This morning at 10am ET, the House Oversight Committee will hold three separate panels on the AIG bailout. The first features Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who chaired the New York Federal Reserve Board at the time, which was instrumental in managing the bailout. The second panel will feature former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who was at Treasury at the time. And the third panel includes a number of interested parties, including Thomas C. Baxter, general counsel of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Stephen Friedman, the former chairman of the New York Fed; Neil Barofsky, the special Inspector General for the TARP; and Elias Habayeb, the former chief financial officer of A.I.G. The hearings will be broadcast on C-SPAN and at the Oversight Committee’s website.
The hearing will look at the overall federal response to the AIG debacle, but at two specific circumstances in particular – 1) the decision to pay off the credit default swaps to AIG’s counter-parties “at par,” without forcing the banks involved to take a haircut; and 2) the effort by the NY Fed to hide disclosure of counter-party payment information to securities regulators, as revealed in recent emails. In addition to the Oversight Committee, Barofsky’s SIGTARP office is investigating the NY Fed anew over the disclosure issue (they first probed this issue in November).
Oversight Committee staffers have been poring over documents released by AIG in response to subpoenas, including some not available to SIGTARP last year, and have uncovered crucial information to which Paulson, Geithner and the rest of the panel will have to respond. Committee staffers seem relatively convinced by the documentary evidence that Geithner was not involved in the push by the NY Fed to withhold disclosure of counter-party payment information, including the names of counter-parties, amounts of the payments, and details regarding the “Maiden Lane III” special purpose vehicle which essentially purchased the CDOs that paid off the banks. But this does not reflect well on how the Treasury Secretary handled his leadership position at the NY Fed, if improper conduct could take place without his knowledge, and I would imagine lots of questions about Geithner’s conduct. Thomas Baxter, the NY Fed general counsel, will say that the issue didn’t rise to the level of importance that he would have shared it with Geithner. Really? Skirting SEC disclosure is a meaningless side issue? Indeed, we still do not know the exact amounts of the payments to the various companies, so expect that to be part of the testimony.
On the issue of counter-party payments, the new documents show that the Treasury and the Fed essentially took the term sheet that private banks were working from to use as a template for the AIG bailout, a terrible deal for the government prepared by the likes of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. First AIG and then the NY Fed reportedly tried to get the counter-parties to stand down throughout October and November 2008, and banks like Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and the French firm Societe Generale simply refused, the documents show. However, somewhere along the line, the government gave up and paid off the banks at par, a decision that the SIGTARP report lays directly at the feet of Timothy Geithner.
Committee staffers allege that only mid-level operatives at Treasury and the Fed were negotiating with the bankers, and not Geithner, Paulson or Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke. The attempt seemed half-hearted, and with leverage in the hands of the NY Fed, they could have forced haircuts to the counter-parties, but did not. In fact, Thomas Baxter, the NY Fed general counsel, wouldn’t even call the efforts negotiations. “I don’t know why we even bothered to ask (for any concessions),” he told committee staffers. Paulson will almost certainly be asked about this, committee staffers say, although he will testify that he had nothing to do with the decision on counter-party payments. But Geithner, who apparently signed off on dropping negotiations with the counter-parties and paying them off at par, will face scrutiny on this as well.
The New York Times reports that two Federal Reserve governors wanted AIG’s counter-parties to return $30 billion in payments, calling them “a gift.” They were eventually overruled.
One email, from NY Fed staffer Meg McConnell to Geithner, was highly critical of Treasury and the Federal Reserve’s participation in managing the AIG mess and particularly Dan Jester, Hank Paulson’s hand-picked associate to deal with AIG (needless to say, he was a former Goldman employee). “I sat in on the AIG call with Board staff… so that Jester could spend half an hour telling Sarah that there would be no capital and we would need to make ‘something else’ work,” McConnell writes. “Leaving aside Treasury’s unfortunate (untenable?) stance on this, Board staff still doesn’t seem to be attacking this in a ‘here’s what we need to do and why’ kind of way.”
Baxter will defend the bailout and the counter-party payments in his remarks, as will Geithner presumably, as he’s been on the record that the counter-parties could only be paid at par, because that’s all the banks we’re willing to accept. But the claim that Treasury and the Federal Reserve had little bargaining power doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
There’s also the issue of Friedman, who will appear on the third panel:
Mr. Friedman also addressed another sore subject: his purchases of Goldman Sachs stock on Dec. 17, 2008, and Jan. 22, 2009, after the Fed had decided to pay out A.I.G.’s counterparties in full. Many have questioned the move by Mr. Friedman, a former Goldman chief executive who remained a director of the firm even as he was chairman of the New York Fed.
Mr. Friedman contended that it was no secret that he was a Goldman director when he was first appointed to the New York Fed. Nor was it unknown that Goldman was a major A.I.G. counterparty. He reiterated that he had received clearance from the general counsels of both Goldman and the New York Fed.
Bernanke, whose nomination for another term at the Fed is nearing a vote, may be hiding documentation that his staff told him not to bail out AIG at all, and he ignored their warnings.
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), a Bernanke critic, said on CNBC that he has seen documents showing that Bernanke overruled such a recommendation. If that’s the case, it raises questions about whether bailing out AIG was actually necessary, and what Bernanke’s motives were.
A letter Bunning sent Monday to Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) also refers to an “[e]mail exchange regarding restructuring of assistance to AIG, initiated by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner” in March 2009 [...]
Meanwhile, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has been investigating the AIG bailout in his role as ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that a whistleblower has informed him of “troubling details” of Bernanke’s role in the bailout.
There may be nothing incriminating in the documents, but without access to them, the Senate will be voting to confirm him in the dark.
This may also come up in the course of the investigation.
Here are some documents to guide you through the hearings:
Thomas Baxter’s remarks prepared for the hearing.
Stephen Friedman’s remarks prepared for the hearing.
Elias Habayeb’s remarks prepared for the hearing.
Neil Barofsky’s remarks prepared for the hearing.
Oversight Committee Staff Report and various AIG documents
Republican Staff Report on AIG bailout.



124 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
NO MONEY FOR AVERAGE FOLKS,or healthcare,the millionaire aristocracy needs it
Bernanke is a Republican who was appointed by President Bush.
This is all clearly Booshes fault.
Geithner must have borrowed that snotty “I’m smarter than you are” look from Rahm for the day.
Isn’t this swell: idiots Jim Bunning & Darrell Issa are the ones attacking these crooks [and undoubtedly burnishing their "populist" credentials], while the Democratic Administration appointed & defends them [or at least fails to criticize them].
Gotta BIG bowl of popcorn ready. Shoot I have other stuff I should be doing today.
Flattering NYT article on Barofsky.
So that’s where he gets it?
Damn. I should have put some money on popcorn futures…
AND THE KILLIN GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen David Dayen and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Citizen Dayen, what are the chances that Waxman’s committee has the competence let alone the will to put Geithner and company to the test at this hearing? It seems to me from past obsevations that this particular committe is especially incompetent and Waxman has proven to be a shill for whoever holds power and has campaign cash. And what are the chances that Bernanke’s confirmation could be held up for more info on the cover-up of evidence of malfeasanse and collusion in the rape of the treasury?
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION…AND DON’T FORGET IT’S ALL ABOUT THE CORPORATE WARS!!
Waxman is Casper Milquetoast personified, Norske, ya shouldn’t belabor him with a question like that. It’ll upset his concentration.
It’s Ed Towns’ committee, now. And I guess Waxman getting cigarette CEOs to lie under oath isn’t good enough.
I also have my antique 3-D glasses. Hoping that gives my some insight to 11-dimension chess they’re playing.
But, I was told that Waxman was a radical lefty Democrat.
Wow. Crocker is on WJ. He sez uh-uh-uh between every third word. My ears are hurting.
You’d think an ambassador would be a better speaker. If we had a nickel for each of those uh’s, we could go out to dinner instead of watching tonight’s speech. I’m watching too.
Last night I saw a re-run of a Frontline program on credit card “reform” that was passed last year and signed into law by the President. It was instructive.
All Hail Masters of Banking. We are your humble servants.
They would have lied without his help, David, they had and have a history of doing precisely that.
Oh, you are saying Waxman cleverly tricked them into being less than honest?
I’m glad to hear Waxman was doing his job, David, but I expect nothing less of him … or any of them.
It’s only my opinion, David, I assure you, it won’t make any difference.
I wonder if he would have so many uhs if he weren’t lying.
I thought Geithner’s defense on the withholding issue came from a Treasury statement last week that Geithner had already recused himself from AIG matters, when the NYFED counsel “told” AIG to withhold the information, because he (Geithner) knew by then that he was being considered for Treasury at the time. That was Treasury spokesperson statement last week.
That’s what it sounds like to my ears. And, in my experience that’s what everyone does when they’re tell not the truths.
Does that excuse pass your smell test?
He’s also dumber than shit. No wonder U.S. foreign policy is so f’d up. No one doing it understands anything about the subject.
My intro was 9/11, after which I read a lot on the subject. From time-to-time, I’ve thought of looking for a continuing ed course on the subject, but always seem to find a new good book to read. Now, however, I think I should find a continuing ed course to see what they’re teaching that makes the “experts” so stupid.
CNBC is live at the hearing.
It may be true that Geithner was no longer in the loop when the counsel, Baxter, urged AIG to leave the bailout details out of the SEC filing. But all that says is that, as a loyalist, Baxter would have understood that revealing this information would have been problamatic for Geithner’s appointment.
If in the best case, the question the Treasury cover statement didn’t answer was whether Geithner was aware of Baxter’s efforts, even if he did not direct them. And Geithner should be asked today whether, prior to the time he supposedly recused himself, he had any discussions with his staff and counsel about the need to keep any details confidential. So to get to that, they may have to subpoena other staff, not just the counsel, who may just claim attorny/client privilege. If he’s forced to do that, I think Geithner is toast. Or toasterier.
The hearing is on CSPN 3, for those who get that.
Thanks. That’s very helpful.
I find it interesting that cnbc is covering it live. I’ll keep it on that channel to see if there’s any commentary.
Geithner is sworn in, after having listened to Issa declare there’s a conspiracy and coverup.
CNBC is covering because one damaging admission or disclosure will tank the market.
Shorter Geithner: be afraid, be very afraid.
Geithner says AIG bailout his hardest decision; but they can get all the money for TARP and AIG bailout if Congress passes Obama’s proposed tax to recover TARP.
I know that. That’s why I’m keeping it on, to see if the anchor’s interrupt with comments. My TV is too small to read the crawl from where I’m sitting, but I hope to catch some tidbits.
Geithner: NY FRB had no regulatory authority over AIG, & its regulators had no ability to step in when it failed.
Geithner told to speak louder, but when he does, his defense coming off as angry.
Geithner: had to meet contracts 100%, otherwise AIG go bankrupt, disaster for the economy.
Geithner: Wall St. recovered. Proves we did the right thing.
G relates lousy choices Fed had at the time, need to act quickly, no leverage, so they had to do what they did.
Geithner explains on Nov 24 he recused himself from further dealings on financial matters, including wrt to AIG. Had not further role, he says.
More than 75% of guarantees to banks were guaranteed; all the bailout, except $7 billion to local/community banks, were handed out by prior Administration.
Geithner: And we’re gonna tax ‘em so we won’t lose money & we’re gonna do reforms so this won’t happen again.
Ho hum. Heard that before, will hear it again tonight.
Geithner is laying the blame on the previous Administration; it happened on their watch and almost all the bailouts occurred under Bush. You should never have allowed that.
Denies he ever did anything other than in the public interest.
He’s pissed — a side he only shows in private.
Morning all.
Let me say it for ya, eCAHN: Assumes facts not in evidence.
Thanks for the summary, David: I found it really easy to understand all the things in play today!
And given all that, how can they possibly keep the lid on all of this? Another *perfect* storm. I have liked Towns in the past.
Issa IS a fool but on this file, he is *our* fool! He knows this stuff.
Question. Chairman Edolphus.
Any role in the decisions not to disclose to SEC?
I personally had no role, before the 24th or after, but staff at NYFED did.
Q. When did you recuse and why?
A. November 24, when Obama nominated me. Consulted with Chair of FED and general counsel
Oh, and Geithner is suggesting that they lacked regulatory powers? Well, IF that is so, they could have at *least* followed the rules of the SEC, or did the SEC lack the necessary regulatory powers too. Gah.
Committee should ask for doc of discussions & meetings that went into 11/24 decision of Geithner to stay as head of NYFRB, but do no work for NYFRB.
Here he comes to save the day! Obama to the rescue with (meaningless) taxes and reforms! Just in time! Gah.
Towns: AIG counterparties should not have been paid 100%; what effect did their exposure play in your decision to pay 100%
G: None. All the alternatives would have tanked AIG; we chose to pay and leave the taxpayer with some upside. AIG collapsed would have magnified consequences for country — simple but terrible choices.
Geez, Chair’s Qs just allowed Geithner to repeat his talking points. No cross examination at all.
Geithner suffering from arm strain from patting himself on the back for his transparency efforts.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R. Calif): If not involved after Nov. 24, did you ever become involved at a later time, participate in questions, etc.
G: No.
Issa shows slide 1: G shown asking NYFED: “where are you on disclosure?”
G: everyone was interested in this; subject of testimony; he was just asking whether they were changing position.
Issa: Do you agree these items should be disclosed?
G: Trust and confidence requires disclosure; I”ve been supportive as Secretary of transparency. Gives examples.
Issa: displays list of those who benefitted, but it wasn’t disclosed until May of 2009
G: that was the NYFED in 2009 (and I was at Treasury)
Issa: You were aware that Ben B reports had said AIG should be allowed to go bankrupt. You were aware of that?
G: Every decision we made . . . interrupted by Kucinich sitting at chair . . . were subject to enormous debate. It was a good thing to debate these questions.
Kucinich up as chair. Kanjorsky Qs. Talking about football.
Issa didn’t seem to lay a finger on Geithner.
Mr. Paul Kanjorski, (D. Pa) — says the other side has come to bury Caeser, not to praise him. Talks about football and benefit of hindsight.
You believe[d] the rescue was essential — the bailout saved the country?
G: I agree. Made it possible for us to stabilize the system.
Shorter Kanjorsky: Be afraid, be very afraid. Disaster. Disaster.
(OK, so you said that American public even today has not been told how bad it was. So tell us already, exactly what was going on.)
Kanjorski: were there concerns about law and order, if economy tanked?
G: I wasn’t in the executive then, but it wouldn’t suprise me some thought that.
K: Any mistakes in that period?
G: I think about that every day. We keep thinking it through.
Geithner sez of course his in-house lawyer can speak out about disclosure without clearing it with his boss.
HuffPo is reporting that Goldman Sachs was negotiating with AIG to tear up some of it’s CDS contracts three months before they found a better deal …
GS knew that holding AIG responsible for the payoff was actually an unrealistic expectation, and admitted that, by bargaining to abandon it’s claim to be paid off.
Jesus, these guys had a fix of their own figured out all ready, they were ready to face reality and their responsibility for their own mistakes.
They would have canceled their contracts and taken their chances that their CDOs might go bad, but the FED just swooped in and saved them all that bother.
I wish my government was as proactive about my problems.
Mr. Burton (R. Ind): reads from e-mail about G staffer worried about having to disclose stuff.
G. He could say that on his own.
B: more e-mails on disclosure.
G. Defends staff
B: you still maintain you weren’t involved?
G: Absolutely.
G: reminds B that he had recused himself from all the disclosure decisions.
G: what I supported was the decision to restructure AIG.
B: stretches credibility that you weren’t involved in the disclosre — [he failed to get G]
B: should we have independent audit of the FED.
G: I’m in favor of transparency, but don’t undermine FED’s independence.
Cummings is apoligst for how it was handled.
Elija Cummings — We Dems called for this hearing, because we were concerned. As I read your written statement, it looks like you didn’t have any choice on the bailout. But . . .
We also have situation that too much done for Wall Street, but not enough for Main Street. Tell us, how would failure to take action have affected them.
G: closed businesses, millions more out of work, banks collapse — we saw value of American savings fall 40% — that’s what happened before we stepped in.
you cannot help economy recover without a functioning financial system.
The chair should remind Cummings not to ask leading Qs. What a useless crock.
Geithner: wouldn’t want to disclose info that’s bad for the taxpayer. [Heh, like info that would help them figure out who to vote for.]
Liessman cnbc initial reaction. Cummings was skeptical, but is now converted.
Kudlow sez secrecy is ‘gonna stick in everyone’s craw.’
This kabuki has worked very well. Nothing else to see here. Move along.
And if they had done that, what would have been the effect on Paulson et. al. GS stock holdings and net worth??? Just saying.
Mr. Mica (R. Fla): inept questioning, just accusations. Geithner correcting him as needed
Raisings question of G not paying his taxes, “you gave lame excuses then, too, so why shouldn’t you resign.”
G: It has been my job to help repair the damage from the previous Administration.
Mica says he trying to shift blame – but IRCC, all this happened during the Bush Adminisitration.
Kucinich doing a proper cross.
Geithner plays the GS exceptionalism card!!!!!
Obama as Mighty Mouse?
Now you’ve done it, I’ll NEVER be able to think of Obama without that music going off in my head and “Here he comes to save the day!”
Obama needs his cape and SuperHero tights.
What colors would look best?
I apologize for this sardonic sartorical OT, it must be owing to the not-watching-the-SOTU jitters … I see that Krugman agrees with me on this, BTW.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
DW
Kucinich: Did you know at the time that Goldman Sachs was claiming it didn’t need 100% coverage?
G: Didn’t know that.
K — [isn't being clear about his dates -- these "facts" about GS came out after the decision, not before.]
G: we made careful effort to assess counterparty exposure — I asked them directly what their own analysis showed about their exposure.
K: once govt stepped in, if NYFED had fought for taxpayers . . . they had lots of leverage, but took GS position. GS would have had to sue, and would have settled for something less than 100%. Didn’t NYFED give them a better deal than they would otherwise have gotten?
G: if we could tolerate bankruptcy, these other options would have been possible, but without that, it wasn’t possible.
K: argues with G, says it shows NYFED was working for GS, not taxpayers.
G: That’s not true; we weren’t trying to benefit anyone except the overall economy. The only way at the time was to fix the system and save it.
Why can’t they get proper microphones in these hearings rooms?
:-)))
Sorry, but that wasn’t cross examination; that was just bullying and accusations without getting any admissions. No one has done a decent job, and this five minutes and move on process is not conducive to decent questioning. These prima donnas need to hand over questioning to competent investigators.
Granted Kucinich didn’t get any admissions, but at least his qs were more succint and pointed.
Agree that they need pros to do questioning. With that wish and a metro card I can travel around NYC.
John Duncan, R. Tenn): what about prevention in the future.
G: prevention needed; “to stand back and let if burn is irresponsible.” You have to act to protect the innocent. But we need to have the procedures in place in advance. Need to end expectation of TBTF and govt. bailout. And we need to replace public capital with private capital.
If all we get is posturing from each Rep., ,they may as well just hold a press conference. This is supposed to be an investigative hearing.
and so far, we’ve learned nothing new or particularly damaging. It’s must rehashing what we knew.
MA guy apologizes in advance for this qs. Gah.
These committee members *all* look very very skeptical about all of this.
Yep. But I think that the purpose was not investigative. As the hearing progresses, it seems the real agenda is to pretend to investigate and announce at the end that everybody did everything right, and Geithner smells like a rose.
Lynch is one of MA most conservadems. Drives us crazy. He’s just ranting.
RANTING!!! (shouting intentional, mods, as that’s what he’s doing.)
As movies go this one would be more interesting if we couldn’t already know the ending. We’ve been down this “save the large in order to protect the rest” road many times before and it always ends with a temporary happy ending based upon good intentions and a “to be continued…”. The House Oversight Committee will do their best to continue to define the meaning of the name of their committee by overlooking as much as possible by pseudo-grandstanding and asking questions that they already know have been answered many times before.
As you say, the format makes it certain that if someone screws up their answer the next guy can change tracks as quickly as possible.
Dear Congress: Your Hearings Suck
prompted, shockingly, by another hearing with geithner testifying.
Going to pick up sticks outside. From all the winds this winter, the place is a mess. Will be a more edifying way to spend my time. But I expect a full report when I return. *g*
*waving* at ship passing in daylight.
Mr. Turner, (R. Ohio): insults G by calling him a “politician.”
T: q goes to whether bailing out AIG was needed for its regular insurance, since others thought they were separate. Point is to say you bailed out the banks and not the insurance companies we cared about.
G: doesn’t buy the argument; you can’t separate these functions; they were so closely linked, you can’t separate. If had the ability to separate them, would have done so — and the financial supervisers (who T quoted) didn’t know these connections.
T: This will be the largest “theft” in history [conveniently ignores who's watch this occurred under]. did the NYFED understand the risks and how they were underrated, that there was much fraud going on.
G: I agree that country allowed terrible predation, bad ratings, etc, and we shouldn’t let that happen again.
*waving back*
picking up sticks sounds like a productive and fun activity (anything outdoors gets bonus points from me). have fun!
Rep. Kaptur in the House!
{Oh and Mr. Geithner, I do *hope* you have a papertrail on your recusal and the terms therof … especially since it was such an *extraordinary* event.}
The witness is argumentative.
Marcy Kaptur, (D. Ohio) Provide copy of your recusal agreement.
G: didn’t sign an “agreement” There wasn’t a precedent; I just withdrew from those related proceesss.
K: Fed works for the banks. Banks pick you, right?
G: No, we’re fed employees, but board members chosen by banks
K: Goldman was largest beneficiary of AIG — whose you’r COS Mark Patterson, who worked for Goldman.
K won’t allow G to defend Patterson
K: you nationalized company, and let bank creditors off the hook. Why not separate the trading unit?
G: if they had failed, we could have done that; but we couldn’t let them fail. We didn’t have the bankruptcy tools we needed.
K: During bailout period, just after Sept 15 when credit ratings were down-drated — most calls you made were to Paulson — who worked for GS. And they got the most from the bailout (of domestic firms).
Very high number of calls to Dan Jester — a GS executive.
Geither: Kaptur suggesting we weren’t working in the public interest. But that’s false.
She was laying foundation for . . . what? He won’t let it stand that way.
The witness is angry.
The face of the witness is now flushed: forehead to chin, cheek to cheek.
Westmoreland, (R. Ga) when did AIG ask for bailout?
G: Sept 11 or 12
W: was there a general counterparty meeting with NYFED?
G: no, individual discussions.
W: were any of them willing to take less than 100%?
G: Evades — unless you can threaten default, you have no leverage.
W: did you know if AIG had negotiated with any of them?
G: dunno
W: is the AIG being renegotiated?
G: it’s better deal for taxpayers.
Great reportorial style, reader.
;~D
DW
Van Hollen (D. Md): talks about proposals to reregulate/reform and Obama’s fee on the biggest banks to recover TARP, including all the money given to/through AIG. And Peters amendment would keep the fee in effect until all the money is recovered – but all the Republicans opposed that amendment.
Q: so here’s your chance for a softball.
G: If congress supports the fee, taxpayers will not lose a penny of TARP, but that’s not enough. We need to prevent this from happening again — insufficient capital, no oversight, and no ability to let them fail without systemic failure.
But costs of crisis are must more damaging, can’t be recovered just by TARP fee. So we have to make sure this doesn’t happen.
Van: again, if we pass the fee, we get all the money that went through AIG t the banks?
G: Yes.
McHenry, (R. NC); Do you support Franks reform bill that passed the house?
G: Yest.
Mc: The volcker rule, to limit ability to take risks?
G: yes, and it’s consistent with Franks bill?
Mc: did you work to limit its reach?
G: No.
Mc: won’t support reinstatement of Glass-sea. Isn’t that inconsistent with Volcker rule that might force banks to divest hedge funds, etc>
G: We don’t wont access to the safety net to be coupled to these activities.
Mc: You testified on need to regulate by function, not by form. Is that inconsistent with volcker?
G: No. key is whether you get access to fed support; if you do, you can’t take high risk transactions. Promises to work with Republicans.
The witness is a condescending bipartisan hack.
many thanks to scarecrow for the live blogging and to reader for the color commentary.
Seconded.
Thirded….
Peter Welch, D. Vt: Reminds folks this all happened under Bush.
W: have these efforts helped Main Street? Wall Street became a job-killing machine.
wrt to Obama’s bank fee, 60 of us also support a tax on Wall Street bonuses. do you support?
G: we need tougher rules to protect public, duck.
W: what about the bonus tax? Paulson told us WS learned its lesson, but they haven’t. Since their profits are based on bailouts, should we not tax the bonuses?
G: I’ll be happy to look at the legislation. duck.
Rep. Welch *gets* it ~ GS playing both sides for mega-profits ~ and is able to explain things in simple language. He sez: Paulson told us they had learned their lessons, but they obviously haven not.
Rep. Jordan goes for the jugular: were they right *not* to disclose?
Jim Jordan, R. Ohio: You supported the bailout.
G: yes.
J: supported BoA swallowing Merrill Lynch?
G: yes, I was involved in that.
J: wrt to AIG, it was the right decisions?
G: yes, in best interests of US
G: there were those who were deeply troubled with the choice, but we still though it was necessary, critical.
J: if so, then why not disclose it at the time? Why keep it secret? And why recuse, if it was okay?
G: I wan’t involved in the details about disclosing decision.
J: do you now agree with the decision not to disclose at the time>?
G: can’t put yourself in shoes didn’t exercise
J: it’s a pattern — you asked for bailout
G: no, your government (Bush) did that.
J: here’s the pattern — demand the money, then use it for something else.
times up
Whatever you think about Geithner’s world view, and whether that represents “intellectual capture,” it’s clear from this very strenuous and hostile hearing that Tim Geithner does not believe he has anything to apologize for, that he sincerely believes he always acted in the public interest and is insulted by the notion he was just a tool for Goldman Sachs, et al.
And it’s also clear he has total loyalty to those he worked with and who made decisions after he recused/left — he’s defended himself but refused to throw anyone else under the bus to protect himself.
I respect that.
Whoa. Rep. Bilbray: you *were* concerned about disclosure in a public speech in February!!!!!
Just saying what?
What’s being pointed out to you is the fact that AIG and the banks were considering acting responsibly prior to the bail-out being dreamed up.
This fact puts the lie to the whole “There’s nothing else we can do.” thing that Paulson et al foisted on the taxpayers with Bush’s help.
GS recognized that holding AIG to the terms of their
wagerscontracts would bankrupt the company and that wasn’t a smart business move. They were acknowledging the fact that wrecking people you do business with is counter-productive in the long run.Of course it should be pointed out to these geniuses that wrecking the main street economy isn’t in their long-term interests either, but then that would require them to think in the long-term.
couldn’t the same thing have been said about libby?
good intentions and class loyalty to the powerful aren’t enough to earn my respect. but then i’m a hard ass. *g*
Brian Bilbray, R. Calif:
You said last March or so that lack of disclosure — which Reps keep calling a “coverup” — generally was a problem. Why was that an issue.
G: NYFED published their explanation for their disclosure actions. I’ve been a proponent of greater transparency.
B: Did your staff know there was a coverup before you knew there was?
G: There were discussions about what to disclose, but I played no role in these discussions.
G: I wish I’d known, but I had recused myself. The people who made the decision are good people, integrity, competence.
B: do you think they knew they needed to shield you?
G: No, after the Nov 24 recusal
B: Did your staff decide to shield you from coverup
G: I only knew about the disclosure decision when they got press.
[Bilbray used "coverup" and when did you know aobut the "coverup" in every question, and G did not reject that term.]
I hear you Scarecrow, but they are *all* GS people. There is a code. They all have a variety of conflicts of interest, including among themselves to protect the group.
I make a distinction between loyalty intended to avoid discovery of wrong doing — of which there is no clear evidence today, and loyalty when the integrity of your colleagues is being smeared by demogogues. The second model is on display today.
Complete agreement with you! If Paulson et. al. had let them proceed, Paulson et. al. would have been taking on personal risk. That is the problem: Paulson had a fatal conflict of interest.
yes, there’s a serious problem of shared world view that colors/shapes what one sees in the public interest. The irony, is that the Republicans (and far too many Dems) almost without exception are perfect examples of that world view, yet they’re here beating up Geithner for working for Goldman. Geithner never worked for Goldman.
I hear you Scarecrow. Thanks so much for the liveblogging!
Geithner treats his tenure as if it has been but a series of minor whimsicalities which he has handled with aplomb.
Except for those things in which he had no “hand”.
And, apparently, it never troubled him, in the least, that the public, whose “protection” he claims this “behavior”, his and others, was all about, were not to know ANYTHING about it? But that wasn’t his decide? Did he press for, what is that term, um … “transparency”? Did he express concern that keeping things secret might amount to deceit, to callous disregard of the people’s right to know?
My, what nobility, what conscience, … what a patriot!
What utter crap.
DW
Fortenberry, R.Neb: why wasn’t there a desire from the beginning for disclosure on the counterparties.
G: You should be outraged at how we/our system got here, then support the reforms we proposed. We ran the largest financial system in the world without sufficient oversight, etc.
Geithner is very convinced of all of this. Now I want to know how he came to be *so* convinced. Especially since we are just not all so convinced. And I am really suspicious when he starts talking about the End of The World: he is on his second rant along those lines now.
The “end” of the manor to which the epiphitic class is accustomed. Rather.
Chaffetz, R, Utah: asks about SIGAIG statement that govt still exposed to loss.
G: he agrees with SIGAIG on that point, but the Obama fee could recover that.
C: that’s a tax?
G: So?
C: I call it a tax [so does C opposed a tax to recover TARP, even though Congressed directed the President to propose a means to recover TARP?]
End of Geithner testimony. Paulson up next.
Oh noes! Rep. Chaffetz? : … 18 calls to Rahm ~ we will have to leave that for another day!!!!!!!!
i guess i don’t see it as an either/or. both can be true: avoiding discovery of wrong doing and push back against ignorant demogogues.
completely agree with you re the bit on demogogues. that is one of the reasons i stopped posting hearing lists. i’d watch a hearing, and then some stupid youtube (usually of grayson or alternatively a batshit crazy R) would be used to whip up passions when watching the entire hearing it was obvious that grayson wasn’t attempting to further the hearing, but rather performing for the youtube (or alternatively, the problem with the hearing wasn’t 5 min of batshit crazy R, but rather how the hearing was conducted by the D chair).
pissed me off to have the hearings used as a tool for propaganda instead of a tool for educating, informing and oversight.
Yup. See, that and your previous comment ring true for me. The words are good but if they really felt this way ~ if it was honest there would have been more/different actions.
Paulson sounds like he has been prepped to the same script and language Geithner was using. Big. Red. Flags. Coordinated talking points.
I am stepping out for Paulsons opening. I *will* be back!
Henry paulson, opening statement:
Sec of Treasury in 2008, supports AIG rescue, failure would have been devasting; wasn’t involved in the payments to counterparties — those were all made by NYFED. I have limited knowledge in this area.
But we all acted in the best interests of the country.
Reasons to save AIG:
1. They’re incredibly large and interconnected with everyone; collapse would “buckle” out system
2. AIG was seriously under-regulated. The parent entity was an unreglated holding company; no one had a picture of how bad it was managed until we took over.
3. AIG could not be effectively wound down; not like FDIC banks, or GSEs (Fannie/Freddie). the only option was bankruptcy, but that couldn’t protect the public or the economy.
We could not have anticipate the magnitude of AIGs problems, and we had no choice.
For the future — need to modernize, systemic risk regulators and resolution authority. Thank you. Can I leave now?
Towns: Why didn’t you call the CEOs of counterparties to take a haircut.
P: I had no involvement. We worked collaboratively during this period, but this was a FED loan to AIG and they had the expertise.
T: you sat on the sideline?
P: I was involved in many other issues, but nnot this one — because this was a FED load, and I had great confidence in them. I was doing other stuff.
T: why not let AIG fail?
P: if AIG had failed, the system was fragile; it would have taken down the whole system and the economy. Today, we still have this 10% unemployment; it could have been worse than the Great Depression.
[the problem here is that these people talk about th econnections, which means if AIG fails, it's counterparties fail, -- but Paulson says he didn't get invovled in making sure the counterparties didn't fail]
Luetkemeyer, R. Mo: askes about the London subsid that was AIG’s trading unit.
Paulson: AIG was so intertwined, it wasn’t possible to just spin off the AIG trading unit that was the source of most problems.
P: wasn’t involved in any payouts to the counterparties. Trusts the NYFED folks who were.
L: wrt to TBTF and Obama inititives, what do you think”
P: my regulatory “blueprint” still the way to go; need to be able to wind down any institution, no matter how big. Need systemic risk regulator.
L: need to take riskiest investments away from big banks?
P: no. Problem was across may types of institutions; wasn’t just one type of activity.
L: That leaves the taxpayers on hook for these risks — why should we undwrite foreign contracts, eg.?
Teirney, D. Ma: You, Bernanke and the NYFED were the group making these decisions on various bailouts, right? Right.
So the TARP and the $700 billion TARP was your idea. Right. I”m proud of that.
T: where did the money for the AIG bailout out come from?
P: the fed can print money.
P: all dollars are green; they’re taxpayer dollars. Treasury was supportive.
T: it wasn’t an appropriation and wasn’t from fees charged to banks. Right.
T: You lost leverage on the counterparties when you agreed not to let them fail?
P: I wasn’t involved.
T: consequences if we didn’t bail out? How woudl people have lost jobs?
P: At the time of AIG rescue, markets were frozen, even big companies were in trouble; we were on the brink; main street companies would not hve been able to pay employees, pay bills, ripple through economy. We would have easily 25% unemplyment. Home prices would have sunk even lower than today; retirement savings would have been wiped out.
Mark Souder, R. Ind.: wrt to 100% payment to counterparties — why was AIG different? didnt you pressure them?
P: I wasn’t involved.
MOVING TO NEW THREAD BY David Dayen, FDL front page.
“I wasn’t involved.”
Okay, who do you think was “involved”?
Who do you think made these decisions?
Will the answer continue to be, “I don’t know?”
At that point, one must ask, “So, you were working with unknown people who made decisions that you NEVER wondered about or asked any questions about?”
“Was that deliberate, on your part, or were you told not to wonder and not to ask?”
But those questions would be neither polite nor politic.
DW