disclosures were not brought to the attention of Mr. Geithner,” Thomas Baxter, general counsel of the New York Fed, said yesterday in a letter to Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, and Edolphus Towns, Democrat of New York. “In my judgment as the New York Fed’s chief legal officer, disclosure matters of this nature did not warrant the attention of the president.” Geithner, who helped orchestrate the bailout of AIG when he led the New York Fed, is now Treasury Department secretary.
Oh really?
Friday, January 8, 2010
NY Fed Lawyer Says AIG ‘Didn’t Warrant’ Geithner’s Attention
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-08/ny-fed-lawyer-says-aig-didn-t-warrant-geithner-s-attention.html
Oh I see Timmy didn't need to know because it was on a need to know basis.
On the quite so to speak, which tells you what?
They knew they were pulling a fast one.
Timothy Geithner, the former Federal Reserve Bank of New York president, wasn’t aware of efforts to limit American International Group Inc.’s bailout disclosures because the regulator’s top lawyer didn’t think the issue merited his attention, according to a letter sent to lawmakers.
Oh I see Timmy didn't need to know because it was on a need to know basis.
On the quite so to speak, which tells you what?
They knew they were pulling a fast one.
Timothy Geithner, the former Federal Reserve Bank of New York president, wasn’t aware of efforts to limit American International Group Inc.’s bailout disclosures because the regulator’s top lawyer didn’t think the issue merited his attention, according to a letter sent to lawmakers.
Geithner called to explain AIG bailout secrecy
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Geithner-called-to-explain-apf-494126474.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=
Congress is now being seen for the fools and dupes that they are and they're angry about it.
Well I say welcome to the world of Main Street. How do YOU like the view from our eyes, because from what WE can see, your condoning what we see as a crime, and paving the way with our tax dollars, for them to continue to commit it
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will face a congressional grilling later this month about the suppression of key details on deals that funneled billions to big investment banks while he was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Lawmakers reacted angrily Friday to revelations in e-mails sent in late 2008 and early 2009 between lawyers for the New York Fed and American International Group Inc. The exchanges show the New York Fed wanted AIG to withhold information about deals that sent billions of dollars from the taxpayer bailout of AIG to Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Societe Generale and other major banks.
Congress is now being seen for the fools and dupes that they are and they're angry about it.
Well I say welcome to the world of Main Street. How do YOU like the view from our eyes, because from what WE can see, your condoning what we see as a crime, and paving the way with our tax dollars, for them to continue to commit it
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will face a congressional grilling later this month about the suppression of key details on deals that funneled billions to big investment banks while he was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Lawmakers reacted angrily Friday to revelations in e-mails sent in late 2008 and early 2009 between lawyers for the New York Fed and American International Group Inc. The exchanges show the New York Fed wanted AIG to withhold information about deals that sent billions of dollars from the taxpayer bailout of AIG to Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Societe Generale and other major banks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)