Why AIG Went Down

| Tue Oct. 7, 2008 3:14 PM PDT

aig-financial-goal-250x200.jpg

Documents released today by a congressional committee investigating the collapse of insurance giant American International Group (AIG) paint a picture of a company that sought to conceal the scope of its risky investments, despite warnings from regulators, auditors, and even its own employees that its financial disclosures were insufficient.

According to a letter (PDF) released Tuesday by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which held a hearing on the firm's downfall, federal regulators warned AIG executives of a "material weakness" in the company's books five months before the insurance giant had to be rescued by an $85 billion government bailout. The federal Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) wrote AIG on March 10, 2008 that its asset valuations "lacked the accuracy and granularity necessary to understand the impact… on AIG's accounting and financial reporting."

AIG's auditor, Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PWC), also warned the insurance giant about its books. Oversight committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) pointed to minutes (PDF) from an AIG audit committee meeting in March indicating the board was told that the "root cause" of AIG's problems was internal auditors' lack of "appropriate access" to the Financial Products division—the very division whose massive losses eventually necessitated the $85 billion government bailout.

And even AIG's own employees warned the company that it had no way of knowing how much risk it was exposed to. In a letter (PDF) to the committee, Joseph St. Denis, the firm's former vice president for accounting policy in AIG's Financial Products division, accused AIG executives of stymieing his attempts to make sure the company was properly reporting the liabilities stemming from its involvement in risky financial products, including the $62 billion credit derivative swap (CDS) market. St. Denis, who worked as a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement official before joining AIG, said Joseph Cassano, the head of the division, "took actions that I believed were intended to prevent me from performing the job duties for which I was hired."

Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant for the SEC who testified at the hearing, said he didn't see how AIG's financial disclosures could possibly be consistent with its exposure. "When you've got that sort of exposure, you owe it to me as an investor [to disclose it]. That's the disclosure I cannot find in these filings…. There's a question there as to why we didn't get that."

Continues Below

Continued From Above

In light of the evidence, a bipartisan chorus of lawmakers was quick to condemn the former AIG CEOs who had been asked to testify. "Quite frankly, based on a lot of the decisions you made, you deserved to fail," Rep. Tom Davis, the committee's ranking Republican, told Martin Sullivan, the doomed insurance company's CEO until June 2008. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), was just as harsh, telling the AIG execs that they had "cost my constituents and the taxpayers of this country $85 billion and run into the ground one of the most respected insurance companies in the history of our country" by "just gambling billions, possibly trillions of dollars."

Sullivan and Robert Willumstad, who served as AIG's chairman and CEO from June until mid-September 2008, blamed obscure accounting rules and actions taken before their time at the firm's helm for the company's collapse. The buck-passing was mutual. While AIG's longest-serving chief executive, Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, was unable to attend the hearing due to illness, he took care to attack Sullivan and Willumstad (although not by name) in his written testimony (PDF).

Tuesday's hearing was the second in a series of five scheduled to investigate the ongoing financial crisis, and it bore many similarities to Monday's hearing, which investigated the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Bothers. Like Lehman's CEO Richard Fuld Jr., who testified Monday, Sullivan and Willumstad spoke of a financial "tsunami" that could not have been anticipated and a "crisis of confidence" that took everyone by surprise. "The AIG CEOs are like the Lehman CEO in one other key respect," Waxman said. "In each case, they refuse to accept any blame for what happened to their companies."

But while there was bipartisan agreement among committee members that the former AIG CEOs deserved much of the blame for the firm's near-collapse, under the surface unity a bitter partisan battle over the causes of the crisis was stewing. Republicans tend to place a lot of the blame for the current crisis on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that owned or guaranteed a huge percentage of America's home loans. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) called Fannie Mae the "core perpetrator of all this." The GOP is frustrated that Waxman has not yet scheduled hearings to investigate Fannie and Freddie's role in the crisis, although the chairman promised on Tuesday that such a hearing would be forthcoming.

So far denied a separate hearing on Fannie and Freddie, Republicans decided to ask questions about the mortgage giants anyway. But their line of questioning didn't get far with the former AIG execs. Asked by Davis if they saw any connection between AIG's collapse and Fannie and Freddie's problems, both Sullivan and Willumstad gave answers that amounted to long versions of "no."

Members of the GOP don't think Fannie and Freddie alone caused the crisis. They also blame an accounting rule called "mark-to-market" or "fair value" accounting, which requires that companies list assets in their books at their real market value, whether or not they have any plans to sell the assets and actually realize a profit or loss. In this, the GOP has CEOs on their side: Sullivan, Willumstad, and Greenberg all claimed fair value accounting contributed to AIG's downfall by causing ratings agency downgrades and, subsequently, a downward spiral in the company's stock value.

Turner, the former SEC accountant, defended mark-to-market in a section of his written testimony titled "Don't Shoot the Messenger," arguing that simply changing disclosure rules would not have changed the fact that the market for mortgage-backed securities has essentially dried up. Rep. Maloney accused Sullivan and Willumstad of "blam[ing] accountants for saying a product has no value when no one wants to buy it."

In contrast to the Republicans' fixation on Fannie, Freddie, and fair value accounting, the Democrats have focused on credit derivative swaps as the salient issue in this crisis. Credit derivative swaps are unregulated bets on whether or not companies will default on debt. They were originally designed as a form of insurance, or hedging, but now only a small percentage of the $62 trillion swap market is backed by collateral. (Since $62 trillion is close to the combined annual economic output of the entire world, the lack of collateral is understandable). AIG's financial products division had sold billions of dollars in swaps before 2005, when they halted the practice. But when AIG's credit ratings were lowered in 2008, the company had to post enormous amounts of collateral for credit default swaps that it had previously held with low collateral or collateral-free. The need to raise this collateral soon led to the government bailout.

Eric Dinallo, the Insurance Superintendent for New York State, argued before the committee that the credit default swap market has to be regulated, calling it a "major contributor to the emerging financial crisis." Asked if the unregulated swap market "could bring down our entire economy," Dinallo said, "Well, we'll see." In the meantime, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox has already asked for the power to regulate the market. It was a testimony to the damage the credit derivative swap market has wrought that even the former AIG CEOs have come around to the idea of regulating it. Both Sullivan and Willumstad said under questioning that they would prefer if the market were regulated. "With benefit of hindsight, if there is good regulation that could be put in place... I would support that," Sullivan said.

Photo by flickr user Gene Hunt used under a Creative Commons license.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

I'm glad they got the bailout, because it enabled me to get my money out of AIG after 5 or so years...personally, I think they would have made more money if they'd stuck with dot-matrix printouts instead of shiny, snazzy investor/retirement report-things...economy starts with the paper you're looking at...

I guess they didn't go down hard enough to keep them from spending $400,000.00 on a weekend executive junket AFTER the bailout.

As reported by Keith O on Countdown tonight.

-Wexler

this pisses me off....

brazen arrogance and disdain for the american public and taxpayer:

Your company's so close to the red that it receives an $85 billion bailout and what do you do to recoup? Go to the spa, of course. Shortly after the Fed gave the go ahead to rescue American International Group, company executives beat it to the swanky St. Regis resort, spending nearly half a million dollars -- and $23,000 at the spa alone. In the words of an incredulous Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD): "They spent another $10,000 dollars for -- I don't know what this is, leisure dining. Bars?"

Another WHOCUDANODEIT moment

AIG sold insurance on bonds. The parties that bought it were obviously stupid. Like any other bad business purchase, the parties should suffer the consequences of their bad business decisions.

Frannie and Freddy are public animals, not like AIG who dealt with experts in their financial fields, who brought down big dollars in salaries. Frannie and Freddy dealt in simple mortgages and lower income employees of Frannie and Freddy and the Banks. AIG should have been allowed to fail to teach a lesson. People learn from their mistakes.

One word: indictments.

What these clowns did is called accounting fraud where I come from and Cassano, if not others, should be put on trial for it.

Perhaps fines of double his $1M/month salary would be sufficient to get the lesson into his head.

And I'll be damned if this doesn't provide all the evidence we need to put the CFTC back in charge of regulating CDSwaps.

Market confidence will not be restored until these @$$holes are pilloried on Wall St so that their investors can line up single-file and piss on their pointed little heads.

5K Dow by xmas, y'all...

While there are million-dollar bailouts for the criminal CEOs, working Americans are going to food banks in record numbers. My local food banks are begging for money and supplies--they are seeing more and more people who can't have (at the same time) electricity, food, and gas money to get to work.

It amazes me these jerks at AIG do NOT pay out to injured workers and ruin our lives but are still taking our tax dollars.. What is happening here.. They are theives.... Making our lives misserable.. THIS IS NOT FAIR AND THEY SHOULD JUST LET AIG COLLAPSE!!! They steal, and steal some more and then do not want to pay me a mother of 2 who is disabled from a job related injury my weekly benifits.. But they can afford to send the greedy CEO'S on fancy swaray's.. WAKE UP FEDS!!!!

One of my family members works for one of AIG's companies...by the way there are around 100 different companies under the AIG umbrella. Why everyone (including the media) keeps speaking of AIG as if it's one company is beyond me. I guess it's to keep up the ignorance and sensationalism.
At this point, while I'm clearly aware of the tremendous chaos to the economy in the U.S. and globally if AIG went bankrupt, I'm so tired of hearing people bitch about the AIG situation that even though I'd be directly affected (and no, NO ONE in my family is remotely a CEO)...and I'm sick of hearing about a "bailout" when it is a "loan with interest"...point is, I'm about ready to say, OK, you all...taxpayers, shoot yourself in the foot, head, all over, and let the U.S. economy and the global economy really dive in a way you cannot imagine. Make it impossible for AIG companies to be sold off because of all the negative press that is going on. For they are trying their hardest to sell off major solid companies at this point so you folks will get your money. But now I'm feeling like, you all should just get what you want...a bankrupt AIG...and you will then FEEL what will happen and it will be horrible. But at least you might understand the significance of AIG and MAYBE you'd learn that it was ONE company that went rogue in AIG (AIG-FP) and that these other companies had nothing to do with the problem. THEY are the ones TRYING to stay competitive with other companies so that they CAN be sold so that the LOAN CAN be paid off. But, at this point, the public and media is being so obnoxious that I wish AIG would say, forget the whole thing, give up, go bankrupt and the U.S. and the entire world would feel it in a way you have no clue. Educate yourselves for gosh sakes! And pull for AIG to be able to compete well enough to sell off some of their top companies (who did NOT ask for this!) and then the Loan will be paid back with billions of dollars of interest. Otherwise keep up the negative talk and maybe no buyers will buy and the public will have been party to this mess (with the help of the media) and still, my bet is that no one will be wiser. Unbelievable.

AIG didn't go down... they're being propped up quite nicely thank you with OUR money. They've been to the well twice now and are still holding $400k seminars for their "independent contractors". Why is it only we working clods who are expected to make do with less?

What led to this downfall?
From my perch, I'd say arrogance, greed and islolation brought on by being overpaid. I've had more than one person speak to me as though they (their families) were different than us (working class) due to actually being a different species.
I've met poor in our society and in societies in other parts of the world which were better human beings than these jokers. The poor were more responsible in that they looked out for the welfare of others, as well as their own. They know they are all connected.
These arrogant types of people have been allowed to concoct fairytale products to further feather their own nests at the expense of everyone else. They bet everyone else's money! They should be allowed to keep their lives, but give up their wealth to pay up "their" debts!

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Photo Essays

When you dial a 1-900 number, who picks up the phone?
Meet the KKK's seamstress of hate couture.
The other side of Gitmo.
A photographer’s year at Angola Prison.