Treasury sells off remaining AIG shares — for profit of $22.7 billion on bailout
posted at 12:01 pm on December 11, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
How often do we see a government operation end up with a profit? Ironies abound in this denouement of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), bitterly opposed by people across the political spectrum but proposed, passed, and extended in bipartisan votes in the dark hours of the financial collapse of 2008. The insurance conglomerate AIG was one of the biggest beneficiaries of TARP, and the target of much of the ire that resulted from the government’s $182 billion rescue, which gave it a large portion of ownership in the company while the money arguably constituted a second bailout of banks and other financial companies.
Today, though, Treasury sold the last of its stake in AIG — and ended up with a $22.7 billion profit off of the bailout “investment”:
The U.S. Treasury’s sale of its remaining stake in American International Group Inc (AIG.N) will fetch $7.6 billion, bringing the government a total profit of $22.7 billion from its crisis-era bailout of the insurer.
The share offering will close the chapter on one of the most politically contentious rescues of 2008, which ultimately gave AIG up to $182 billion of government support.
At one point, the government estimated that it would never recover all of the bailout money, but as AIG restructured and returned to viability, it was able to repay the entire rescue fund plus generate a profit for U.S. taxpayers.
AIG said on Tuesday that the Treasury agreed to sell 234.2 million shares to investors for $32.50 apiece. The insurer said that Treasury has additional AIG warrants that it can sell to boost the government’s $22.7 billion of total returns so far.
The Reuters article notes the most controversial part of the AIG bailout, which was the distribution of US funds to Europe:
The company also funneled over $90 billion of taxpayer money – more than half the funds the government used to rescue AIG – to various European and Wall Street banks, including Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and Barclays Plc.
At the time, critics argued that Treasury was operating a back-door bailout of foreign financial firms, using AIG as just a smoke screen. That criticism is just as valid today, especially with the US backing the IMF’s efforts to bail out Greece, and perhaps especially since the AIG path was significantly less transparent. Congress should have exercised more control over the use of the bailout funds, but with a global collapse arguably in progress, they chose to act quickly at the expense of wisdom and, er, expense.
Still, it’s hard to argue with success. AIG has bounced back, its clients and investors haven’t lost their capital, and taxpayers even made a profit off of the investment, which is highly unusual these days for government investments. (Just consider Solyndra, A123,et al.) Does the profit justify the bailout? Take the poll:
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Sigh: Indiana man faces possible jail time for nursing bald eagle back to health
GOP: Yeah, about that “relatively minor” and completely underhanded carbon-rule change…
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sure, I’m all for it, but for that to happen a necessary condition is to have a plan. he doesn’t have one.
jimver on December 11, 2012 at 1:10 PM
Our government issues debt that our central bank purchases. The central bank prints worthless money to buy this debt while charging interest to the federal government.
How does this work in the long run?
Joey24007 on December 11, 2012 at 1:11 PM
agree, break up the banks!
nathor on December 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Yeah, he does, remember it’s the one that Reid won’t let come up in the Senate because he knows it will get shot down. It’s the one McConnell tried to attach to currently being debated legislation. It sucks.
Cindy Munford on December 11, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Yes, the evil “money changers.” Right, nathor?
Look, it’s a waste of time discussing this issue with someone that believes that the banking system is inherently evil.
In general, the banking system has been an incredibly efficient driver for our economy over the past 100 years.
I’m not against financial regulation at all. We can discuss this for hours if you want!
But regulation for the sake of regulation is stupid. Dodd-Frank is terrible!
Reread my comment about progressive regulation based on the size of one’s balance sheet.
Also, I agree with most FINRA, SEC, and other type of securities regulations (but I do think Sarbanes-Oxley is more bad than good).
Actually, I think many of them stupidly believed that they were making good investments. For example, I think Dick Fuld honestly believed that the real estate market (and therefore, Lehman Brothers) would rebound quickly.
His stupid thinking wasn’t that far out of line with main street thinking. I can’t tell you how many Americans I heard saying that real estate was a great investment in 2008 and even 2009. “How much lower could it go?” was a stupid question I used to hear far too often.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 1:14 PM
And no one ever questions the fact that Obama is constantly throwing taxpayer money at the very rich evil corporations that he vilifies multiple times daily. If only we had a media.
Cindy Munford on December 11, 2012 at 1:15 PM
Actually, no. TARP I was designed for the banks to use their trouble assets as additional collateral in exchange for accepting cash from Treasury. Treasury still had a preferred claim against any financial institution that took TARP I funds.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 1:17 PM
Cindy: blink’s argument is, like so many others, saying that what happened was better than risk the alternative.
I, like you, flatly refuse to believe this when the course of action is ANY active action of the federal government, and the alternative is ‘leave it alone’.
Sorry. Time and time again we’re told, ‘we have to do X or Y happens’, with X sounding as reasonable as possible and Y sounding as horrible as possible.
I’m getting tired of hearing that every year or so. People are asking for morphine to numb the pain, instead of the radical surgery needed to remove the problem.
TARP was purely palliative care for the fiscal structure of the country, and like so many patients, the government became addicted to the numbness instead of realizing that the numbness was far more dangerous to it than the pain.
It didn’t help that the government has had an alcohol habit for 50 years to drown its guilt at not being able to ‘help’ the poor.
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 1:18 PM
That was one of the early possibilities, but it was eventually passed as a preferred investment in the financial institutions that accepted TARP I funds.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 1:19 PM
So, do you oppose FDIC?
blink on December 11, 2012 at 1:19 PM
ok
Joey24007 on December 11, 2012 at 1:21 PM
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Securities/News/2012/11_-_November/JPMorgan_loses_bid_to_toss_FHFA_s_mortgage_debt_lawsuit/
In the JPMorgan case, the FHFA said Fannie and Freddie had bought more than $33 billion in mortgage-backed securities sponsored or underwritten by the bank or two other companies it acquired, Bear Stearns & Co Inc and Washington Mutual Bank.
sharrukin on December 11, 2012 at 1:21 PM
TARP I successfully prevented collapse. We could be adequately recovering right now, if America wasn’t stupid enough to elect Obama – twice.
Your right about the numbness thing, but if you offered me pain now or equal pain later (and the later pain included the possibility of avoiding pain completely), then I would take pain later every time.
This is what TARP I provided.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 1:22 PM
blink: Yes.
Let banks live and die by their reputation as solvent institutions, and not by their ability to ask the government for money.
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 1:22 PM
blink: You would choose possible pain later to avoid possible pain now.
If you cannot predict the future with 100% certainty, then that holds for any time in the future, whether it is 2 weeks or 4 years.
I may not know the banking market as well as you do, but I do understand forecast models.
You are saying that we would have had a strong collapse in 2008 were TARP not passed. That is speculative, and there is no one you can cite who I would trust with such clairvoyant capabilities.
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 1:25 PM
no, banking is necessary. our economy and capitalism depends on it. but our economy works the same without “financial inovations”. but also, having people with commanding power over billions brings the worse in humans and there is nothing wrong with demanding some supervision over activities that can mess the whole economy.
agree!
I think the conservative line is all regulations are bad or something. at least the dems did something and won the popular support on the issue(despite getting lobby money from banks) while the gop still appears to be the party aligned with wall street.
i had to fill in so many Sarbanes-Oxley questionnaires at work.silly stuff.
I can believe that
many of what I read about the wall street people and their ethics are horrible. its amazing that we give so much power to such obnoxious and unprincipled people(many of them, not all). these people will steal and do things they know to hurt the economy if that brings them money.
nathor on December 11, 2012 at 1:29 PM
nathor: Stealing is ethically wrong, yes.
However, assuming that ‘do things they know to hurt the economy’ is something other than stealing, can you please explain to me what is ethically wrong about ‘hurt[ing] the economy’? What ethical obligation does a person have to ‘the economy’?
This is also a highly ambiguous area. Is ‘not buying health insurance’ ‘hurting the economy’ and, therefore, ‘horrible ethics’?
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 1:33 PM
I always thought that Y2K was completely stupid.
But be careful in assuming that “wolves” will never appear. Even in the boy who cried wolf story, an actual wolf appears.
I covered this.
Sure, it’s only possible that a ball rolling toward the edge of a table would have fallen if nobody had caught it.
In my opinion, it would have been much, much worse that a few days of discomfort. Collapse would have taken years to fix.
You’re completely free to ignore my opinion, but nobody will ever convince me otherwise.
You can think this, but this simply isn’t true. I was seeing it happen in real time. I remember leaving work after seeing and hearing about all the defaults that were spiraling out of control. These defaults were certainly going to cause other defaults (like an avalanche). Paulson saw this, too. That’s the night he stepped up and promised to do something. His promise is the only thing that prevented the avalanche from occurring.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 1:34 PM
blink: You are essentially saying to people like Cindy and myself, “Trust me; I know more than you.”
If you make an appeal to authority, the least you could do is give the exact source of your authority. Saying you were on the inside of the financial markets, by itself, is not credible.
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 1:37 PM
Ha ha. Yes, he purposefully doesn’t have one. Here are two courses of action.
1. The House asks Obama for a bill with the promise of putting it up for a vote. If Obama never sends a bill, then the House can use that as effective PR. I favor this course.
2. The House drafts a bill based on Obama’s public statements about his “plan.”
blink on December 11, 2012 at 1:37 PM
blink: If you think that the President will suffer any ill consequences for not having a plan, I think you are delusional.
The Democrats have mastered the art of obfuscating issues until they go away. In the fiscal realm, the best example is how little anyone cares about not having a budget for more or less President Obama’s entire first term.
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 1:40 PM
blink: I’m not 9 anymore dude, the boogeyman doesn’t scare me.
Bet-wetting hysterics like you are the reason taxpayers got saddled with this disaster.
CTD on December 11, 2012 at 1:40 PM
I left this part out of the quote that I agreed with on the last page.
While I think that some of AIG’s services are good, I’ve never supported bond (and similar) insurance. Risky bonds should be priced by the market. Additionally, if the same company is insuring bonds which share correlated risk, then AIG is aggregating an excessive amount of systematic risk. It’s stupid, and the practice should be discouraged by the market.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Actually, the government forced the money on the banks.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 1:45 PM
No.
Bmore on December 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM
Sorry, kiddo, but we are all about opinions and I’m not buying. That’s okay.
Cindy Munford on December 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM
blink: When the government controls the market, it doesn’t matter what the market discourages; it’s what the government discourages (or encourages) that becomes important.
Perfect example is the whole reason we had a problem in the first place in 2008: the government mandated that banks offer home loans to unqualified applicants. It didn’t matter that the market discourages such a practice. All that mattered is that the government encouraged it, and used its regulatory powers to do so.
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM
Yep, we weren’t even allowed to know if our own money was invested in a bank being run by people who couldn’t find their asses with both hands. Another real selling point to the process. Except all my money is in credit unions.
Cindy Munford on December 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM
Yes, but not all predictions are equally uncertain. Certainly, you agree with this statement.
True, but it doesn’t require clairvoyant capabilities to be convinced that a ball rolling towards the edge of a table would have fallen to the floor if it hadn’t been caught by someone.
Again, people in the town can disbelieve that the wolf was there, but the people that were out with the sheep disagree. We saw the wolf.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 1:50 PM
blink: How did the government force it? ‘Do this or we won’t let you operate?’
Is that not the definition of a protection racket? ‘Nice lending standards you have there; shame if something would happen to it…’
So, you are essentially telling me that, like every other instance of government intrusion into private policy, the government unilaterally imposed regulations on the private sector, and then used it to impose further regulations?
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 1:50 PM
blink: I will agree with that statement, yes. That does not invalidate the statement I made. You did not say, ‘it was likely to have a major collapse’, which I incidentally do not disagree with. I take exception to you claiming it _would_ have happened.
I also believe that, no matter how major the collapse would have been, it would be better to allow the collapse to happen. People, by and large, will not learn until forced, when that learning is against their own selfish habits.
And, again, please cite your authority. ‘We saw the wolf?’ Who is ‘we’? Whence comes your authority to say this? If you are unwilling to say more than you have, I can respect that, but I will also not believe you have the authority you claim.
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 1:54 PM
This is strange. Basic banking itself was a “financial innovation” at one time. The concept of publicly traded equity was a financial innovation at one time. The concept of publicly traded debt was a financial innovation at one time. The concept of a “liquidity maker” was a financial innovation at one time. The concept of forward commodity sales were a financial innovation at one time. The concept of forward currency sales were a financial innovation at one time. Even the concept of basic insurance was a financial innovation.
Please let me know which of these financial innovations you want to discontinue. At what point in time do you want innovations frozen? Are you definitively claiming that all the good innovations have already occurred?
Well, it’s silly for you to say this as if there is absolutely no supervision.
Again, we can discuss proper and efficient banking regulations all day long if you really want to. But it really seems as if you are merely advocating for regulation merely for the sake of regulation. This is how we ended up with Dodd-Frank. Actually, I think Dodd-Frank regulation is going to destroy competition from small and start-up financial institutions – which is the opposite of what we want.
Congratulations on being so suckered by the media.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 2:06 PM
I never said that you had to trust me. In fact, I’ve said the opposite – that you don’t have to trust or believe me. I’m merely saying that I know more than you do.
I’m sorry that I’m doing less than you think I should, but feel free to tell me why you think that capital obligation defaults weren’t starting to avalanche in the few days leading up to Paulson’s aggressive action.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 2:12 PM
Yep, this is what progressives do. They meddle until the point that something has to be done!, then they come in broad, vaguely worded, sweeping rules and regulations that entrench the BIG companies and shut out the little ones.
See also: Health Care Ind.
tom daschle concerned on December 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM
Actually, I don’t believe in the existence of the boogeyman.
But I certainly believe that bad things can happen in the world.
The financial meltdown of 2008 certainly did happen. It wasn’t the total collapse that could have happened, but a meltdown certainly happened.
People who were convinced real estate was a bubble and predicting that a meltdown would happen back in 2006 and 2007 were also accused of predicting the boogeyman. Many people said things like, “I’m not 9 anymore dude, the boogeyman doesn’t scare me.”
Except that the taxpayer didn’t get “saddled” by TARP I. TARP I hasn’t really cost the taxpayer much at all – especially in comparison to the amount of pain that it could have caused.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM
it is ambiguous, but lets say, if the ethics of those people that control trillions is always to do profit in the short term on things they know to blow up on the long term, then the whole economy will fail eventually.
nathor on December 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM
That’s ok, Cindy. I’m not selling. I’m just providing the information.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM
i have been suckered by some HA commenters
nathor on December 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM
blink: Your statement is, implicitly, ‘Trust me that I know more than you do.’ My response is not, “I don’t trust you.” My response is, “Give me a reason to trust you.”
I do not trust government projections or claims (by either party). They have no reason to tell the truth and every reason to lie when the outcome will increase their power (as TARP did).
I am much more inclined to trust the private sector here. Can you cite a disinterested party to TARP that makes the claims that you do? Or are you yourself such an expert?
But this is beside the point. The main point is that TARP did not solve the problem. Could it have? You claim yes, from the standpoint that it gave us breathing room. That is certainly a reasonable statement, and so I do not deny it. I, however, claim that it could not, from a completely different perspective. As I said above, people do not learn very well at all when the learning involves going against their own selfish interests. TARP removed the issue from the table, as you note. Therefore, the need to solve the problem was also removed.
My argument is that precisely _because_ TARP gave everyone breathing room it could not be successful at solving the problem.
You also claim that it was Obama’s election(s) that caused TARP to fail. Possibly. Please point to any sort of fiscal restraint by the GOP in the last 12 years. Please show me where the Democrats in the Senate would have allowed the legislation that created this unstable lending environment to be repealed. As I recall, whenever Bush tried to get them to do anything, they dug in their heels and refused, and do you think they would have declined the use of the filibuster to save their beloved program?
Please explain to me a plausible political scenario that would have enabled TARP to be a success.
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 2:24 PM
nathor: What is the ethical claim that is violated by prioritizing short-term gains over long-term gains?
‘The economy’ is not a valid object of ethical concerns.
I will give you an example with valid objects. Say that by firing one of my employees, I can afford to buy my son a car for his 16th birthday. I decide to fire my least productive employee, using a systematic approach (including intangibles). Would that be unethical?
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM
Perverse incentives lead to perverse consequences. Rewarding bad behavior whether at government or private sector is profoundly wrong. Its contaminates the market and makes it insolvent by over regulation by central authority. Central authority is always changing with every election cycle. Everyone is an expert during their tenure. These Jack of all trades, master at none, did this. Why on earth would we seek to reward them? Remove the possibility of failure and you remove the possibility of success. No one is accountable.
Bmore on December 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM
for example, the CDS market(the famous ” financial weapons of mass destruction”) . is it too much to ask that if new financial products are created, they should be validated and controlled by regulators?
nathor on December 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM
Bmore: I certainly agree that rewarding bad behavior is wrong. The issue, of course, is that the market seems to be, empirically, infinitely more self-correcting in this regard than the government.
Therefore, if you must trust one (and I am not saying you must), then you should trust the private sector before the government.
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM
nathor: What argument can you make that new financial products should be regulated _because they are new_, and not older financial products that are just as abusable?
Why give the government more power?
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM
The government doesn’t control the stock price of AIG, and the government doesn’t control the trading prices of insured bonds.
If insured bonds didn’t trade at much of a premium to uninsured bonds, then it wouldn’t be economical for the issuer of the bond to spend the money to insure them. This is the fundamental, economic flaw with these things.
If the market stopped paying so much for AIG’s stock, then AIG wouldn’t be rewarded for accepting such massive amounts of risk. Risk that’s nearly impossible to assess properly.
Well, I think this was only part of the problem.
The majority of the problem was that investment professionals stupidly started to believe that there was very little risk of real estate declining in value.
I remember countless discussions about several financial products with wall street professionals circa 2004 and 2005. I didn’t understand their products and forced them to explain them to me. In the end, it always boiled down to the same thing. They all relied on the premise that real estate wouldn’t experience broad depreciation. I didn’t like that premise, and they all claimed that I was in the minority.
So, many of these investment professionals didn’t care if a certain buyer defaulted on a loan because they believed that the loan or the property could still be sold for a gain, at breakeven, or for a minimal loss (which they claimed was the worse case scenario). The perceived risk of these minimal losses was the only differentiator in prices – and they were clearly underpriced given the actual risks.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 2:41 PM
my point was for example, Goldman sachs creating the CDS’s that they knew they were crap, the sold them with profit and when they blew up, they even made more profit by betting against them.
it like you sell a bad car to someone, make him sign a paper that you will have no responsibility if the car crashes, and they bet that that person will have a car crash.
nathor on December 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM
blink: The government does not control AIG’s stock price, correct. However, you act like it _cannot_, and that is not true. Certainly there are regulations that must be done to be registered on the stock market, yes? And that gives the government an ability to remove, at the cost of political capital, anyone they desire from the stock markets.
You seem to trust the government a lot more than I do. I will no longer put _anything_ past the federal government where their own power is concerned.
You clearly know the financial markets. I might point out that there is something of a chicken-and-egg problem here. You believe that real estate professionals believed that they couldn’t lose that much money on any given mortgage. However, have you considered that this might be institutional wisdom on the whole valid until the federal government decided to distort the lending practices on which this wisdom was predicated?
From a systems perspective, I have seen the inertia of institutional wisdom destroy many more than outright wrong thinking.
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM
Banks got bailed out, we cashed out!
blammm on December 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM
Kinda. They threatened them with FDIC and other regulatory scrutiny. They did it very aggressively, and the bank CEOs knew that Paulson was already out on a legal limb so it was easy for them to assume that he was willing to go out even further in order to make things tough for them.
FDIC could have come down tough on the banks via difficult asset testing during this period.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM
nathor: Okay, we can both agree that fraud is bad, and that lying is bad.
You claim that Goldman Sachs committed fraud against the people who bought the CDSs, correct? If so, then yes, that’s an ethical issue. But the ethical infraction was against a person, not ‘the economy’.
Now, let me give you a different scenario.
1) I know that a car is a risk. Whatever risk that is, I’m not sure, but I know it’s a risk.
2) I do not disclose this fact, but I won’t lie to a customer about it.
3) The customer does not ask, and signs a waiver against indemnifying me in case of a wreck.
Now, is betting they will be in a wreck unethical? My question is what responsibility does the _customer_ bear to perform due diligence to ensure that the car is or is not a risk? At what point does caveat emptor hold?
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM
blink: Exactly. ‘Take the money or we’ll take FDIC away from you,’ which if I understand those markets correctly would trigger a run on the bank?
So, please explain to me what stops the federal government from telling banks to stop giving loans to , or face bankruptcy through regulatory action?
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 2:54 PM
Yes, Paulson used heavy handed tactics, but I think they did benefit from it.
Paulson needed to do something to make sure that the banks took the money and that banks couldn’t benefit from being a lone holdout.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 2:54 PM
blink: So Paulson had to distort the markets even more to prevent the inevitable market reaction to the distortion he already made in the market.
And is this not a lesson that market distortions lead to more market distortions?
Scott H on December 11, 2012 at 2:58 PM
You can believe this, but you are wrong.
But feel free to explain why you think it would have been better to have the collapse happen.
Again, that tuition payment would have been overly expensive. And again, TARP I delayed collapse. Even if collapse does happen in the future, I don’t see anything that makes me believe that it will be worse than what would have happened.
I saw and heard about a growing number of capital transfer obligation defaults occurring. Do you deny that this was happening.
Many people in the industry were seeing this rapidly growing trend. Many people in the industry started to worry about receiving payments and capital transfers that they needed. Many people in the industry started to take measures to “hold on” to cash. This meant that a growing number of people thought it was smart to default on their obligations in order to hold on to cash – otherwise they might not receive cash they are counting on – which could cause them to miss obligations that were absolutely necessary – such as making payroll, etc. – things that would immediately force them out of existence.
It’s obvious to people in the industry that once this starts to happen that it spreads VERY quickly. I think it would have been a matter of about 2 weeks before ATM cards would have stopped working and payroll deposits would have failed to show up. This would have caused wildfire type problems throughout the entire economy.
The “we” are the “controllers/decision makers” of institutional and corporate capital.
Disbelieve whatever you want, but I’m telling you that this was happening. Many people have told tales of this happening as well. Do you think we are all lying about it? Seriously? Why is this so difficult to believe? Why do you think that this wouldn’t have happened given what people were seeing with the liquidity crisis that was occurring?
blink on December 11, 2012 at 3:18 PM
No you haven’t, but nice strawman.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 3:21 PM
Yes, it did. The problem was pending collapse. That was the problem that TARP I was designed to solve. TARP I gave us a 4 year delay (so far) on financial collapse.
Unfortunately, Obama and the country have opted for Greek style socialism so we are still at risk of financial collapse, but TARP I did it’s job.
But if somethings going to cause you to stop breathing then it doesn’t make a difference if it occurs later rather than soon, and given the choice one should always opt for later – because at least there’s a chance that things could be fixed.
Frankly, I think a Romney win would have started the economy moving again. A robust economy followed by conservative fiscal and regulatory polices could have saved us. This may have been unlikely, but at least we had a shot at it. Unfortunately, the country has chosen to go in the opposite direction. Now it’s just a matter of the speed at which we travel in that direction.
No, TARP I was successful period. It did not fail.
I’m claiming that Obama’s TARP II was unnecessary, wasteful of taxpayer money, and has been a drag on the economy.
Again, TARP I was a success. It successfully saved us from collapse which was it’s exact purpose.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 3:30 PM
1. Please explain how you want to regulate these type of financial innovations.
2. Please explain how you will make sure that such regulations won’t stifle future, beneficial financial innovations such as the ones I provided you as examples.
Is it too much to ask you to provide details of such regulation? Again, regulation for regulation sake is stupid. Trusting regulators to give you a smart plan is stupid, too. They make things worse ALL the time. (See EPA for proof of this.)
Tell me what you want to do, and we can discuss if it’s smart or stupid.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 3:34 PM
nobody is buying what your selling dude. keep choking that chicken LOL!
renalin on December 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM
The creators of CDS’s didn’t think they were crap. CDS’s are still an excellent financial innovation if used properly and priced correctly.
Just like internet IPO’s. Internet IPOs can still be good as long as they are used and priced properly. The 2000 tech meltdown didn’t mean that Internet IPOs were all stupid and that they should be outlawed.
Also, just because certain individuals at Goldman that didn’t like what was happening with CDS’s and were betting against them in other areas of the bank, doesn’t man that all of Goldman thought all CDS’s were crap. There were differences between the investment banking side of a bank, the hedge fund side of a bank, the market-making side of a bank, and the brokerage side of a bank.
This is what the Senators were all too stupid to understanding during the GS hearings.
Terrible analogy. It’s more like you sell a bad car, but your relative thinks that the car will crash. Your family is too big to assume that everyone sees eye-to-eye on everything. You think the car is good and that there is demand for the car. Your relative disagrees. He could be wrong.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM
Yes, securities laws exist – obviously. And I know quite a bit about such securities laws.
Well, the power certainly exists to make things difficult for any company regardless of whether it’s public or private.
I don’t know where this is coming from. I never trust the federal government to do the right thing or to do a good job. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen sometimes. Paulson’s TARP I is a good example of this.
I never blindly trusted that Paulson or Treasury would do the right thing. I merely watched what he/they did and was convinced that it was the right thing as it was happening.
That was very much a widespread belief prior to 2008, and strangely, many continued to think this for a year or so afterwards. I think now people realize the stupidity of this belief.
I think the government started the ball rolling, and maybe the whole “sub-prime” thing would never have taken off on the massive scale that it did if it hadn’t been started by the federal government. BUT I honestly can’t blame the federal government for the real estate bubble that occurred. The bubble occurred because far too many Americans erroneously (and stupidly) believed that real estate couldn’t depreciate and the capital providers erroneously (and stupidly) believed that they had developed a low risk method of funding real estate purchases.
Absolutely, far too many people get more aggressive with their decision making because they feel a false sense of comfort knowing that “everyone” thinks the same way. They can’t believe that so many people could be wrong.
See Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as a perfect example of this.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 3:54 PM
More like, “Take the money or we will make the regulatory environment very difficult for you.”
Again, Paulson was out on a limb here, and I’m sure he knew it. Frankly, I admire the leadership he demonstrated in personally taking such a risk. Too many in government wouldn’t have dared.
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. I’m not being a smart a$$. I really don’t understand the question.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 3:58 PM
No, Paulson didn’t distort any markets. He merely threatened that holdouts would have a very difficult time via regulation.
But please realize that this makes sense. What Paulson was saying was that banks needed the amount of capital that he was giving them. I believe that Paulson truly believed that the banks needed this capital in order to have sufficient liquidity given the current crisis.
Now, if a bank refuses to take the capital that Treasury thinks it needs, then it makes sense that Treasury will think that a bank has insufficient liquidity.
Now, if a bank has insufficient liquidity, then FDIC will need to step in, right?
So, while Paulson was being aggressive with his tactics, the logic/justification he was using is perfectly sound.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 4:02 PM
Hank Paulson used to be the head at Goldman Sachs?
Joey24007 on December 11, 2012 at 4:04 PM
If you disagree, then feel free to explain why you disagree.
Don’t take comfort in the fact that 80% of Americans oppose “the bail outs.” Be brave, research the issue, and articulate your case.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 4:04 PM
Yes
blink on December 11, 2012 at 4:04 PM
Obama thanks you for your ignorance.
Lester, Bayam, Drywall and Ernesto by the sounds of it.
xblade on December 11, 2012 at 4:08 PM
just like the department of the bank that set libor never talked with the brokerage side? don’t be naive.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM
nathor on December 11, 2012 at 4:40 PM
1. Why would they talk to the brokerage side? Obviously, you don’t know much about big banks. They were much more likely to be influenced by other areas of the bank.
2. No single bank set LIBOR. Do you even understand this issue?
3. I’ve never claimed that LIBOR wasn’t be influenced by other areas of banks. Regardless, those that allowed themselves to be exposed to LIBOR rates KNEW (or should have known) how LIBOR was set. It would be like you wanting sympathy because you agreed to allow an association of auto dealers to set the price of your car payment increases.
4. Reread everything I’ve written in this thread. It’s quite obvious that I’m not naive about banks, and I certainly wasn’t naive about anything related to real estate debt (and related derivative) products (or for that matter – real estate equity products).
5. Keep in mind that salesman are always going to try to sell. That’s their job. A phone salesman will try to sell you a phone even if one of their engineers doesn’t necessarily think it’s a very good product. Btw, that doesn’t make the engineer right.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM
I know most disagree, but to me, the profit means this wasn’t a bailout. It was an investment. We’re broke. The government should be looking for ways to make money.
Esthier on December 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM
Immediately demand these Tarp funds be paid back and not respent again. They should be subtracted from the deficit for 2008, because Bush promised us they would be paid back, not to create a continual spending spree for the new administration.
Fleuries on December 11, 2012 at 5:47 PM
Miss him yet?
Mason on December 11, 2012 at 6:20 PM
That’s pretty much how it got booked, which makes Teh SCOAMF’s 4 years of trillion-dollar deficits all that more unconsciable.
Steve Eggleston on December 11, 2012 at 6:58 PM
OK, well even if they did that with THIS money, then they would simply spend OTHER money. So, it really doesn’t matter.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Good thang ya will never see the unforseen costs…..
whenever Gubrmint “invests” billions …that’s billions less that the private sector don’t have to invest themselves…. i guess we all know what great economic whizes da gubrmint is and da wealth it creates.
roflmmfao
donabernathy on December 11, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Congrats your investment has earned you 22.7billion… And it’s gone.
jayhawkboilermaker on December 11, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Shortly after AIG got it’s government check, it slashed my high risk activity premium by 40%.
Surprised it increased it’s market share??
Surprised it’s stock went up.
Shuckey darn about GM.
WryTrvllr on December 12, 2012 at 12:46 AM
This is why it is important to understand the difference between a LOAN (under Bush) and an Auto BAILOUT and “Stimulus” SPENDING (under Obama). For all the conservative complaints about what Bush did in response to the financial crisis in 2008, the fact is that the taxpayers came out ahead there, and the taxpayers have been coming out behind every minute since Obama took office.
We’ve got to knock it off with the nonsense that we have to bash Bush before criticizing Obama’s performance, and especially saying idiotic things like there’s no difference between the two on spending, when Obama is worse by a factor of 5x.
We need to take every opportunity to correct the record and support a fair reading of Bush’s performance (higher spending than we’d like, but overall a pretty strong economic record up until the Fed + Dem/Fannie/Freddie caused financial crisis). If conservatives had pointed out the true cause of the 2008 crisis at every step for the last 4 years, it would have made a big difference in how many people still blamed Bush for today’s economic woes. Instead, people try to act like 2008 never happened because they believe that is not going to be a political winner, and in doing so they are so nearsighted they don’t realize that when you don’t protect the legacy of your party’s last president, it hurts the entire party. We surrendered the battle of ideas on this 4 years ago, and then politicians (such as Romney) are allergic to trying to educate the public and change public opinion on topics where they fear they may not be able to succeed in swaying public opinion.
willamettevalley on December 12, 2012 at 2:02 AM
The government did well, and so did Goldman Sacs, of course the tax payers will never see the cash. This is what Bastiat called “The fallacy of the broken window”.
The profit to the government is what is seen.
What is not seen are the millions of jobs not created by the “great recession” and the enormous debt of the US government.
What is not seen are the inflationary effects of money printing by the fed which enabled the AIG bailout in the first place.
What is not seen is that the bailout has simply continued a loose money policy where consumers and banks have continued to be highly leveraged instead de-leveraging like we are told they are doing.
What is not seen are the 1 million people who fell below the poverty line last month because of an economy not growing.
What is not seen are the record 47 million people on food stamps thanks to these policies.
The list goes on and on . . .
ReformedDeceptiCon on December 12, 2012 at 6:20 AM
Oh wow, $22.7Billion? On an initial investment of $182B? gee, that works out to a nice 3% gain per year. I guess that justifies $6Trillion in new debt and the explosion in entitlement spending that has and will continue to occur over the next 20 years. Yay, let’s do this more.
Does this even cover the losses from the insane department of energy grants and loan guarantees?
smfic on December 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM
this is a good thing? Capitalism required them to lose thier capital. they made stupid mistakes the entire concept of AIG needed to be wiped out so others will no longer try these types of insurance contracts. AIG needed to be gone as a company as a lesson to others not to insure the types of finacial obligations that AIG insured. No insurance and the types of finical instruments that pushed us in the 2008 meltdown will never again get off the floor.
Ed, I guess you are totally fine with crony capitalism here and then “conservatives” wonder why more and more people are gaming the system to get three hundered bucks a month for food stamps.
For capitalism to function it needs the complete cycle rags to riches and riches to rags. The heads of AIG needed to be out on the street penniless, the investors in AIG needed to lose their capital, the employees of AIG needed to be let go so that the reallocation of resources could function correctly and those that didn’t take risks were rewarded.
The population has now seen the politcal class abandon capitalism so why should they not get thiers if AIG got a bail out.
unseen on December 12, 2012 at 1:36 PM
Hey ED simple question if the government invested in a window company and then hired a bunch of people to go throw stones and break windows and the window company then showed a profit would it be “hard to argue” with sucess?
unseen on December 12, 2012 at 1:38 PM
Goldman Sachs didn’t want the money (they had already sold preferred stock to Warren Buffet) and repaid it within several months.
So, how did they do “well”?
blink on December 12, 2012 at 5:13 PM
how much you wanna bet we see a Track Palin post soon?
renalin on December 12, 2012 at 6:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2