Most Popular
1. It’s a New Macro, the Gold Market Knows It, But Dead Men Walking Do Not (yet)- Gary_Tanashian
2.Stock Market Presidential Election Cycle Seasonal Trend Analysis - Nadeem_Walayat
3. Bitcoin S&P Pattern - Nadeem_Walayat
4.Nvidia Blow Off Top - Flying High like the Phoenix too Close to the Sun - Nadeem_Walayat
4.U.S. financial market’s “Weimar phase” impact to your fiat and digital assets - Raymond_Matison
5. How to Profit from the Global Warming ClImate Change Mega Death Trend - Part1 - Nadeem_Walayat
7.Bitcoin Gravy Train Trend Forecast 2024 - - Nadeem_Walayat
8.The Bond Trade and Interest Rates - Nadeem_Walayat
9.It’s Easy to Scream Stocks Bubble! - Stephen_McBride
10.Fed’s Next Intertest Rate Move might not align with popular consensus - Richard_Mills
Last 7 days
S&P Stock Market Trend Forecast to Dec 2024 - 16th Apr 24
No Deposit Bonuses: Boost Your Finances - 16th Apr 24
Global Warming ClImate Change Mega Death Trend - 8th Apr 24
Gold Is Rallying Again, But Silver Could Get REALLY Interesting - 8th Apr 24
Media Elite Belittle Inflation Struggles of Ordinary Americans - 8th Apr 24
Profit from the Roaring AI 2020's Tech Stocks Economic Boom - 8th Apr 24
Stock Market Election Year Five Nights at Freddy's - 7th Apr 24
It’s a New Macro, the Gold Market Knows It, But Dead Men Walking Do Not (yet)- 7th Apr 24
AI Revolution and NVDA: Why Tough Going May Be Ahead - 7th Apr 24
Hidden cost of US homeownership just saw its biggest spike in 5 years - 7th Apr 24
What Happens To Gold Price If The Fed Doesn’t Cut Rates? - 7th Apr 24
The Fed is becoming increasingly divided on interest rates - 7th Apr 24
The Evils of Paper Money Have no End - 7th Apr 24
Stock Market Presidential Election Cycle Seasonal Trend Analysis - 3rd Apr 24
Stock Market Presidential Election Cycle Seasonal Trend - 2nd Apr 24
Dow Stock Market Annual Percent Change Analysis 2024 - 2nd Apr 24
Bitcoin S&P Pattern - 31st Mar 24
S&P Stock Market Correlating Seasonal Swings - 31st Mar 24
S&P SEASONAL ANALYSIS - 31st Mar 24
Here's a Dirty Little Secret: Federal Reserve Monetary Policy Is Still Loose - 31st Mar 24
Tandem Chairman Paul Pester on Fintech, AI, and the Future of Banking in the UK - 31st Mar 24
Stock Market Volatility (VIX) - 25th Mar 24
Stock Market Investor Sentiment - 25th Mar 24
The Federal Reserve Didn't Do Anything But It Had Plenty to Say - 25th Mar 24

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

How to Protect your Wealth by Investing in AI Tech Stocks

Janet Tavakoli Comments on Goldman Sachs Fueled AIG Gambles

Politics / Credit Crisis Bailouts Dec 12, 2009 - 01:58 AM GMT

By: Janet_Tavakoli

Politics

Goldman Fueled AIG Gambles - Wall Street Journal – December 12, 2009 - By Serena Ng and Carrick Mollenkamp (contribution from Amir Efrati)

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. played a bigger role than has been publicly disclosed in fueling the mortgage bets that nearly felled American Insurance Group Inc.


Goldman originated or bought protection from AIG on about $33 billion of the $80 billion of U.S. mortgage assets that AIG insured during the housing boom. That is roughly twice as much as Société Générale and Merrill Lynch, the banks with the biggest exposure to AIG after Goldman,according an analysis of ratings-firm reports and an internal AIG document that details several financial firms roles in the transactions.

In Goldman's biggest deal, it acted as a middleman between AIG and banks, taking on the risk of as much as $14 billion of mortgage-related investments. Goldman's other big role in the CDO business that few of its competitors appreciated at the time was as an originator of CDOs that other banks invested in and that ended up being insured by AIG, a role recently highlighted by Chicago credit consultant Janet Tavakoli. Ms. Tavakoli reviewed an internal AIG document written in late 2007 listing the CDOs that AIG had insured, a document obtained earlier this year by CBS News.

END OF EXCERPT

JT Note: Goldman’s “middleman” trades were probably done from its proprietary trading desk, but had A.I.G. failed, Goldman would have had to make good on these trades. Whether it acted as a “middleman” on all of these trades or just some of them, Goldman had assumed the risk (and A.I.G. provided a hedge).

According to the WSJ article, Goldman spokesman said that “What is lost in the discussion is that AIG assumed billions of dollars in risk it was unable to manage.” Yes, and what Goldman’s spokesman lost in the spin was that Goldman Sachs also could not manage that risk. Instead, Goldman “hedged” with A.I.G., and Goldman overexposed itself to A.I.G. If A.I.G. had failed, a liquidator might have asked Goldman to return a large portion of the collateral it collected. When one examines the collateral of the deals underwritten by Goldman, it includes some collateral from Goldman Sachs Alternative Mortgage Products and other collateral that did not perform well. Goldman’s way to “manage” that risk was to stuff it into value destroying CDOs, portions of which were then sold to customers and/or hedged with A.I.G.

A.I.G.’s near collapse created a potential global crisis brought on by extraordinary circumstances related to Goldman’s securitization and trading activity. The crisis is now over, and Goldman (and A.I.G.’s other counterparites) should buy back all of the CDOs (on which it bought protection) at full price.

JT After Note: The last part of the WSJ article suggests that the SIGTARP report stated Goldman would have a difficult time “selling the collateral.” I am not sure what is meant here, but I believe it refers to the reports’ stating Goldman might have a difficult time collecting on the hedges Goldman bought to protect itself against an A.I.G. bankruptcy. I would also point out that if A.I.G. had gone bankrupt, a sensible liquidator would have clawed back collateral that A.I.G. had already given to Goldman due to the extraordinary circumstances. After it saved the day by extending the credit line, the FRBNY should never have settled for 100 cents on the dollar. In August 2008, one month prior to the FRBNY providing A.I.G. with an $85 billion credit line to pay collateral to its counterparties, Calyon, a French bank that bought protection from A.I.G. (including on some Goldman originated CDOs) settled a similar $1.875 billion financial guarantee with FGIC UK for only ten cents on the dollar.

By Janet Tavakoli

web site: www.tavakolistructuredfinance.com

Janet Tavakoli is the president of Tavakoli Structured Finance, a Chicago-based firm that provides consulting to financial institutions and institutional investors. Ms. Tavakoli has more than 20 years of experience in senior investment banking positions, trading, structuring and marketing structured financial products. She is a former adjunct associate professor of derivatives at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business. Author of: Credit Derivatives & Synthetic Structures (1998, 2001), Collateralized Debt Obligations & Structured Finance (2003), Structured Finance & Collateralized Debt Obligations (John Wiley & Sons, September 2008). Tavakoli’s book on the causes of the global financial meltdown and how to fix it is: Dear Mr. Buffett: What an Investor Learns 1,269 Miles from Wall Street (Wiley, 2009).

© 2009 Copyright Janet Tavakoli- All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.


© 2005-2022 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Comments

JCH
26 Dec 09, 12:12
AIG was as good place to hedge as any...

Looking at the GS assets that went into Maiden Lane III, they had a par value of 14 billion. Prior to the Fed loaning AIG 85 billion, AIG had posted 5.9 billion in collateral to GS. After the FED loan, they posted an additional 2.5 billion. That means GS had marked the assets at 60% off, and AIG had covered that, with the help of 2.5 billion from the Fed. (the Fed bough them at 60% off - 5.6 billion was the price).

The 2.5 billion, which AIG did not have prior to the Fed loan, which GS had anticipated, was hedged by GS from another protection seller. So they were going to get it either way. The protection seller of the backup 2.5 billion had already posted 1.4 billion in collateral to GS.

So in point of fact, GS had managed their risks - certainly far better than most, and AIG had covered them for the majority of the loss.

hindesight bias is easy.


Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in