• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • AIG: Did Geithner Give Away the Farm?

    It’s official: U.S. taxpayers did not get a good deal when they bailed out AIG last year. That was the conclusion of a report released yesterday by Neil Barofsky, the federal government’s special inspector general for TARP. The conclusion is no surprise: no one holds up the $170 billion bailout of the insurance giant as an example of government at its best. But, the Inspector General’s report puts new teeth on the charge, and pins much of the blame on Timothy Geithner, then president of the New York Fed.

    The report’s key charge against Geithner is essentially that he was a bad negotiator. Here’s what happened: AIG had sold massive amounts of so-called “credit default swaps,” pledging to compensate purchasers in the event of losses due to defaults on debts by other instruments. As part of the effort to shore up AIG last fall, the New York Fed bought out many of the purchasers of these contracts. The general idea was to prevent massive losses that would destablize the entire economy.

    Whether or not the purchasers, or “counterparties” — which included huge institutions ranging from Goldman Sachs to France’s Societe Generale — needed protection can be debated. But, under agreements negotiated by Geithner and the New York Fed, counterparty losses weren’t cut in half, or by a third, or even by 10 percent. They suffered no losses at all. They received 100 percent of the value of their contracts, leaving taxpayers out by tens of billions.

    The IG faulted Geithner’s negotiating strategy, saying the NY Fed could certainly have used its leverage to reduce payouts, limiting them to 70 or 80 percent on the dollar without jeopardizing the economy. In other words, as CBS News’ blog put it, “Geitner Gave Away the Farm.”

    But is Geithner, currently the U.S. Treasury Secretary, really such a naif? If so, he shouldn’t be trusted to buy a car, never mind oversee the financial world. But the truth is really more complicated, as the Atlantic’s Megan McArdle points out. As it turns out, Geithner did try to talk counterparties into accepting lower payouts. But his negotiating power was crippled. Federal officials had already made it clear that they would under no circumstances let AIG fail, or send it into bankruptcy. Its as if they had walked into a used car lot with a wad of cash sticking out of their collective pockets, and declared: “We need a car today, now lets talk price.”

    The IG argues that the NY Fed did have leverage, as the regulator of some of the counterparties. It could have threatened dire consequences if they didn’t take a discount. True enough, but Geithner should be praised, not condemned for declining to abuse his power. Geithner also insisted on treating all counterparties the same, something that hindered negotiating ability. That’s a closer call, but differential treatment could also raise legitimate concerns over possible abuse.

    The basic problem, as it turns out, isn’t Geithner’s negotiating talent at all. It was his and other federal officials’ insistence from the start that AIG must be preserved, and that bankruptcy was off the table. Without failure as an option, there was no hope of a sucessful negotiation of terms.

    All of this underscores the importance of the current congressional debate over “too big too fail” institutions. Most plans under debate would institutionalize “too big to fail,” virtually guaranteeing more AIGs in the future. This is the wrong road. Instead, policymakers must find a way to make orderly failure a realistic option. And this will involve finetuning the bankruptcy process so companies like AIG can go through that process without threatening the economy. That may not be a headline-friendly message. But if we don’t want to be giving away more farms in the future, its a critical one.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to AIG: Did Geithner Give Away the Farm?

    1. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      No one in this administration is responsible for anything. No one in the democrat, left-wing controlled House is responsible for anything. No one in the democrat controlled leftist-led senate is responsible for anything.

      The American people are responsible for everything. We "collectively" (nice socialist term) allowed these people to gain control.

      They only had to trick us in one major election when America was really hurting (due too many of these same people's legislation).

      Couple that with an ignorant or self-denial majority of the electorate and boom! What a bunch of suckers.

    2. Pingback: Obama: Read My Lips, No More Bailouts (But Let’s Keep $50 Billion Around Just in Case) | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    3. Pingback: Let Freedom Ring » Blog Archive » Two Issues, Same Solution

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.