Geithner defends Fed actions on AIG bailout

Elias824

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2007
1,100
0
76
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner drew sharp criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike Wednesday for his role in the $180-billion-plus taxpayer bailout of insurance giant American International Group, with some challenging his claim that he played no role in withholding information about AIG deals with business partners.

When President Barack Obama picked the then-New York Fed chief on November 24, 2008, "I withdrew from monetary policy decisions...and day to day management of the New York Fed," Geithner told a congressional panel.

But one member after another lit into Geithner, venting rising public frustration over bank bailouts and bonuses as Wall Street firms recovered from the recession but unemployment remains at 10 percent.

Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., told Geithner: "It just stinks to the high heaven what happened here. The disclosure was not there at the proper time to tell the American people and tell this Congress what was going on."

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, told Geithner he was more beholden to banks than he was to taxpayers when he ran the New York Fed and cut him off abruptly when he tried to deny it.

"The consequences would have been catastrophic," had the government not bailed out AIG, the nation's largest insurer, Geithner said.

"It was in the best interest of the Fed and the incoming administration" for him to step down from day-to-day oversight of the Fed once Obama nominated him, he said. Geithner added: "I don't think there was a better alternative available."

AIG eventually received an aid package from the government of more than $180 billion. At issue before the committee is the part of this money to repay banks that were its business partners, known as counterparties, and efforts by the government to cover up details of the payments.

"I played no role in those decisions," Geithner said. "I will take complete responsibility for decisions I played a role in shaping," he said.

But as to the AIG matter, he said, "I was not involved in decisions about what to disclose about the individual transactions or the names of counterparties. But I have enormous trust and confidence in the integrity and judgment of those who were."

"Many people, including people of this committee, have a hard time believing Secretary Geithner entered into an absolute cone of silence," California Rep. Darrell Issa, the committee's top Republican, told him.

In a particularly sharp exchange, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., told Geithner "Either you were in charge and did the wrong thing or you participated in the wrong thing."

Recalling the early controversy over Geithner's failure to pay some personal income taxes, Mica said: "You gave lame excuses then, you are giving lame excuses now. Why shouldn't we ask for your resignation as secretary of the Treasury?"

"You have a right to your opinion," Geithner said.

Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke -- another target of recent criticism for his role, along with that of Geithner, in bank bailouts -- said Wednesday he was "not directly involved in negotiations" involving payments from AIG to its business partners including Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms.

Those negotiations were handled primarily by the staff of the New York Fed, he said.

Bernanke also said the financial conditions of those so-called counterparties "was not a factor in the decision regarding the amount paid to the counterparties or whether concessions should be sought from them."

Bernanke made the comments in written responses to questions posed by Issa. The Fed chief's letter was handed out at Wednesday's hearing.

The Fed chief also said he wasn't involved in discussions with the Securities and Exchange Commission last year about any disclosure issues related to AIG. When AIG went public and released the identities and payments made to its counterparties in March of 2009, Bernanke said he supported that decision.

Although Bernanke and Geithner have taken considerable criticism, the government's bank rescue effort began under former President George W. Bush and his Henry Paulson, his Treasury secretary. Paulson, also called to testify, was expected to reiterate earlier statements that he didn't know the details or participate in efforts to block disclosure.

Geithner said bold action was needed to get the nation's financial system out of the ditch.

"This was the gravest crisis we had seen since the Great Depression. It was not going to solve itself. Many people advocated we should let it burn itself out. But that would have been catastrophic for the economy. We're still living with the consequences of the damage and the wreckage," he said.

Geithner said the administration would work with Congress on "fixing this mess and preventing it from happening again."

"I think every day about things we could have done differently and things we could have done early," the treasury secretary said.

Lawmakers are concerned with revelations about efforts to keep details of the AIG deals secret. Officials from the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York worked to keep the public from learning details about those deals and other AIG decisions.

The money went to banks to buy bonds AIG had insured. The banks already had cash AIG had posted as collateral when the bonds' values declined. In exchange for the money, the banks agreed to tear up AIG's insurance obligations.

The effort to conceal information about AIG began with its first bailout in September 2008, according to documents provided by the New York Fed in response to a subpoena from the committee.

They continued through this month, when Treasury representatives made misleading public statements implying taxpayers would not lose money on the AIG bailout, according to prepared testimony by Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, who also was to appear at Wednesday's hearing.

In one of the 250,000 pages of documents, a New York Fed employee wrote, "We have specifically told the firm not to disclose" that the other banks were paid in full for the bonds AIG insured.

In an earlier audit, Barofsky found decisions by Geithner and New York Fed officials may have cost taxpayers billions more than necessary because they did not press the banks for concessions. The AIG bailout eventually totaled $182 billion.

The lawmaker who first requested that audit said secrecy at Treasury and the Federal Reserve are undermining President Barack Obama's effort to shore up the sluggish economy.

"When people start to question whether there is transparency, it's hard for the public to be 100 percent on board," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md.




Man they are throwing this guys under the buss largly for stuff he didn't have any say in. I watched that interview this morning and they were grilling the guy, though i think he actually held up pretty well. Anyone else watch this live?
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
For some reason I had this on tv this morning, listening to it.

This AP recap is so slanted, so opinionated, one-sided, it's not even funny anymore to read the crap the press puts out.
 

Elias824

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2007
1,100
0
76
I pulled this from yahoo news, just the first article I bumped across. Slanted in what way?
 

Elias824

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2007
1,100
0
76
You have to consider the source.
Im not a fan of AP but most of this is quotes anyways, thanks for the vids above. You just say its a bad source but no one will say anything specific in the article that is off.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
The article is clearly trying to slam Geithner.

The two primary issues in this whole dog & pony show were (1) why were banks paid 100 cents on the dollar by AIG, and (2) why was that information covered up?

The first question, I thought, was explained very well by Geithner, yet this AP recap fails to include that information *anywhere* in this writeup.

As for the second question, seemed clear to me that the handling of the "cover up" was not Geithner's decision, that he had little involvement in it. If congress wanted to get to the bottom of this, they would have brought in those who actually made that decision. Congress never even seemed to reach a conclusion that this "cover up" was harmful to the public. That point was never adequately established in my opinion.

Either way, the whole proceeding just felt like half the congressmen "drilling" Geithner were doing so just to grab a sound-byte they could take back to their 2010 campaign efforts.
 
Last edited:

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Is this the same dealings that were ruled sealed until like 2018? There was a thread about it here. The cover up was essentially sealed and the info cannot be released.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
But as to the AIG matter, he said, "I was not involved in decisions about what to disclose about the individual transactions or the names of counterparties. But I have enormous trust and confidence in the integrity and judgment of those who were."

Really? He trusts the judgement of the people that led to this fiasco in the first place? Wow, just wow.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Is this the same dealings that were ruled sealed until like 2018? There was a thread about it here. The cover up was essentially sealed and the info cannot be released.

They didn't even really get into this subject much.

Seriously, the whole hearing was nothing but a gigantic waste of time! But no one should take my word for it, watch it yourselves.

The picture that came across to me was that Geithner is actually honest & trustworthy, while the politicians were more interested in feeding the current populist rage.

The various congressmen who questioned Geithner, they all were asking basically the same questions time and time again, and Geithner kept giving the same answers time and time again. What a waste... Oh, but the highlight was an email Geithner once wrote that had a sentence that was vague and ambiguous. Of course that definitely means he was in on the scam of ripping off the public, transferring all our wealth to the fat cats on Wall Street =/
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Really? He trusts the judgement of the people that led to this fiasco in the first place? Wow, just wow.

See what I mean - if you had watched the hearings, you would know that the recap you took out of the AP article, is completely wrong.

Basically, what Geithner was saying, is that first, regulators did not have the legal authority to look into these financial institutions deep enough to predict the collapse, then when AIG came to the NY Fed for help, the fed took steps to prevent the collapse of the whole financial system. Geithner is saying he trusts those in the NY Fed who made the decisions - while you took it as Geithner trusts those at AIG who caused the fiasco.

Hence, the AP is mostly bullshit, and highly misleading.
 

Elias824

Golden Member
Mar 13, 2007
1,100
0
76
The picture that came across to me was that Geithner is actually honest & trustworthy, while the politicians were more interested in feeding the current populist rage.
/


This. They need a scapegoat to cover up for their own inadequacies
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
"The consequences would have been catastrophic," had the government not bailed out AIG, the nation's largest insurer, Geithner said.

He's right - regardless of what people did or didn't do to get us there, AIG had to be kept afloat by any means necessary. I know that in Canada, we'd likely have crippled or lost two of our six big banks immediately, as well as our two largest insurance companies.


How Canadian banks are linked to AIG


If you need something else to worry about this morning, consider the fact that the six big Canadian banks have $823-billion of notional exposure to a credit default swap market that faces chaos if AIG fails.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
I think for the most part Geithner is a good man that has been dealt a really crappy hand. The banks don't like him, nor do the entrenched pecker heads at the FDIC, SEC, Fed, etc. He seems to be 'walking the walk' when it comes to the proposed consumer protection agency under the bank reform legislation.

I don't particularly like his 'free market' stance on usury but what the heck do I know? I think it is criminal what the 'system' is doing to the middle class and poor with 25-30% interest rates, outrageous fees and financial tomfoolery, but what the Hell, huh? Keep kicking the poor man while he is down until you kick the life out of him.

I also think Geithner is too smart, too conscientious and too intense for the job. I just hope he leads the reform and consumer protection legislation to fruition before he flames out ....





--
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Either he knew and is lying or he's incompetent. Considering the AIG documents were being treated virtually as a matter of national security I find it unbelievable that he didn't know about who would know about a multi-billion dollar payout.

In a way the bigger question is: Is Geithner really the best guy for the job? Who can honestly say yes? He is just another in a very long line of ex-goldman sachs employees, not a fvcking one of whom has done anybody a lick of good.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Why the hell did Goldman sachs get 12 billion from the US government? Thats B with a capital B! They said they repaid all the taxpayer money but I still see 12 billion that isn't repaid. Claw back the bailouts with interest. I say a 29% rate seems reasonable, after all that's what credit card companies charge us.

Take the bailout money back, revoke their bank charters if they're an investment bank and let them swim without loans from the FED. Also, fire Geithner. He's the worst Treasury Secretary in recent history. He is in bed with Goldman Sachs, I bet he has a job waiting in line once he is done fucking the treasury.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
He's right - regardless of what people did or didn't do to get us there, AIG had to be kept afloat by any means necessary. I know that in Canada, we'd likely have crippled or lost two of our six big banks immediately, as well as our two largest insurance companies.


How Canadian banks are linked to AIG

And why should US taxpayers bail out Canada? Are Canadians paying US taxes? Did Canada bail out AIG? NO!
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Why the hell did Goldman sachs get 12 billion from the US government? Thats B with a capital B! They said they repaid all the taxpayer money but I still see 12 billion that isn't repaid. Claw back the bailouts with interest. I say a 29% rate seems reasonable, after all that's what credit card companies charge us.

Take the bailout money back, revoke their bank charters if they're an investment bank and let them swim without loans from the FED. Also, fire Geithner. He's the worst Treasury Secretary in recent history. He is in bed with Goldman Sachs, I bet he has a job waiting in line once he is done fucking the treasury.

Most likely GS had to pay a significant amount of the 12bn to other parties since the CDS market is heavily crossed.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
And why should US taxpayers bail out Canada? Are Canadians paying US taxes? Did Canada bail out AIG? NO!

Why should Canadian taxpayers bail out a company paying taxes to and under the jurisdiction of the American government?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Why should Canadian taxpayers bail out a company paying taxes to and under the jurisdiction of the American government?

Exactly, which is why they should have gone down from their own incompetence. That's my opinion at least and I know I'm not alone. Sure it would have caused quite a bit of turmoil, but we would have moved on eventually.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,592
6,715
126
Exactly, which is why they should have gone down from their own incompetence. That's my opinion at least and I know I'm not alone. Sure it would have caused quite a bit of turmoil, but we would have moved on eventually.

You are definitely not alone. There are boat loads of other idiots just like you.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Letting AIG fail was not an option...this has all the earmarks of a political witch hunt...we've got some real dumbasses in Congress