http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122156561931242905.html?mod=djemalert
U.S. Plans Rescue of AIG to Halt Crisis;
Central Banks Inject Cash as Credit Dries Up
$85 Billion Loan for Giant Insurer Aimed at Averting Collapse;
Historic Move Would Cap 10 Days That Reshaped U.S. Finance
The U.S. government was moving toward an emergency rescue of American International Group Inc. -- one of the world's biggest insurers -- signaling the intensity of its concerns about the danger a collapse could pose to the financial system.
It's a dramatic turnabout for the federal government, which has strongly resisted overtures from AIG for an emergency loan or some intervention that would prevent the insurer from falling into bankruptcy. Just last weekend, the government effectively pulled the plug on Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., allowing the big investment bank to fail instead of giving it financial support.
The precise details of the government's plans were still being formulated late Tuesday. The primary option being hammered out involved the Fed providing AIG with a short-term "bridge" loan of $85 billion, according to people familiar with the situation. In exchange, the government would receive warrants in AIG representing the right to buy its stock, under certain conditions. That could put the government in a position to potentially control a private insurer, a historic move, particularly considering that AIG isn't directly regulated by the federal government.
The moves capped a day of high drama in Washington. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke convened in the early evening an unexpected meeting of top congressional leaders, including Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, top members of the Senate Banking Committee and leaders, too, from the House.
Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama said he didn't receive a "satisfactory" answer from Mr. Paulson in an early conversation about the ultimate scope of government intervention. "I laid out -- where do you stop? Where do you draw the line?"
The Federal Reserve appeared to be motivated in part by worries that Wall Street's financial crisis could begin to spill over into seemingly safe investments held by small investors, such as money-market funds that invest in AIG debt.
Indeed, on Tuesday the $62 billion Primary Fund from the Reserve, a New York money-market firm, said it "broke the buck" -- that is, its net asset value fell below the $1-a-share level that funds like this must maintain. Breaking the buck is an extremely rare occurrence. The fund was pinched by investments in bonds issued by now collapsing Lehman Brothers.
Money-market funds are supposed to be among the safest investments available. No fund in the $3.6 trillion money-market industry has lost money since 1994, when Orange County, Calif., went bankrupt. A number of money-market funds own securities issued by AIG. The firm is also a big insurer of some money-market instruments.
AIG's financial crisis intensified Monday night when its credit rating was downgraded, forcing it to post $14.5 billion in collateral. The insurer has far more than that in assets that it could sell, but it could not get the cash quickly enough to satisfy the collateral demands. That explains the interest in obtaining a bridge loan to carry it through. AIG's board approved the rescue Tuesday night.
The final decision to help AIG came Tuesday as the federal government concluded it would be "catastrophic" to allow the insurer to fail, according to a person familiar with the matter. Over the weekend, federal officials had tried to get the private sector to pony up some funds. But when that effort failed, Fed Chairman Bernanke, New York Fed President Timothy Geithner and Treasury Secretary Paulson concluded that federal assistance was needed to avert an AIG bankruptcy, which they feared could have disastrous repercussions.
Staff from the Federal Reserve and Treasury worked on the plan through Monday night. President George W. Bush was briefed on the rescue Tuesday afternoon during a meeting of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets.
That the government would prop up AIG financially offers a stark indication of the breadth of the insurer's role in the global economy. If it were to have trouble meeting its obligations, the potential domino effect could reach around the world.
For one thing, banks and mutual funds are major holders off AIG's debt and could take a hit if the insurer were to default. In addition, AIG was a major seller of "credit-default swaps," essentially, insurance against default on assets tied to corporate debt and mortgage securities. Weakness at AIG could force financial institutions in the U.S., Europe and Asia that bought these swaps to take write-downs or losses.
AIG's millions of insurance policyholders appear to be considerably less at risk. That's because of how the company is structured and regulated. Its insurance policies are issued by separate subsidiaries of AIG, highly regulated units that have assets available to pay claims. In the U.S., those assets can't be shifted out of the subsidiaries without regulatory approval, and insurance is also regulated strictly abroad.
Tuesday afternoon, after the market closed, AIG put out a statement saying its basic insurance and retirement services businesses are "fully capable of meeting their obligations to policyholders." AIG said it was trying to "increase short-term liquidity in the parent company," but said that didn't "include any effort to reduce the capital of any of its subsidiaries or to tap into Asian operations for liquidity." Asia is one AIG's largest markets.
Where the company is feeling financial pain is at the corporate level, even while its insurance operations are healthy. If a bankruptcy filing did ensue, the insurance subsidiaries could continue to operate while in Chapter 11, or could also be sold.
Still, a collapse of the parent company would have huge ripple effects. The urgency of federal aid came into stark relief Tuesday as other options fell off the table and pressures continued to build. On Tuesday, AIG's attempt to raise as much as $75 billion from private-sector banks failed. The banks advising the firm concluded it would be all but impossible to organize a loan of that size, making the government AIG's chief hope.
The AIG bailout caps a tumultuous 10 days that have remade the American financial system. In that time, the government has engineered rescues that insert it deep into the housing and insurance industries, while Wall Street has watched two of its last four big independent brokerage firms exit the scene.
The U.S. on Sept. 6 took over mortgage-lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as they teetered near collapse. This Sunday, the U.S. refused to bail out Wall Street pillar Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy and is now being sold off in pieces. That same day, another struggling Wall Street titan, Merrill Lynch & Co., sold itself to Bank of America Corp..
As a result of AIG's credit downgrades, the insurer has to post $14.5 billion in collateral to bolster its credit rating. In the debt markets, AIG also has to post additional collateral to investment banks and others it trades with.
Adding to AIG's woes, investors continued to pummel the company's stock on Tuesday, pushing the share price down another 21%, to $3.75. It was the third double-digit percentage decline in the last three trading days.
Federal officials worked throughout the day to help the company forestall a possible bankruptcy filing. Insurance regulators in New York, where AIG is based, are also working on a plan to let AIG move some assets into and out of its subsidiaries in order to be able to borrow up to $20 billion against some of them. But a spokesman says the department is confident it is protecting policyholders.
"Our deal is contingent on a broader solution to AIG's problems," says the department spokesman, David Neustadt.
AIG's cash squeeze is driven in large part by losses in a unit separate from its traditional insurance businesses. That financial-products unit, which has been a part of AIG for years, sold the credit-default swap contracts designed to protect investors against default in an array of assets, including subprime mortgages.
But as the housing market has crumbled, the value of those contracts has dropped sharply, driving $18 billion in losses over the past three quarters and forcing AIG to put up billions of dollars in collateral. AIG raised $20 billion earlier this year. But the ongoing demands are straining the holding company's resources.
That strain contributed to the ratings downgrades on Monday. Those downgrades, in turn, ratcheted up the pressure on the company to come up with more cash, quickly.
Most insurance companies don't have financial-products units like these. But over nearly four decades, former CEO, Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg built AIG into a firm that resembled no other. He transformed its insurance business, both by expanding abroad -- notably in China, where AIG has its roots -- and by buying up other firms.
Mr. Greenberg pushed into areas that have little to do with bread-and-butter businesses like selling life insurance or protecting companies against property losses. In 1990, for instance, he bought International Lease Finance Corp., which leases planes to airlines.
But in 2005, Mr. Greenberg stepped down amid an accounting scandal. But Mr. Greenberg, who is fighting civil charges related to the scandal and has denied wrongdoing, didn't fade from the scene. He still heads a firm that is AIG's largest shareholder, and on Tuesday, he sent a letter to current CEO, Robert Willumstad, saying he was "ready to offer any assistance that I can."
As confidence in AIG's fate has plummeted, the amount of money it feels compelled to raise to calm its many constituents continues to rise. Though $40 billion was the figure over the weekend, it climbed to 75 billion on Monday and, according to a person close to the company, to $100 billion on Tuesday.
The rapid escalation in its potential needs has raised the spectre of bankruptcy. In preparation for a possible bankruptcy filing, AIG has hired New York law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges to advise it. Weil is also working for Lehman Brothers Holdings, which filed for bankruptcy protection earlier this week.
The ratings downgrades also triggered a provision in some of AIG's large commercial insurance policies that allow holders to cancel the policies and recoup some of the premiums they paid, according a person familiar with the matter. It's not clear whether policyholders are exercising that right.
But insurance brokers are contending with worried clients who have policies issued by AIG. Daniel Glaser, the head of the brokerage unit at Marsh & McLennan Cos. (and a former AIG executive) posted a letter to customers on the company's Web site saying that AIG is "facing a liquidity crisis." Nonetheless, Mr. Glaser wrote that AIG meets the broker's "financial guidelines," despite recent rating downgrades. "Therefore, we have no restrictions on the use of AIG insurance company subsidiaries for client placements," Mr. Glaser wrote.
In Asia, where AIG operates a wide network of businesses, its affiliates sought to reassure clients that they had sufficient capital to meet all policy claims. Regulators in India, Hong Kong, Singapore and Thailand said local AIG units have enough capital to cover their obligations. Regulators in China said they were monitoring the situation.
Customers outside the U.S. accounted for 79% of AIG's insurance premiums for life insurance and retirement services last year. Japan and Taiwan are among AIG's largest markets.
Despite reassurances from regulators that their policies were covered and warnings that cancellations could lead to losses, dozens of people lined up outside AIG-affiliated offices in Singapore. Some waited for three hours to be attended by staffers. Others said that they wanted to make sure that their policies are safe, while others said they would cancel their policies.
Crocs
This is very scary.
The Fed could potentially take control of a private company via US Taxpayers money.
I am freaked out.
1I agree M3!
This whole thing is such a freakin mess! I'm soo scared.
These BIG companies should have NEVER issued loans to deliquent people who had a history of having a HARD time paying their bills. Now, we're all paying for it!
2This is getting scary. Where does the government stop?
3" Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama said he didn't receive a "satisfactory" answer from Mr. Paulson in an early conversation about the ultimate scope of government intervention. "I laid out -- where do you stop? Where do you draw the line?" "
4This has got to stop! What is happening to this country and government?
5This is going to get very ugly very quickly. I hope everyone has a nest egg of some sort to fall back on.
6This is absolutely terrifying! How are people not freaked out yet? At what point do we say enough is enough. We are on the fast track to communism at this point.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
7This is such awful news. Things just keep getting worse. How does it make sense for the tax payers to fund somebody else's poor risk analysis?
8i was with friends today who were excited about the bail outs and were hoping that the companies they invested in were going to receive the same treatment as AIG. People are so uneducated.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
9I have a college professor that friended me on Facebook, and his status is just ecstatic about this.
10Mich, I just don't understand how people are excited about this. Has our educational system really gotten so bad that people don't understand the implications of so much federal involvement? I swear it is a Liberal conspiracy to keep this country ignorant so that people will vote in Democratic leaders.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
11Everyone that's happy about it must own AIG stock.
I keep thinking back to the 80's when the government bailed out Chrysler. At that time, it was a long process, with lots of discussion about whether it would be a good idea or not. In the end, because it was one of the big three, it was decided that it was a good idea to preserve competition among auto makers. But that isn't the issue with AIG. We have several companies in that area. I think it should have been allowed to fail.
Looking forward, I guess the government is going to bail out a couple of the airlines soon too, if they won't let a business fail for fear of the economic crisis. I just hope they bail out my personal favorite airline, Midwest, because I love their chocolate chip cookies. :snob:
12Cine Im starting to think the very same things. This is horrifying.. when is it going to end.....
13They are happy because this is socialism starting. They are happy because the sheep think this is Bush's fault just like their hangnail and bad breath.
14I agree Ladies!!! I wish people would wake up. But, alas liberalism and ignorance are rampant in this country.
15imagine what will go on if the dems are in the white house
16What makes this matter even stranger is that AIG has the assets to cover its liabilities, but since it was downgraded it needed to come up with the money (supposedly) quicker than it would be able to liquidate the assets needed to cover the liabilities.
They can, theoretically, cover their debt, it's just that no one will lend them the money. This is pure craziness.
17If I may comment wasn't it a lack of oversight and regulation that got these companies into this crisis?
18On a separate note Liberals are not uneducated because we have different views on the way the federal government should govern.
I don't think anyone said liberals are uneducated... it was more of a statement that we're fed liberal bias throughout the educational system that we don't even notice there's another side to the story. But I could be incorrect since I did not post that original comment.
Also, we discussed it in another thread (perhaps it was private, not sure) but the fact is that regulation is what caused many of the problems (especially in the loan arena) since people in lower socioeconomic statuses were guaranteed loans so that the companies could not get sued for discriminatory lending practices, when - all in all - these people could simply not afford the loans...
and now the taxpayers are bailing out these companies for those reasons.
19AIG is not directly regulated by the federal government. These companies are private and run themselves. That's why it's such a big deal that the fed is stepping in to bail them out.
"It puts the government in control of a private insurer -- a historic development, particularly considering that AIG isn't directly regulated by the federal government. The Fed took the highly unusual step using legal authority granted in the Federal Reserve Act, which allows it to lend to nonbanks under "unusual and exigent" circumstances, something it invoked when Bear Stearns Cos. was rescued in March."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122156561931242905.html
20this hurts my soul
21"I swear it is a Liberal conspiracy to keep this country ignorant so that people will vote in Democratic leaders" This is the quote I was refering to.
The glass stegall act that was repelled in 1999 is the reason that the finacial services are failing. Not because they were afraid that they will get sued. Phil Gramm was the driving force behind the relaxing the act.
22ah, I see, there's only one reason for the problems.
23I was simply stating a reason why this is happening. I in no way am saying that is the only reason.
24well you sure dismissed my reason quickly.
25I just diagree with it that's all.
26well I think it's a little close minded to assume that people who cannot afford loans, but get them anyway, are not at least a part of the cause of the mortgage and financial disaster were in the midst of right now.
27Yes but why were they lent the money in the first place. Of course they are part of the reason this has happend. They don't sell cars to people who can't afford them so why do they give them home loans??
28because they were afraid of discrimination suits!
29isn't that what I initially said?
30Who does business like that? They loan people money beacuse they are afraid of getting sued?? I think that is a very weak argument.
31Well I think it is weak to dismiss it entirely. In fact, in this day and age, I believe tons of businesses tiptoe around issues for fear of lawsuits. Just look at physicians as an example!
I, ultimately, think that irresponsible lending is both the fault of the lender and the borrower. And I believe that the only way people will realize how irresponsible it was is if they suffer the consequences of it. Like their company going under, or their house getting foreclosed. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
32Carrie you can read an article about it here.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E5DC113FF933A05753C1A...
"Banks have been complaining for months about the Justice Department's zeal in trying to stamp out racial discrimination in lending. Now bank regulators are making some of the same complaints, creating a rift in the Clinton Administration.
Some bank officials say the Administration's aggressive enforcement approach is an effort to pursue social goals at the banks' expense, at a time the Government is strapped for money for Federal programs."
33I also think Fannie and Freddie, which were both created with the promise that the government would back up all of the high-risk loans they handed out, are a big part of the problem.
34I think this was in another article I posted, but basically, Fannie and Freddie privatized profit and socialized risk, which was very dangerous.
35Carrie, Sy is not throwing theory around, it is fact. As for my comment, I stand by it. I truly believe that our educational system is designed to keep our youth ignorant. Why else don't they teach history with out the PC spin? Why is it that our youth are bombarded with liberal bias everyday, especially stating that Republicans and conservatives are evil? If you disagree with my statement, then prove me wrong. But the Dems and liberals run our educational system in this country, and they are failing miserably.
36Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
Cine, I agree that the education system is designed to keep people ignorant. That's why we have so many required classes, but they don't bother to teach any real facts about economics. And they don't bother to teach people about the dangers of credit. Or even how to go about paying taxes.
And history classes absolutely have a bias to them. I never realized it until I started reading about history in books that weren't handed out by a public school.
37Well actually the education system is not run by the liberal dems it is run by the federal government. No Child Left Behind which was Bush's baby is the reason behind the failure of our education system. It is very restrictive and bases student achievement primarily on standardized tests. Being a teacher myself I am on the front lines of our failing education system I totally disagree with you. I have never heard of a teacher teaching that a conservative republican is evil and if they are that is totally irresponsible of them. Trust me Cine I am doing everything I can to keep our youth educated. Unless you are in classrooms every day cine I think that is a very tough statement for you to back up.
38The education system was failing long before No Child Left Behind. It's not as if we had this great educational system for years and all of a sudden, it went bust. Additionally, the education system is, by and large, not run by the federal government. I would think that as a teacher, you would know that.
39Well with NCLB it really is kim. I know that the states handle most of it but they have to follow what the feds say.
40I also think that it's such a childish argument for anyone to use that people can't back up their statements or that their opinions are somehow less valid because they don't have direct experience. In addition, I think cine is using the word ignorant in a very different way than you are.
41I completely disagree. The federal government is not in schools running them on a day-to-day basis.
42I didn't say that. I said that NCLB dictates what we have to teach. So they play a large roll in what we do.
43Actually, you said that the education system is run by the federal government. When I said it wasn't, you told me it really is.
44You may think it's childish to say what I said but I think it is real easy for people to criticize education and teachers based on what they read or hear on the news. I think if you don't have direct experience you should be reseptive and listen to those who do, kim.
45I don't think disagreeing shows a lack of listening or respect. I think dismissing one's ideas because that person's lack of direct experience shows a lack of listening and respect.
46I didn't say they are running it on a day-to-day basis. Obviously the states run their education systems. Because of NCLB the states have to enforce the laws that they set.
47You directly stated that the federal government runs the education system. And when I corrected you, you didn't say, well, it's a mix, or well, the federal government sets guidelines, but the states run the system. You told me I was wrong.
48My point is that the federal government does not run the educational system.
49This is getting ridiculous. The point, which you have conceded, is that the federal government does not run the educational system in this country, like you originally claimed.
50Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.