We’ll be delivering our petition to Congress when Barney Frank’s House Financial Services Committee holds a hearing on AIG at 10am tomorrow. You can sign it here and leave your comments.
Andrew Sorkin writes a completely incoherent defense of paying out bonuses to AIG in the New York Times. It would hardly be worth consideration were it not for the fact that it may very well be what Timothy Geithner was thinking when he negotiated the deal to pay the bonuses out in the first place:
A.I.G. built this bomb, and it may be the only outfit that really knows how to defuse it.
A.I.G. employees concocted complex derivatives that then wormed their way through the global financial system. If they leave — the buzz on Wall Street is that some have, and more are ready to — they might simply turn around and trade against A.I.G.’s book. Why not? They know how bad it is. They built it.
So as unpalatable as it seems, taxpayers need to keep some of these brainiacs in their seats, if only to prevent them from turning against the company. In the end, we may actually be better off if they can figure out how to unwind these tricky investments.
It certainly explains the white paper obtained by FDL on Sunday which AIG wrote to explain its legal rational for paying the bonuses. Marcy Wheeler interprets it (rightly I believe) as a ransom note: Pay us or we blow the whole thing up.
Let’s look at the implications of what Sorkin is saying. The markets have seized up for various reasons, but ultimately due to the fact that people have no confidence in the entire system. There were huge conflicts of interests when agencies like Moody’s and S&P were paid by issuers to rate structured securities backed by subprime mortgages. They handed out AAA ratings like they were Pez, and because certain firms could only put their money in such "investment grade debt," facilitated the spread of the subprime cancer that riddled the entire system. It’s just one example of why nobody trusts anything right now. There’s no confidence that if you put money into something, you’re able to assess that what you’re investing in has real value, and isn’t just another ponzi scheme designed by crooks to enrich themselves.
So what Sorkin is saying is that we should just admit, in a very public way, that we have no ability to regulate the system. That if someone commits fraud and theft on such a massive scale, there’s nothing we can do but pay everyone off or they will use their knowledge to steal even more money. He’s saying that there is no authority, no viable regulation, no legal structure that can right this mess. All we can do is keep writing checks, pay off the blackmailers and hope that if we let them continue to get rich they won’t make matters worse.
Geithner seems to share that assumption, namely that there is nothing wrong with this system that piles of money won’t fix. That if you keep shoveling cash into it, some day things will get better. He has not addressed the crisis of public trust, the critical lack of faith that everyone — both inside and out of the financial industry — is gripped with right now. He wants to pay the very bankers who created this mess in order to buy up "toxic assets," which the public views as just another way for him to funnel billions to his Wall Street pals. As if the systemic problems that led to this crisis will just go away and the same thing won’t happen all over again.
People are outraged at the injustice of paying out billions in bonuses to AIG bankers, but they’re also irate (and freaked out) about what it says about those in charge — that they are so much a part of the fabric of the problem that they’re incapable of seeing what it is, much less solving it. Paying off blackmail notes from architects of the fall is a great way to make things worse.
If the AIG executives have information they’re not telling us, that’s what grand juries are for. That should be the starting point of any negotiation. You don’t let someone off the hook just because they tell you where the bodies are buried, you just agree not to fry them.



73 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
digg is open.
Thanks Jane.
Bullseye, as per usual.
Our new government appears most incompetent. They are being blackmailed, and have the ability to put the blackmailers in jail. But they don’t.
The law does not matter to them. Who does it matter to then?
Cuomo seems to be the one doing the best work in this area but can his arm reach the UK where many of these conmen seem to be operating?
Thanks Jane.
Apologies, but this is where my intrenched, stubborn stupidity kicks into gear.
There’s no room for blackmailers in my book. Close them down if that’s what it takes. Doom is facing us either way. For sure if we hand over the reins completely and “forever”.
This is why bankruptcy was the correct option for them, but we’re too far along with the taxpayer investment that AIG holds all of the leverage. These execs know they’re out of there soon enough. They just want to milk it for what it’s worth, and the government is enabling them. You don’t give a crack addict $20 and expect them not to buy crack. You send them to rehab.
“Close them down if that’s what it takes” say goodbye to the taxpayer investment in AIG then!
Is it a “tell” whenever a pug or a pseudopug calls out Obama for trying too hard? Dog, what idiots they be!
I read that Sorkin gibberish last night and sent a semi-polite e-mail in response. By semi-polite, I mean I didn’t call him an incredibly stupid and arrogant fuck if he thought his perspective had any logic behind it other than to p*ss away good money after bad.
you have an elegant way with the language. I likey. ;->
“A.I.G. built this bomb, and it may be the only outfit that really knows how to defuse it.”
Bullshit. Give me some regulatory authority, subpoena power, a good audit team and a little bit of time and I’ll unwind the thing myself. Complex? Yes. Impossible? Not even close.
And if Sorkin, etal are able to sell this argument, it will establish a precedent that will open the floodgates later on.
Maybe we should corner the market on skiploaders that haul cash from the treasury over to failed financial institutions.
specter on msnbc right now claiming that the benefit contracts are unenforceable as being against public policy – comparing them to contracts for the sale of heroin.
Interesting approach…..
Jane,
There was a business which opened in a nice neighborhood here. The business became the reason the crime rate spiralled out of control in this crime-free neighborhood. Certain laws protected the business and the neighborhood was not receiving any support from local politicians. The people in the neighborhood banded together to finance campaigns against the seated politicians and began a photo group. The photo group set up on public property across from the crime inviting business and started taking pictures of every who owned the business and all patrons.
The photos were made public.
The business close shop within 2 months of the photo campaign.
Think we could get photos of all the bonus receivers?
Marcy quoted this from that whitepaper:
If so, it may be both necessary and appropriate to put AIG through restructuring/bankruptcy/nationalization, in order to render null and void the financial land mines those smartboys planted in the contracts they wrote. And, if so, let’s get on with it.
Corporate extortion, treason and we the governed, are the hostages? Liberty and threats to it? No… Jefferson can’t be right?
he’s showing the one tooth left in his pathetic skull? watch it disappear if they get anywhere near to a vote on real action.
“If you don’t buy this magazine, we’ll kill this dog”
Congratulation Jane. You actually read the whole piece. I got through a paragraph or two, decided it was crap I didn’t need to take with my orange juice and went on to something else.
With notable exceptions, the press is totally incompetent when it comes to sorting things out. And they wonder why newspapers are dying! There was a long piece in this weekend’s Globe and Mail on the death of the newspaper. Two full pages, and not one page mentioned the effect of overcapitalization in the interest of making a fast buck for the principal shareholders. Take the money and run. Same old, same old.
Here’s an idea. Pay these people in their own toxic derivatives…full pay. Much like a long-term annuity they’d get 5% of the money generated from their shares each year. Actually to keep it interesting maybe pay some of them at different percentages over the next few decades, some getting 5% the next year others getting 7% and some only 3%. And scale that around so that they, as a collective have different short-term interests…but the long-term scale of maintaining the viability of the company and its investments are preserved.
Thus they would be holding the bag, as it were. Quarterly theft of 5he till would be considered theft from ones colleagues and they would be more likely to “rat” on the others if they noticed theft.
In addition perhaps executives in firms could be collectively responsible for taxes. If a certain individual was a tax cheat the burden would increase for the rest. Thus if the CEO was off-shoring $1 million, the rest of the Directors would be responsible for making that up.
This would get things back to the old-school way of family run businesses where theft from the accounts was not simply a criminal issue, it was a moral insult upon the whole. To some degree that happened at Enron, because the employees own stock was intercalated with the investments of the sham company. But the Directors and top Executives were largely exempt from the damages of the scam since their wealth wassn’t actually tied up in the actual company, but had already been shifted into the accounts in the Caymans.
i’d not stop at photos. history, bios, whereabouts. what’s a good story if there’s no flesh on the villains.
Don’t forget to Digg it!
Does anybody know if the author,Andrew Sorkin, is related to Ira Sorkin,Bernie Madoff’s attorney?
Here’s an interesting link:
Ira Sorkin’s Ponzi Past But into the fray stepped Ira Sorkin and his law firm, Squadron Ellenoff, … Bailout Bonanza. Obama to Geithner: Get AIG Loot Back …
http://www.businessinsider.com/ira-so…..ast-2009-3 – 58k – Cached – Similar pages
That story @ 13 is true too! That really happened. It was quite a victory. The media didn’t touch the story until the business was closed.
“you just agree not to fry them”.
Or maybe we could just agree not to fry them really, really slowly?
Anyway, aren’t there mechanisms for barring scam artists from banking and securities for life, even if such activities aren’t otherwise obstructed by a long stretch in a penitentiary? I seem to remember a past employer that was under such an order. Given the strong suggestion of fraud and blackmail in this instance, wouldn’t firing back with some such observation put a chill on these Wall Street wise guys: “Oh yeah? Try that and you’ll never trade in the northern hemisphere again!”
Why hasn’t anyone other than Cuomo said as much?.
AIG execs – the bunch of 400 from that renegade division are slated to get 1 billion dollars in BONUSES this year.
just take the $165 million that they already got.
take one job created at $50,000 USD a year. that 3300 jobs that could be created.
with a billion, that would be 20,000 jobs in the u.s.
if AIG goes under, i don’t have a problem if it creates 20,000 productive jobs in sectors that actually create value. and this, with just the bonuses. with the extra 30 billion they’re getting as ‘punishment’, we’re talking 6,00,000 jobs.
“It certainly explains the white paper obtained by FDL on Sunday which AIG wrote to explain its legal rational for paying the bonuses. Marcy Wheeler interprets it (rightly I believe) as a ransom note: Pay us or we blow the whole thing up.
“
I think you mean “rationale” not “rational”.
I read this piece this morning and had about the same response. What arrogance. You know as FDR said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself….so maybe it is a bit fearful that AIG’s collapse may cause unkown consequences but you know what when trying to save the patient it’s best to excise as much, or all of the cancer as possible.The good news is that we will have the pleasure of knowing that these bandits will not be living high on the hog on our tax dime. Let it fall and then start rebuilding with integrity!
Incidentally, wasn’t there a report in the past couple of weeks that AIG had used bailout money to hire a cadre of PR people? Tax dollars at work,apparently!
There is an exceptional piece on deepcapture today about how the MSM and the CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE MUGGED THE ECONOMY ARE INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED.
No wonder the companies are sitting on the payout lists. The lists are going to leak out eventually, but I rather it be now, not later.
Well done.
I wish I had your discipline.
I said this earlier and it bears repeating.
Virtually all these guys on wall street who are traders are working for very high net worth individuals who don’t work. They have a huge amount of money and they have these firms / traders to come up with schemes to make them more money. These are not investments. They don’t create jobs, products, development of ideas, innovation. All these are, are complex schemes for making money with money for people who already have tons of money.
And to get these creeps to do this, they pay them huge salaries, fees, bonuses to buy them off, to bring them to “their side” the side which worships at the alter of wealth creation at any cost. These are unethical SOBs.
The protections that institutional investors who are trying to manage retirements, pensions and so forth, municipal investments, charity annuities and so forth is that their money is placed in AAA rated “investments” ie conservative. But AIG and Bear and Lehman and Goldman and Morgan conspired with the rating outfits which THEY PAY and are the ONLY clients of these rating outfits to scam the ratings and tag shady investments with AAA ratings so they could get their hands on larger and larger pools of money to play with.
These are ALL criminals – conspiracies, corrupt and fraudulent practices.
They should ALL be facing juries of their peers.
Nearly an hour ago it was announced that Andrew Cuomo had sent a letter this morning the Barney Frank advising him that many who had received retention bonuses had already left the company. So one would have to ask how AIG can Sorkin use the argument that without these bonuses valued employees will leave? We own 80% of this dead weight. Get it over with and purchase the other 20% and then nullify any contracts that still exist.
@Gitcheegumee #28
You connect the Bankers that created the financial meltdown and the Media that prevented the story being told and you will find that they are one and the same organization.
http://www.deepcapture.com/wha…..-ji… /
March 12th, 2009 by Patrick Byrne
Perfectly succinct!
actually, Sorkin’s issue is very easily resolved with a standard non-compete agreement which can be forced on departing employees (in fact, they used to be standard procedure and may stil be) – that agreement will state that employees are not allowed to trade against AIG’s book, period. Alternatively, Congress could even pass a bill to that effect, if necessary, or it may even be within the rulemaking authority of the executive branch for all I know, but I don’t think one needs to go that far.
Sander O @ 31:
Wouldn’t this be prosecutuable under racketeering,RICO anti-trust violations?
I am wondering why the Credit Default Market is still open at all.
The difference between tax fraud and tax planning used to be five-to-ten in a federal pen. Now it’s what makes you partner.
Auditors and rating agencies, like tax advisers and industry analysts, became “profit centers” and stopped doing their jobs. Just as Enron’s demise came from abandoning the utility business and AIG’s started when its insurance business became many times “oversubscribed” by the risks inherent in its CDO’s and derivative hedges. The same holds true for health insurers, who sell access to health care, but don’t allow it in order to maximize their profits.
That such fundamental changes in a business, with catastrophic increases in risk, happen with stealth is a big part of the problem. One way to discard the cloak of invisibility would be through better SEC disclosure (now, an oxymoron), which requires more rigorous accounting and auditing standards. Another is to hire a Treasury Sec’y who does not still seem to think the gubmint is the problem, not the means to a cure. If Mr. Geithner is throwing up his hands in despair, I suggest he look at what his cousins in the UK and Germany are doing.
Let’s not pretend we’ve cleaned house when we’ve left untouched that three foot high lump under the carpet. And let’s not pretend that life is too complicated to lower its risks or that, as neocons tell everyone else, “Just lay back, relax and enjoy it, there’s nothing you can do about it.”
Am looking forward to the reaction to the petition you will deliver tomorrow. Thanks for all your work, Jane.
We aren’t going to see anything back from AIG anyway. Why should we be paying off rather than cutting our losses and saying “good luck with that bankruptcy filing”?
Better to lose $160B on a bad bet than $700B trying to recoup from the same bookie after the first bet was revealed as a fraud…
This I really like!
But why spead payment out? Why not do what Ian and so many others have suggested and clear up the whole CDS/CDO problem at once?
Lets make all Wall Street bonuses, salaries, and severance payable only in kind–in their own “toxic” (i.e. “non-asset”) assets, using whatever value they put on them when trying to sell them to us. Presto! The toxic assets are off the books and replaced with the real cash that would otherwise have been used.
We can afford to be generous, too, given the sheer number of these things that these people created. “You think you deserve a million? Please! Wouldn’t hear of it. Take a trillion at least.”
This way, the wise guys can spend the next decade identifying and suing each other for whatever value there is or was in these things or in their off-shore accounts. Meanwhile, we close the books on the banks and start issuing Fed cards to the real people who have lives and businesses to run.
Hire Spitzer.
Exactly!
Published 1 hour ago by Clusterstock
Eliot Spitzer: The Real AIG Scandal Isn’t The Bonuses
We suspect the reason the public and politicians are outraged about the AIG bonuses rather than the larger structure of the AIG bailout is because the concepts are just easier. We understand what it means to pay millions to folks who lost billions. We’re not sure what all this talk about counterparties and systemic risk is about.
Former NY State governor and attorney general Eliot Spitzer urges us to turn from this simple scandal to ”the real disgrace at the insurance giant,” the fact that AIG’s counterparties are getting paid in full.
Why aren’t AIG’s counterparties taking haircuts on their exposure? Here’s Spitzer’s answer:
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.
Someday this is all going to confuse students of history. The business columnist of the New York Times agues for huge payments to executives and the sanctity of contracts, while Clusterstock and Eliot Spitzer find themselves on the same side arguing against the bonuses. We truly stepped through the looking glass once we became Bailout Nation
Idea…maybe we could replace Geithner with Eliot Spitzer. Just put him in a chastity belt and tell him “Here’s your chance to rebuild your reputation ‘Eliot Ness’!”
Or maybe put him in as head of the special investigations division of the IRS or SEC?
The screwing Eliot Spitzer got ain’t NUTHIN” compared to the screwin’ WE’RE getting!
Another point. All of these foreign Financial institutions also hold some bloody good paper in this side of the ocean. We bailed them out…but we should definitely make sure that they are contributing significant amounts from their profitable sections to their own rescue. Taxes on their profits should be substantial, or we should be allowed to confiscate and breakup their holdings in the US and then auction these off to increase the diversity of holders.
Another point…”too big” was actually a front for a number of smaller investment groups. In fact if AIG had gone down the burden would have been passed on to a variety of large Financial firms, some of which may have collapsed, but others of which would have survived. If AIG had been allowed to file for bankruptcy there would have been an open investigation of their claims and holdings of each stakeholder. Then they would have received a proprtionate amount of the burden. Both the US and Foreign Governments could then have reached agreements on the amount of bailout and the terms under which these funds were expended.
Are the timestamps on the posts and responses Eastern or the location they were posted from. Just looked at this it came up 10:57 it’s 12:57 here in Omaha so I’m gonna guess Pacific. Still would like to know if that’s always the case.
Simply stated -and the only argument for what’s going on that makes any sense, especially in view of this is the ‘powers that be’ are doing all they can to prevent the capitalism ‘meme’ from being completely destroyed.
What’s unfortunate is U.S. citizen’s penchant for denial of reality and the schizoid logic that exemplifies by this
Ball of confusion, that’s what the U.S is today, hey,hey.
I saw the Sorkin piece last night. So my question is: Is Sorkin Summers’ sockpuppet or Geithner’s? And is there a difference between the two?
It galls me that people who never even noticed 8 years of the most lawless Presidency in our history speciously raise the “We are a nation of laws” mantra. Or that these same people who had no problem trashing union contracts a few short months ago now invoke contracts as the holy of holies.
Post times are given in Pacific Time. Book salons and other meet ups are given in Eastern Time. It has to do with the way Jane’s blog developped over the years. She started it when she lived on the West coast and she has since moved east.
Just a fun note: THE biggest campaign dollar recipient of AIG cash was…Chris Dodd! The guy who quickly worked an amendment into the spending bill exempting any bonuses paid out by contract before 11 Feb 2009!
Guess who the second highest AIG cash recipient is. Anyone? BARACK OBAMA! By a long shot.
THIS tells you all you need to know about the AIG bailout, bonuses, and phony outrage from Obama.
No need for the chastity belt, just figure out a budget for the expense and tell him to stay within budget.
It’s all hush money: that’s becoming clearer by the day especially with the news that many of the executives being paid have ALREADY LEFT AIG. Hush, boys, hushhhhhhh.
Yes, the ”nation of laws” crap burned me too. I think Geithner is Summers’ sockpuppet and Summers is an ass. Don’t care how smart he may be, he’s just a fucking ass. ANYONE who doesn’t get the connection between fat cat contracts and union contracts is way out of date. And making me very angry.
Chris Dodd has a BIG BANKing problem. I’m done with Chris Dodd: he cannot be trusted.
If Obama’s outrage is phony OR impotent he is in big trouble.
Day 3 on the MSM and this isn’t going away. Obama will be challenged by the ideas coming out of Congress about reversing this travesty.
I like Gibbs but he is not impressing on this topic which shows the level of incompetence/denial in the administration. Gibbs says ”we have to keep working this plan so lending will keep flowing.” WHAT???? When did lending loosen up??????? Liar!
I have tried to research and determine if the author Andrew Sorkin is related to Bernie Madoff’s lawyer and business partner,Ira Sorkin.
I mentioned this earlier.
Does anybody from the east coast,or elsewhere, have any info about familial ties if any?
I don’t remember where I started, but I ended up reading this WaPo story from October about the history of attempts to regulate derivatives and swaps going back to the late 90s through the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.
Brooksley Born wanted to bring the dark market into the light but the usual cast of free market fundamentalists decided that was a bad idea and came up with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act instead.
It’s so damn discouraging the way these crooks have the whole thing rigged. Laws are ignored and repealed and now we are talking about making new laws so ”this never happens again.” It sounds so hollow. It sounds so unbelievable.
Jane’s got it: this is all devolving into a massive crisis of confidence. And it’s all connected. To the past eight years. Even to torture.
But I just don’t see where the lying will end.
And who will stand up to the blackmail?
Jane, I’m sure you mean 10AM Eastern time, since it makes sense. Might want to include time zones in the future, though. Those of us who don’t live in the Village don’t always remember. ;)
The head of AIG used to think he could get rid of employees even when they were competent, per David Greising in today’s Chicago Tribune, but now he’s just a helpless captive of the lawyers. Time for the pitchforks?
Oh, yup, they can do just whatever they want when they want and everyone else just has to jump!!!! They must be masters of our universe.
They break all the contracts they want, but only WHEN THEY want.
Today’s money is hush money.
Perhaps they would consider staying on to untangle the company as part of a prison work-release program.
I bet Obama wrote the white letter because he’s been in on this the whole time…even last year when the bonuses were set by AIG. /s
Jane wrote,
Are you really sure you’re a DFH Liberal? Where’s your compassion for the second-homeless?
There’s a difference between saying you don’t like what they’re doing and saying they’re ‘incompetent’.
I suspect they’re just trying to keep the ship of state afloat and will worry about criminal behavior later.
Some places you get 20 years for $25 of crack and at that same time a Wall St. guy can get a $20M bonus for $20B of Credit Default Swaps. Something is clearly out of whack.
But, OTOH, you might give a crack addict a break to get some information on the local criminals.
You might have to travel to some very private swanky places and then security would just turn you away. Or, you might just stand outside the front doors of AIG or one of the other places which gave bonuses.
“Eggzactly” as a friend of mine might say.
Their peers who work in the trade wouldn’t convict them.
I think Congress has been busy with other things. But, it *is* about time they got around to it…and other financial industry regulations.
Tough thing is they need to do that and health care reform almost simultaneously.
Capitalism isn’t dead, but it does keep getting hit over the head by some anarchist types.
He was told to work VERY fast and he did. That there is even a provision on that is a miracle.
Show your proof!
I think you are simply ignoring that the “faith” that is lacking is faith in ability to pay. Give banks enough money and they’ll be able to pay. The “faith” will return. Geithner’s way may be distasteful, but if he throws enough money at it, it will probably “work” in some fashion.