ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Commentary

: TalkLeft

The Geithner AIG Scandal

By Big Tent Democrat

ADVERTISEMENTS

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's answer on the the question of why AIG counterparties (most prominently Goldman Sachs) is laughably absurd:

Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, excoriated the New York Fed’s decision to pay 100 cents on the dollar to A.I.G.’s counterparties, including $2.5 billion to Goldman Sachs. “Isn’t it true that the New York Fed gave Goldman Sachs a better deal than it could have ever expected from A.I.G. or any other market player?” Mr. Kucinich asked.

Mr. Geithner replied: “Under the laws of the land, we did not have the ability. So we faced a very simple choice: Let A.I.G. default, or prevent it. And there was no way — financial, legal or otherwise — we could have imposed haircuts, selectively default on any of those institutions, without the risk of downgrade and default.” Mr. Geithner added that the negotiating position of A.I.G. was weak. With the ability to threaten default or allow A.I.G. to restructure in bankruptcy, negotiators were not in a position to make banks to take less on their contracts.

This is ridiculous. I'll explain why on the flip.

Geithner could have provided any number of answers to this question (in the national interest, etc.), but a lack of bargaining power on the part of the federal government in that situation is not one of them.

Geithner disingenuously couches the question as one of whether the federal government had the legal power to require haircuts from the AIG counterparties. That was not the issue. The issue was was the federal government going to come in and back AIG. Geithner argues that the counterparties could threaten the federal government in this situation because they could force AIG into default and bankruptcy. Excuse me? That was as much a threat to the AIG counterparties as the federal government (accepting the theory that an AIG failure would lead to a depression.) Think of it this way - how much of a haircut would the AIG counterparties have had to take if AIG went into bankruptcy? That was the bargaining power held by the federal government.

Geithner's answers are a disgrace. I do not believe them. He is an abject failure as Treasury Secretary.

He should resign.

Speaking for me only


Full post as published by TalkLeft on January 27, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0029 secs (from cache 10/31/26 07:44:38)