Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Goldman Helped Push A.I.G. to Precipice

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 03:16 PM
Original message
Goldman Helped Push A.I.G. to Precipice
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/business/07goldman.html?hp


Billions of dollars were at stake when 21 executives of Goldman Sachs and the American International Group convened a conference call on Jan. 28, 2008, to try to resolve a rancorous dispute that had been escalating for months.

A.I.G. had long insured complex mortgage securities owned by Goldman and other firms against possible defaults. With the housing crisis deepening, A.I.G., once the world’s biggest insurer, had already paid Goldman $2 billion to cover losses the bank said it might suffer.

A.I.G. executives wanted some of its money back, insisting that Goldman — like a homeowner overestimating the damages in a storm to get a bigger insurance payment — had inflated the potential losses. Goldman countered that it was owed even more, while also resisting consulting with third parties to help estimate a value for the securities.

After more than an hour of debate, the two sides on the call signed off with nothing settled, according to internal A.I.G. documents and an audio recording reviewed by The New York Times.

Behind-the-scenes disputes over huge sums are common in banking, but the standoff between A.I.G. and Goldman would become one of the most momentous in Wall Street history. Well before the federal government bailed out A.I.G. in September 2008, Goldman’s demands for billions of dollars from the insurer helped put it in a precarious financial position by bleeding much-needed cash. That ultimately provoked the government to step in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cassandra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. Perhaps GS should have known they weren't getting...
insurance (with cash reserves to back it up) when what they were buying was called swaps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Exactly! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-06-10 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. knr - also ... Memo to Investigators: Dig Deep
Thread and post here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6769019&mesg_id=6770149


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091026/greider/2

By William Greider

"...Here are some promising targets for investigators:

Collusion in High Places. Some Wall Street players suspect that certain bailouts engineered by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve (including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former head of the New York Fed) were motivated by a logic never revealed to the public. The suspicion goes like this: the strange and costly rescue of AIG, an insurance company facing bankruptcy, was really intended to save Goldman Sachs, the premier investment house. If AIG went down, it would threaten Goldman and other big holders of AIG's collapsing derivative contracts. Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein participated in the pre-bailout discussions, an oddity revealed by Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times. Afterward, Goldman got paid off in full with the public's money--$12.9 billion to erase its exposure.

Something similar is suspected about the Bear Stearns bailout. The intention may have been to protect JPMorgan Chase, the commercial bank with the largest holdings of vulnerable derivatives. Morgan Chase demanded and got full federal financing for any losses it might suffer by taking over Bear Stearns (in effect, the bank was reimbursed for its own rescue). Did Washington decline to rescue Lehman Brothers because the firm was not sponsored by an important club member that felt threatened by Lehman's demise?"



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC