Wikinvest Wire

Elliot Spitzer on Tim Geithner

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Former NY governor Elliot Spitzer takes a look at a new report on the AIG bailout and how Goldman Sachs and others were made whole, what was clearly the exception to the rule last year as financial markets were imploding. He submits his findings in this commentary at Slate.

Geithner's Disgrace
The new AIG report reveals how the Treasury secretary—and U.S. taxpayers—were fleeced by Wall Street banks.

The issue has been festering for months: Why were AIG's counterparties—including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and UBS—paid 100 cents on the dollar when the feds rescued the insurance giant, helping raising the cost of the bailout to nearly $200 billion? A new report issued by Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky now reveals that government officials, notably then-New York Fed President and current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, grievously damaged the nation and capitulated to the very banks they should have been supervising.

Barofsky's report reads like a case study in failed negotiation. The New York Fed didn't have the backbone to stand up to Wall Street, didn't understand its capacity to protect taxpayers, and didn't appreciate that its responsibility was to taxpayers.
Geithner seems be a near perfect stooge for big banks. Having never worked on Wall Street he can legitimately claim to be a life-long public servant but, having been groomed by Robert Rubin at the Treasury Department, he is quite unlike any other public servant, particularly when it comes to how he views Wall Street.

He's been heading up the Treasury Department for 10 months now, after having served as the New York Federal Reserve president in recent years so it's not as if he can claim he inherited any of these problems - he was instrumental in creating them.

With these latest revelations about the AIG bailout money, it's no wonder that more and more calls are being heard for him to step down.
Geithner and the Fed have proffered a series of spurious reasons for their willingness to pay AIG's counterparties—the leading Wall Street banks—in full while demanding concessions from every other entity with whom the Treasury or the Fed dealt. Geithner suggested he could not use the threat of AIG's default in the absence of a federal bailout to get concessions from AIG's creditors. Why not?

That is exactly what the government did with the auto industry, and rightly so. The entity providing financing to a near-bankrupt institution must always seek contributions from everyone else at risk. The fact that the Fed had a strong predisposition against letting AIG go into bankruptcy didn't mean the Fed shouldn't have used every opportunity to wrangle concessions from the other parties. For Geithner to say it would have been "unethical" to negotiate for concessions is sheer silliness. It is akin to saying that having decided that you are willing to pay up to $250,000 for a house, it is unethical to negotiate to buy it for $225,000.
IMAGE Geithner also claims that using the possibility of AIG's default as a negotiating opportunity would have cast doubt on the government's commitment to financial stability. What? Seeking to get other parties to share the burden demonstrates a lack of commitment to restoring financial stability and market-based realities? Pressuring Goldman and the other counterparties to offer concessions would have forced them to absorb the consequences of making suspect deals with an insurance company that was essentially a Ponzi scheme. Forcing them to give concessions would have been one small step toward ending the moral hazard the Fed had allowed to flourish for years.

Geithner also claims that refusal to pay 100 cents on the dollar might have been misinterpreted by the rating agencies and so cast a shadow on AIG's credit rating. Huh? AIG was flat-lining. The only way to restore its credit rating was for the government to bail it out—and to negotiate the best possible deal while doing so.

Perhaps most remarkable is that Geithner claims the "sanctity of contract" prevented renegotiating with the counterparties. But the government wasn't a party to these contracts! The government was stepping in with taxpayer money to save a broken company on terms to be set by the government. The counterparties had the contractual right to refuse the terms, throw AIG into bankruptcy, and suffer the consequences. In a workout context, the entity with cash—here, the government—can set the terms, and the other parties can either accept those terms or walk over to bankruptcy court. The government had absolutely no contractual obligation to do anything.

Also amazing is Geithner's assertion that he and the Fed were acting on behalf of AIG. Perhaps nothing is more fundamental than knowing whom you represent. Geithner and the Fed were supposed to be acting on behalf of taxpayers and citizens, not AIG. Their effort was supposed to get the best result for taxpayers: preserving the structure of the economy and stopping a free fall. That—not preserving AIG's market value—was the rationale for intervention. Once tax dollars were at stake, Geithner should have been asking how to achieve the best economic result while minimizing taxpayers' exposure.

Geithner has tried to deflect some of this criticism by suggesting that it is "untainted by experience." I would suggest that it is Geithner who displays lack of experience in his dealing with the financial community. He doesn't know how to negotiate, doesn't understand what cards he holds, and doesn't understand the need for fundamental reform.
It's hard to imagine how the Treasury Secretary can rebound from this.

Income that went unreported due to TurboTax is one thing, but billions of dollars in taxpayer money being handed over to Wall Street villains is quite another.

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous said...

One day, perhaps soon, Geithner will be offered job in private sector. If it will be one of the investment banks, I wonder if anyone will question the possibility of payoff being the reason for it. I wonder, if accepting such job would be the same as taking a bribe, if it would be prosecuted.

professor pinch said...

It must be freezing cold in some corner of hell, because I find myself agreeing with Spitzer wholeheartedly.

Worst case scenario, Timmay was a complete stooge and duplicitous in paying par for the CDS as well as making the choice to buy the CDOs from the counterparties. At best, he completely panicked.

Which is enough to show me he never deserved to be NY Fed President and he sure doesn't deserve to be Treasury Secretary now. Guys who panic in foxholes have no place around guns, bullets, and ammo.

Anonymous said...

Goldman has so much influence, Paulson ex Goldmanite, etc that they bailed out the counterparty AIG so Goldman could get paid 100%of what was owed on the CDS.

Is it appropriate that Henry Paulson, SEC Treasury, met with the Goldman Board in Russia?

  © Blogger template Newspaper by 2008

Back to TOP