Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

An A.i.g. Failure Would Have Cost Goldman Sachs, Documents Show

Recommended Posts

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/business/economy/24goldman.html?_r=1&ref=business

Since the United States government stepped in to rescue the American International Group in the fall of 2008, Goldman Sachs has maintained that it would have faced few if any losses had the insurer failed. Though it was the insurer’s biggest trading partner, Goldman contended that it had bought credit insurance from financial institutions that would have protected it, but it declined to identify the institutions.

A Congressional document released late Friday lists those institutions and shows that Goldman was exposed to losses in an A.I.G. default because some of the investment bank’s trading partners, such as Citibank and Lehman Brothers, were financially unstable and might have been unable to make good on large claims from Goldman.

The document details every institution that had sold credit insurance on A.I.G. to Goldman as of Sept. 15, 2008, the day before the New York Fed arranged the insurer’s rescue with an $85 billion backstop. The document, supplied by Goldman Sachs, was released by Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

Goldman had purchased credit protection on A.I.G. worth $402 million from Citigroup and $175 million from Lehman Brothers, the document shows. As of the date of the document, Lehman had already filed for bankruptcy protection.

“This illustrates that the Goldman version of reality is not entirely accurate,” said Christopher Whalen, managing director at Institutional Risk Analytics. “They did have exposure to A.I.G., and that is what drove their behavior in the bailout.”

Lucas van Praag, a Goldman spokesman, reiterated that the firm was fully protected from an A.I.G. default and noted that the protection it had purchased from financial institutions required that they post cash to Goldman to cover rising exposures. “Given that we were receiving and paying collateral on a daily basis, the risk to us of not being able to collect on our hedges had A.I.G. defaulted was de minimus,” Mr. van Praag said.

For decades, Goldman and A.I.G. had a long and fruitful relationship, with A.I.G. insuring billions in mortgage-related securities that Goldman Sachs underwrote. When the mortgage market started to deteriorate in 2007, however, the relationship went sour and Goldman began demanding cash from A.I.G. to cover the declining value of the securities it had insured. A dispute ensued, and Goldman began buying credit insurance on A.I.G. to protect against possible losses arising from its dealings with the company.

According to the document, Goldman held a total of $1.7 billion in insurance on A.I.G. from almost 90 institutions. Its exposure to A.I.G. at that time was $2.6 billion.

Goldman bought most of the insurance from large foreign and domestic banks, including Credit Suisse ($310 million), Morgan Stanley ($243 million) and JPMorgan Chase ($216 million). Goldman also bought $223 million in insurance on A.I.G. from a variety of funds overseen by Pimco, the money management firm.

JPMorgan and Credit Suisse declined to comment late Friday. A Pimco official could not be reached.

Critics of the A.I.G. rescue have characterized it as a “backdoor bailout” of financial institutions that had made mortgage bets guaranteed by the beleaguered insurer. Initially, the government refused to identify these institutions, causing consternation among some in Congress, including Mr. Grassley, who thought the taxpayers should know whom they had benefited.

The issue of the rescue’s beneficiaries surfaced again last Wednesday in hearings sponsored by the Senate Finance Committee. Elizabeth Warren, the chairwoman of the Congressional panel that oversees the government’s responses to the credit crisis, testified that Goldman Sachs had declined to supply her staff with information about the insurance it had bought to protect itself from an A.I.G. failure.

Because the Congressional panel cannot issue subpoenas, Mr. Grassley suggested that his committee request the information from Goldman, subpoenaing the firm if necessary. Goldman quickly submitted the materials.

“It’s as if the New York Fed used A.I.G. as a front man to bail out big banks all over the world,” Mr. Grassley said in a statement. “It took nearly two years for the public to learn these details, and they only were revealed because Congress wouldn’t take no for an answer. Taxpayers deserve to know what happened with their money.

Does anyone agree that Goldman's position wasn't going to result in big losses if AIG hadn't been bailed out?

Was the system so compromised that and AIG default would have triggered off a chain reaction of failures?

Reading this it certainly reads like what happened with Lloyds (insurance rather than the bank) during the 80's where the risks kept getting reinsured upwards meaning when the big claims came in it nearly collapsed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br /><a href='http://www.nytimes.c...=1&ref=business</a><br /><br /><br /><br />Does anyone agree that Goldman's position wasn't going to result in big losses if AIG hadn't been bailed out?<br /><br />Was the system so compromised that and AIG default would have triggered off a chain reaction of failures?<br /><br />Reading this it certainly reads like what happened with Lloyds (insurance rather than the bank) during the 80's where the risks kept getting reinsured upwards meaning when the big claims came in it nearly collapsed.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

Good post/find - surprised @ non replies

Lloyds >

Hah - this too is now a one-way ticket to greedy pocket filling by the uber_rich /Aristocrats!

As far as I remember there was a huge outcry by loads of toffs who had unlimited exposure to losses @ Lloyds Insurance and they were due to be called in & ruined.

'They' then changed the rules on losses to prevent this, pronto(after hundreds of years)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<br /><br /><br />

Good post/find - surprised @ non replies

Lloyds >

Hah - this too is now a one-way ticket to greedy pocket filling by the uber_rich /Aristocrats!

As far as I remember there was a huge outcry by loads of toffs who had unlimited exposure to losses @ Lloyds Insurance and they were due to be called in & ruined.

'They' then changed the rules on losses to prevent this, pronto(after hundreds of years)!

When Lloyds went down there were people ruined. By then the word had got out that this was a great way to make money (like Madoff). My ex-neighbours... retired after running a successful business (chain of shops) to a large house by the race-course in Ascot... lost everything and ended up on a mobile home park in North Yorkshire (then to a council property for old people where they were my neighbours).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />When Lloyds went down there were people ruined. By then the word had got out that this was a great way to make money (like Madoff). My ex-neighbours... retired after running a successful business (chain of shops) to a large house by the race-course in Ascot... lost everything and ended up on a mobile home park in North Yorkshire (then to a council property for old people where they were my neighbours).<br />

Correct - but as I said they changed the rules soon after.

It's decades ago, but from recollection due to the internal Lloyds trading "pass-the-parcel" fraud that was exposed, loads of toffs threatened to sue Lloyds, so majority were not stung as hard as they could have been!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct - but as I said they changed the rules soon after.

It's decades ago, but from recollection due to the internal Lloyds trading "pass-the-parcel" fraud that was exposed, loads of toffs threatened to sue Lloyds, so majority were not stung as hard as they could have been!

Strange how when the risk produced a profit none threatened to sue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 245 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.