Friday, February 27, 2009
Restructuring AIG – letting the mothership go
The content contained in this blog represents the opinions of Mr. Hempton. You should assume Mr. Hempton and his affiliates have positions in the securities discussed in this blog, and such beneficial ownership can create a conflict of interest regarding the objectivity of this blog. Statements in the blog are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and other factors. Certain information in this blog concerning economic trends and performance is based on or derived from information provided by third-party sources. Mr. Hempton does not guarantee the accuracy of such information and has not independently verified the accuracy or completeness of such information or the assumptions on which such information is based. Such information may change after it is posted and Mr. Hempton is not obligated to, and may not, update it. The commentary in this blog in no way constitutes a solicitation of business, an offer of a security or a solicitation to purchase a security, or investment advice. In fact, it should not be relied upon in making investment decisions, ever. It is intended solely for the entertainment of the reader, and the author. In particular this blog is not directed for investment purposes at US Persons.
More ad hoc non-process though.
If it is not systemically important you should let it fail.
It would not be ad-hoc if they said that.
They seem to be preparing to let AIG parent company fail.
Could be wrong - but that is my interpretation.
Possibly the least-ad-hoc idea of the whole crisis.
The CEO of AIG is paid in options only. He gets zero. Watch that be renegotiated.
> If it is not systemically
> important you should let it fail.
> It would not be ad-hoc if they
> said that.
Yes. But I believe this has not been said, nor have the list of systematically important banks been provided. My gut feeling is that any management strategy which depends on *not* providing information is inherently flawed - something, somewhere, is very wrong.
Blank raises a good question. A Lehman which needs $5 billion to stay afloat (which they might raise from selling Neuberger Berman) is not systemically important.
A Lehman riddled with fraud which destroys $150 billion of creditor claims in its bankruptcy IS systemically important. It's important to know ahead of time which 150 year old primary dealers have destroyed 3x more value than Enron, so that you can then use taxpayer money to keep them going.
As for AIG I believe it has Goldman Sachs as a counterparty in a number of transactions. I don't know what else you have to do to be "systemically important" (besides defalcation on a grand scale as described in paragraphs above, a test which AIG also passed).
Until AIG cleans up all counterparty exposure to GS I can't understand how it can be allowed to fail.
Tim, do you have anything to say?
According to Reuters tonight (Saturday) it looks like Treasury and the Fed have reverted to form:
"The revised AIG agreement is expected to include an additional equity commitment of about $30 billion, more lenient terms on an existing preferred investment, and a lower interest rate on a $60 billion government credit line, the source said."
So once again it looks like the debt-holders are getting a reprieve courtesy of the American taxpayer.
The failure of Lehman was the most auspicious price discovery event of the last 20 years. At last, the air started to rush out of the debt-inflated asset balloon. Far from being a mistake, allowing Lehman to fail was a necessary condition for creating a future favorable investment climate for prudent savers. It also provided evidence that the FIRE economy based on ever increasing debt is unsustainable.
Treasury and the Fed are doing their utmost to reverse the manifest benefits of the only sensible (in)action they took in this "crisis". It would be better policy in the long run to incur public debt supporting a social safety net for displaced workers and the disadvantaged, back-stopping pension funds, and increasing social security benefits for persons near retirement than to forcibly transfer wealth from taxpayers to the holders of bad debt. The path we are taking is the one of maximum suffering for the most people.
James Carville was right about the bond market - to the sorrow of us all.
Post a Comment