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
It's Five Nights at Freddy's Again! - 12th Jan 25
Squid Game Stock Market 2025 - 5th Jan 25
Stock Market Bubble Drivers, Crypto Exit Strategy During Musk Presidency - 27th Dec 24
Gold Stocks’ Remain Exceptionally Weak Even as Stocks Rise - 27th Dec 24
Gold’s Remarkable Year - 27th Dec 24
Stock Market Rip the Face Off the Bears Rally! - 22nd Dec 24
STOP LOSSES - 22nd Dec 24
Fed Tests Gold Price Upleg - 22nd Dec 24
Stock Market Sentiment Speaks: Why Do We Rely On News - 22nd Dec 24
Never Buy an IPO - 22nd Dec 24
THEY DON'T RING THE BELL AT THE CRPTO MARKET TOP! - 20th Dec 24
CEREBUS IPO NVIDIA KILLER? - 18th Dec 24
Nvidia Stock 5X to 30X - 18th Dec 24
LRCX Stock Split - 18th Dec 24
Stock Market Expected Trend Forecast - 18th Dec 24
Silver’s Evolving Market: Bright Prospects and Lingering Challenges - 18th Dec 24
Extreme Levels of Work-for-Gold Ratio - 18th Dec 24
Tesla $460, Bitcoin $107k, S&P 6080 - The Pump Continues! - 16th Dec 24
Stock Market Risk to the Upside! S&P 7000 Forecast 2025 - 15th Dec 24
Stock Market 2025 Mid Decade Year - 15th Dec 24
Sheffield Christmas Market 2024 Is a Building Site - 15th Dec 24
Got Copper or Gold Miners? Watch Out - 15th Dec 24
Republican vs Democrat Presidents and the Stock Market - 13th Dec 24
Stock Market Up 8 Out of First 9 months - 13th Dec 24
What Does a Strong Sept Mean for the Stock Market? - 13th Dec 24
Is Trump the Most Pro-Stock Market President Ever? - 13th Dec 24
Interest Rates, Unemployment and the SPX - 13th Dec 24
Fed Balance Sheet Continues To Decline - 13th Dec 24
Trump Stocks and Crypto Mania 2025 Incoming as Bitcoin Breaks Above $100k - 8th Dec 24
Gold Price Multiple Confirmations - Are You Ready? - 8th Dec 24
Gold Price Monster Upleg Lives - 8th Dec 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