AIG Bailout Trial Bombshell I: Paulson Rejected Chinese Offer to Invest “More Than the Total Amount of Money Required”

This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 753 donors have already invested in our efforts to shed light on the dark and seamy corners of finance. Please join us and participate via our Tip Jar, which shows how to give via credit card, debit card, PayPal, or check. Read about why we’re doing this fundraiser, what we’ve accomplished in the last year, and our current target.

Hank Greenberg may have a case after all.

The former CEO of AIG, and major pre-bailout shareholder through the AIG executive enrichment vehicle, C.V. Starr, is hardly a sympathetic figure. The idea of a billionaire suing the government for saving the company that he formerly led from bankruptcy hardly seems like a winning cause.

But in this beauty contest between Cinderella’s ugly sisters, in this case Greenberg versus the defendants, which is nominally the US government but in a political sense is the team that led the AIG bailout, Hank Paulson, Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and their chief lieutenants, Greenberg may well come out looking better.

We base our view on a reading of the “Corrected Plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact,” filed in Federal Court on August 22. We attach this document at the end of this post. Note that this record includes extracts from the depositions of Paulson, Geithner, and Bernanke, which were sealed by the court, meaning it contains information otherwise not available to the public. As we will also show in the second post in this series, even this document has a section which has been redacted.

It is important to keep in mind that this is the Hank Greenberg version of the story, as presented by his attorneys, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, and Skadden Arps. But the flip side is that the narrative on what happened when AIG was about to go under was written by the victors, above all, the Paulson-Geithner-Bernaked troika, repeatedly lauded in the media for saving the financial system. Even now, with the economy languishing with high unemployment (when discouraged workers are included in the tally) and low trendline growth, the official narrative, that saving the system was paramount, and certain casualties were unfortunate but necessary, is far more widely accepted than it should be. It’s clear that the rescues were designed to favor the banks, and pretty much everyone else was sacrificed for their benefit. Nevertheless, it’s an odd spectacle to see a self-styled and perhaps actual victim, a grasping, tenacious billionaire, unearth new information about whose interests were really served by how the bailouts were structured and carried out.

The authorized version of what happened in the rescues is Andrew Ross Sorkin’s Too Big to Fail. Much of his book focuses on the Lehman unravelling, with Dick Fuld as a hyperaggressive CEO who blew some possible rescues because he refused to believe that Lehman would not be bailed out and thus overplayed his hand in negotiations with his best shot at deliverance, the Korean Development Bank. Sorkin gives the AIG rescue short shrift, but makes sure to present AIG CEO Robert Willumstad as an idiot who doesn’t have a handle on his company’s yawning black hole. By contrast, the various officials and the bankers rounded up to work on the financial salvage operations are depicted sympathetically. Pace Sorkin, if they are guilty of anything, it’s of well meaning errors in judgment.

The Starr filing gives quite another picture. It argues that AIG was forced to take a bailout it didn’t need, that all that was required was a bridge loan until it could obtain private financing. That may sound like a howler. AIG was teetering on the verge of failure and needed to get a $14 billion bridge loan on September 16 (a Tuesday, the day after the Lehman bankruptcy) that in a few days rose to $37 billion simply to carry it through the weekend when the terms of the credit facility were finalized.

The Too Big to Fail account is consistent with the “are you kidding?” reading. It has Jamie Dimon giving the orders to his world-leading syndicated lending team, led by industry legend Jimmy Lee, to wheel into action to find big bucks for AIG. Dimon also tells his stunned subordinate Doug Braunstein that Goldman is co-leading the syndication. Braunstein sputters that Goldman as major AIG counterparty has a huge conflict. Dimon tells him to shut up.

The Too Big to Fail account has some chaotic meetings, with Goldman clearly too preoccupied with its payout on an AIG rescue and too confident that its credit default swaps on AIG are money good. But like most other accounts to date, it makes it sound as if rounding up enough private capital for AIG was a non-starter. The punch line:

Lee’s brain was starting to do the math.

“Who’s going to buy this shit?” he asked out loud to no on in particular.

Contrast that picture of the AIG bailout with the Starr account (emphasis original):

7.6 Defendant directly discouraged sovereign wealth funds from providing liquidity to AIG.

(a) Sovereign wealth funds, including the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and the Chinese Investment Corporation (CIC) expressed interest in investing in AIG (Studzinski Dep. 39:4-40:18, 133:11-19).

(b) Defendant discouraged the CIC and representatives of the Chinese Government from assisting AIG. At 12:25 p.m. on September 16, 2008, Taiya Smith, Paulson’s deputy chief of staff and executive secretary, informed Paulson’s chief of staff and Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs David McCormick that the CIC was “prepared to make a big investment in AIG, but would need Hank to call [Chinese Vice Premier] Wang Qishan” (PTX 89 at 1; see also PTX 423 at 15-18). The Chinese “were actually willing to put up a little bit more than the total amount of money required for AIG” (PTX 423 at 16).

(c) On September 16, 2008, McCormick spoke to Paulson about the Chinese interest in investing AIG (PTX 423 at 16-17). McCormick then told Smith that Treasury “did not want the Chinese coming in at this point in time on AIG” (PTX 423 at 17).

(d) Later that day, Smith met with Chinese Government officials in California during Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade in Yorba Linda, California (PTX 423 at 16). During that meeting, “all [the Chinese officials] wanted to talk about was AIG” (PTX 423 at 17). Smith spent one or two hours explaining what was happening with AIG (PTX 423 at 18). She conveyed the message that Treasury did not want the Chinese to invest in AIG (PTX 423 at 17).

(e) On September 17, 2008, United States Senator Hillary Clinton called Paulson “on behalf of Mickey Kantor, who had served as Commerce secretary in the Clinton administration and now represented a group of Middle Eastern investors. These investors, Hillary said, wanted to buy AIG. ‘Maybe the government doesn’t have to do anything,’ she said” (PTX 706 at 279). Paulson told Senator Clinton, “this was impossible unless the investors had a big balance sheet and the wherewithal to guarantee all of AIG’s liabilities” (PTX 706 at 279). (numbered text page 17, PDF page 21)

The fact that the Singapore and Chinese sovereign wealth funds both were willing to invest in AIG, and that a separate group of Middle Eastern investors was also pressing to buy in, strongly undercuts the official story that the only way out for AIG was into the Fed’s arms. Yes, we don’t know exactly how much they were willing to put in and whether that would have been enough to make up the $85 billion size of the initial credit line.

But the Chinese statement was a clear general indication that “we’re willing and able to go big”. And it turns out big was pretty big:

(a) On September 26, 2008, Treasury contractor Dan Jester received a copy of an email sent by Blackstone’s John Studzinski to Liddy and AIG executive Brian Schreiber stating that “China. Inc this morning is interested in buying: AIA, ALICO, ILFC and certain Real Estate. They are talking about writing a check of about $50 billion.” Studzinski also

Case 1:11-cv-00779-TCW Document 281-1 Filed 08/22/14 Page 66 of 99
wrote that “We need to have Paulson call Vice Premier Wang Qishan. The Chinese will then move ahead quickly” (PTX 253 at 1-2). (numbered text pages 62-63., PDF pages 66-67)

Now of course, one can argue the Chinese were trying to cherry-pick the best assets, rather than invest in AIG overall. Nevertheless, the Chinese bid should have been treated as an initial offer. And that’s before you factor in what Treasury knew and the Chinese didn’t: that other heavyweight foreign investors were also eager for the chance to buy into AIG at what they thought was a distressed price.

Now one can argue there were reasons to turn down these offers. Having the Chinese, or consortium dominated by foreigners, could prove to be ugly. The US, after all, had just put Fannie and Freddie in conservatorship in large measure to reassure the Chinese and Japanese, who were large investors in Freddie and Fannie guaranteed paper, that they would not suffer losses. What if the Chinese government rescued AIG and the black hole turned out to be bigger than anyone though it was?

A colleague, who joined AIG right before Greenberg was forced out as the executive in charge of a $100 billion operation in Asia, told me that the entire company had revolved around Greenberg personally, including not just decision-making, but knowledge of the financials. He gave the strong impression that AIG had seriously deficient controls on multiple levels: “It’s as if we are in a car that is moving forward even though the axles have been pulled out. We are waiting for the wheels to fall off.”

There is also the not-trivial issue that AIG is widely believed to provide legitimate-looking jobs to CIA assets all over the world. Would letting foreigners obtain control put that sort of information at risk?

However, concerns about foreign ownership, or undue risk of the Chinese later getting a case of buyer’s regret could then lead to more international tension, could have been handled by having a broad consortium of foreign buyers plus US investors. And having brand-name offshore institutions already in for a big portion of a total fundraising would make rounding up the US component vastly easier.

To put it simply: this much foreign interest, from so many sources, BEFORE Jimmy Lee had started making calls (certainly the Chinese and Singapore offers came in before that; the Middle Eastern offers came through Kantor, and thus did not result from the JP Morgan/Goldman fundraising effort) suggests this deal could have gotten done. Confirmation comes from this testimony:

(d) KKR’s Derrick Maughan provided sworn testimony that if “AIG, the company, or the Fed as lender of last resort, had wished they could have stabilized the company through Government invention support [sic], and then introduced private capital” (Maughan Dep. 73:4-18).

(e) In contrast to Defendant’s refusal to facilitate AIG’s attempts to raise liquidity from the private sector, Defendant provided assistance under section 13(3) to “facilitate the merger” between JP Morgan and Bear Stearns in March 2008 (PTX 709 at 156). (numbered text page 16, PDF page 20)

Now of course, as many readers have surmised, there are other explanations that seem more plausible for Paulson’s quick rebuffs, namely, that the Fed and Treasury had a a rough idea of an AIG bailout plan in mind and were past the point where they were willing to consider alternatives. Or alternatively, that there were key but unstated design parameters in an AIG rescue, and letting foreign investors in would have interfered with them.

AIG’s contention is that the driver of how its rescue was done was to force as many RMBS and CDO credit losses on AIG, so as to reduce the amount of support that would have to go directly to banks. In other words, it was to facilitate the bailout of the investment banks and banks that were perceived to be essential due to operating the payments system and large domestic and international over-the-counter debt markets. AIG could be handled more roughly because it was not a critical part of the financial plumbing and also had never done much to curry political favor. By contrast, if foreign investors were part of the rescue team, they would almost certainly have insisted on haircuts on the AIG credit default swaps, a large mechanism for laundering bailout dollars through AIG to banks and former investment banks like Goldman and Morgan Stanley.

Our second post in the series looks at the Starr allegations of how the AIG bailout was handled. As hard as you may find it to believe, the filing marshals strong evidence that AIG was stolen from shareholders. It’s going to be interesting to see how the government responds to this account, and in particular, Goldman’s troublingly central role.

One last tidbit: notice how Hillary Clinton appeared to be doing a peculiar favor for a Republican administration? Mickey Kantor, who was fronting for the Middle Eastern investors, is a long-standing Clinton ally and a continuing major fundraiser for the Clintons. The fact that he was representing investors meant he was looking to broker a deal to get a fee. For a presumed multi-billion dollar investment at the level of fees JP Morgan was hoping to charge (5%), that could easily represent a nine-figure payday. One has to wonder whether if his firm, Mayer Brown, had landed such a big fee would have thanked Hillary Clinton for her help, say by writing a large check to the Clinton Foundation or throwing its muscle behind Hillary’s future campaigns.

281-1-2014.08.22-Corrected-Proposed-Findings-of-Fact-Public-Version
[281-1] 2014.08.22 Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact – Public Version

Print Friendly
Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Reddit0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Facebook0Share on LinkedIn1Share on Google+0Buffer this pageEmail this to someone

27 comments

  1. James Levy

    Isn’t it nice to know that the USA is standing firm on open markets and the free flow of capital? What, you mean the USA won’t allow the kinds of foreign buyouts (or buy-ins, or whatever) that they will squash small countries like bugs for refusing? You mean that all the talk of the market efficiencies of letting capital be deployed wherever the market needs it and chooses to put it is smoke and mirrors for a huge US effort to gobble up the valuable assets of other peoples?

    The duplicity of American elites knows no bounds. I guess the world went from being dominated by Perfidious Albion to Duplicitous America. Go figure.

  2. JohnnyGL

    Good write up, Yves.

    Who’s says that nothing good ever comes out of the Godzilla vs. Mothra type battles? They make for great viewing for the rest of us!

    Angry billionaires with an axe to grind actually CAN do some good in this world!?!? Completely unintentionally, but still…. :)

  3. Veri

    Couple this with Goldman Sach’s receiving a stealth bailout from The USG, using money funneled through AIG, with the recent revelations of The Fed’s subservience to Goldman Sach’s, as well as Treasury and Fed crony connections to Goldman Sach’s…

    And Goldman Sach’s appears to be calling the shots.

    1. TheCatSaid

      It looks increasingly like government by Goldman Sachs, for Goldman Sachs.

      (But no government of Goldman Sachs, as they are clearly beyond such things.)

    2. Karen

      Aren’t most of the prime ministers in Europe ex-Goldman Sachs execs? Thought that was common knowledge.

  4. TheCatSaid

    WOW.
    This is amazing, and the issues are laid out with brilliant clarity. Thank you, Yves!
    I wonder how the mega-fees to relevant parties would have differed, depending on the scenario.

  5. fresno dan

    “….written by the victors, above all, the Paulson-Geithner-Bernaked troika, repeatedly lauded in the media for saving the financial system”

    I can’t let it go…..the people who didn’t have a clue, and purposefully conducted running the FED and treasury so they would not have a clue – any reference that these guys “saved” the economy (even a reference that notes how outrageous such a claim is) just drives me bonkers.

    As far as the court case, it reminds me of Hitler versus Stalin – these guys deserve each other, and in a just world they would utterly destroy each other…..

  6. Whine Country

    “…the investment banks and banks that were perceived to be essential due to operating the payments system”

    Long ago I posted at NC that, no matter what was said about the bailout, at it’s core it was done to eliminate the banks’ ability to destroy our economy because the repeal of Glass-Steagall had allowed them to capture our payments system and mix it into their incomprehensible investment empire. The bailout was no more than extortion payments made because, without our payments system functioning, we were literally ruined. At the end of the day, as long as banks can commingle their incomprehensible “investments” (bets) with the payments made in conducting the nation’s transactions, you can bet that there will be more bailouts. The bottom line is that our payments’ system was held hostage, enormous ransom was paid, and we let the kidnapers get away. It is this truth that forces TPTB to ignore the elephant in the room for, at the end of the day, it is the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and nothing else, that allowed there to be any discussion of bailouts whatsoever. Continue to disbelieve this truth and see what happens.

    1. TheCatSaid

      Interesting point. I never realized the Glass Steagall Act had major implications for the payments system.

  7. indio007

    After reading this my spidey sense is tingling. It seems Paulson et al decided on a course of action and retroactively backfilled the facts to make it seem rational.
    the question is , Why?

    Why make the deal they made and no other deal?
    My gut tells me there is something more here.

    1. lyman alpha blob

      Paulson is a Goldie so I think Yves hit the nail on the head:

      “By contrast, if foreign investors were part of the rescue team, they would almost certainly have insisted on haircuts on the AIG credit default swaps, a large mechanism for laundering bailout dollars through AIG to banks and former investment banks like Goldman and Morgan Stanley.”

      Only way they could get Goldman their 100 cents on the dollar is by making the US taxpayer foot the bill (without bothering to ask if we objected).

      One other possibility would be for the Fed/Treasury to invalidate the swap deals and tell AIG to pay back the premiums they’d received from the counterparties and act as if it all never happened. And then put some people in jail. Especially as the Goldies created a lot of these knowing they were junk and pretended otherwise. But of course the ‘sanctity of contracts’. Expect when the people who signed contracts are autoworkers or other working class people who thought they were going to get a pension when they retired.

    2. Whine Country

      Adlai Stevenson liked to say: “These are the facts on which I base my conclusions”. Paulson was no doubt thinking along the same lines.

  8. Jay M

    This is kind of old tinfoilly stuff, but I seem to remember some discussion on other sites when all this was going down that AIG was connected with certain a 3 letter alphabet organization in DC, one reason being that the world wide property insurance part of the enterprise had access to the blueprints of significant international industrial assets and commercial properties. (tinfoil off)

    1. Yves Smith Post author

      This from a law professor by e-mail:

      If half of the Starr proposed findings of fact are true, the AIG bailout reeks far worse than the BONY-BoA deal. BONY just ignored its duties as trustee; it wasn’t so obviously steamrolled.

  9. Ken K

    Yves,

    If you think this is horrible,please look into the slaughter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!!!

  10. steelhead23

    One doesn’t need to put on the shiny hat to see what was really going on. Had a group of foreign investors come to AIGs rescue, they would NOT be beholden to the TBTF banks. The would very likely have looked into Abacus and Magnetar deals, the ratings agencies, etc and really roiled the waters. TPTB simply decided that making taxpayers pay the bill rung up by the TBTF frauds was the only “safe” thing to do. Greenberg comes off as a bit dumb in this ordeal, but I don’t smell crook. Paulson et al. ignored the law and responded wholly out of fear – fear of the unknown (what happens when the entirety of the TBTF banking establishment fails?) And even more damning – they had no idea what to do if it did. In fact, Hank Paulson’s testimony in court comes damned close to admitting just that. This was all about keeping the frauds hidden, or at least obfuscated so the big banks could survive. Let us remember, Joe Cassano himself told Brooksley Born that if he had negotiated the payout on AIGs CDS, he would have gotten a far better deal than that extracted by Geithner/Paulson. I think Boies missed an opportunity to expose this more fully when Paulson was on the stand. The truly sad part is that by hiding the frauds so that the big banks could survive, the troika did nothing to chasten their behaviors and the big banks are still playing games. It’s all going to happen again

  11. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

    Buy AIG or buy into AIG – does it make any difference?

    “These investors, Hillary said, wanted to buy AIG. ‘Maybe the government doesn’t have to do anything,’ she said” (PTX 706 at 279).”

    Did the new owner, after buying AIG, need to, or had any standing to, force any hair cuts? Or maybe, the would-be-buyer could force hair cuts as part of the pre-purchase bargaining – and thus, the offer to buy was to be avoided?

  12. Fiver

    This is so damning an indictment presented by Yves, my saturation bad-event-bombed sensibilities twitched with hope and I actually wondered if this could finally lead to real indictments. Clearly AIG was the pot and Goldman loaded the dice – their names are Paulson, Bernanke, Geithner and Dimon, for starters. Conspiracy and cover-up calling for the lopping off of much of the senior leadership in 2 Admins, the Fed and the biggest Wall Street Tumours.

    I find the CIA connection alone worthy of its own investigation. How many CIA and other intelligence ‘assets’ operate globally heavily embedded within large US transnationals?

    Does anyone have an imagination up to the task of envisioning what it is that Hillary Clinton might positively do for the American people or State?

    1. John Zelnicker

      I would imagine a very large number of CIA assets are embedded in large transnationals. And some without the knowledge or consent of the employer.

  13. Jim

    This is about the same thing that happened to Washington Mutual where Jami Dimon picked up the bank for penny’s on the dollar and then got a backstop agreement from FDIC Sheila Blair for 30 billion to cover any future loss on the loan portfolio. The 30 billion back stop was later denied to exist but it was in the news at one point as part of the package.

    Makes one wonder now about World Com. Poor Bernie who got the wrath of God dumped on him and sits in prison for 25 years while these new fraudsters with Goverment backing walk away unscathed with riches beyond imagination.. They are so busy counting their money they have no time to be stewards of our deposits.

    Makes one wonder if Ken Lay actually died in Denver or did he dummy up his death with a look alike to avoid the same fate as Bennie Ebbers. Where did all that money go with Enron? Did G W Bush help him?

    Then we have Arthur Anderson which got the Kid Glove treatment albeit they got so carried away with their fraud that they did finally have to go away as an accounting firm. I’m sure they are still out there but just using a different name. The list goes on and on. One would be a fool to think your gonna beat this system.

    JPM

  14. Gibby the Fifth

    I find it hard to believe that GSIC and CIC were “interested” in rescuing AIG, as opposed to “expressing an Interest”. If they were truly interested, would there not have been a draft term sheet available? And could such a deal have been pulled off in the time available? And how would the investors have reacted when the cost of the deal started at $14bn, went to $35bn and finished at $85bn? And who would have recommended the deal to Treasury, who would have been left looking foolish if the deal collapsed at a late stage, or even morphed into a cherry-picking of assets?

    None of which excuses the conduct outlined in the second post.

    On motivations, I always prefer the cockup theory to the conspiracy theory, and it is made harder to judge which was involved by hindsight, as we know the result. My guess is that nobody really expected Lehmans to go under and have such a dramatic effect, so nobody was prepared to allow AIG to bring down the investment banks. Cockup wins, especially if you have less than a week………

  15. Yata

    If this had already been mentioned, i apologize.

    AIG isn’t only megabucks case uncovering new facts about 2008 bailouts
    By Alison Frankel October 6, 2014

    “Meanwhile, there’s a much less celebrated case over the 2008 economic crisis underway in federal district court in Washington, D.C. It doesn’t have the glamour of David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner (Hank Greenberg’s lawyer) grilling former Cabinet officials over the AIG bailout, but it involves between $6 billion and $10 billion in real money — and it’s also contributing real facts to what we know about how government officials in the thick of bailout frenzy implemented policies set at the highest levels.

  16. Yata

    Thank you Yves, Lambert, et al. The post comment edit option is a wonderful feature for those of us
    who manage to Three Thumb a comment. And I did donate in this latest funds drive.

    Thank again

Comments are closed.