AIG Bubble: Irrational Exuberance (By Janet Tavakoli)
Partial to truth, we're always happy to present Janet's articles. She's got a wicked sense of humor and a unique outlook with a strong bullshite filter. She's been warning about the dangers of credit derivatives at least since the publication of her Buffett book, and probably long before.
Mary Schapiro, if your minions are listening, get Tavakoli hired as a consultant to the SEC immediately. You have been talking publicly of late about the need for seasoned voices who understand derviatives. The answer is Janet Tavakoli and she can be reached here. Use our dollars wisely and get someone in there who understands systemic credit risk.
AIG Bubble: Irrational Exuberance
TSF – August 28, 2009
American International Group Inc.’s equity is currently worth zero, whatever manic depressive Mr. Market may say today. It is likely to remain zero based on AIG’s own analysis of its future over the next few years. In fact, its obligations to the U.S. Treasury would trade at a discount today. The only reason AIG’s stock should trade above zero today is if you believe crony capitalism will fund the birth of an AIG clone—in other words if you believe AIG’s future will be a rigged game.
Today’s Wall Street Journal reported that AIG has changed its timetable for selling assets. That was to be expected, because if it sold its assets quickly, shareholders would get nothing, and the government would not get paid in full. It is also AIG’s probable future scenario, albeit the losses may be mitigated.
AIG’s (nyse:AIG) new Chief Executive Robert Benmosche “is willing to wait as long as three years to spin off stakes in two multibillion-dollar foreign units.” He’s waiting for a “fair” price, and he admits that if he sells to soon (or doesn’t get a “fair” price), there will be losers all around.
Benmosche’s own analysis shows AIG “wouldn’t be able to repay the government even if it sold everything.” His strategy is loss mitigation, not a return to AIG’s salad days.
Even the U.S. Treasury, not known for its transparency or candor during this crisis, wrote that its AIG investment is highly speculative.
AIG seems disappointed that its Asia focused life insurance unit, American International Assurance Co. (“AIA”), might only raise more than $5 billion as estimated last spring, especially since AIG valued it at $20-$40 billion in February 2009. AIG is also disappointed with valuations for American Life Insurance Co (“Alico”).
As Mr. Benmosche pointed out: “If the U.S. government doesn’t continue to support AIG, we will fail. We have no right to use the government funding to make a profit; that is inappropriate.”
If the government’s new policy is to be long-term distressed private equity investors in entities like AIG, then the U.S. Treasury should get a share of the profits. The same goes for some former investment banks—now banks—with which we are long-term business partners. We support them with cheap funding and low borrowing costs due to our guarantees and ongoing liquidity support. We should ask for a large share of the profits, if any.
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).
Editor's note: take a look in our comments for links to more recent works from Ms. Tavakoli.
Aug 31, 2009 at 2:00 AM
Reader Comments (8)
http://dailybail.com/home/janet-tavakoli-where-were-the-drama-pundits-when-it-mattered.html
What Wall Street Owes You (By Janet Tavakoli)
http://dailybail.com/home/what-wall-street-owes-you-by-janet-tavakoli.html
Janet Tavakoli Talks About Banks, Derivatives, And Financial Meth Labs (C-SPAN Video With Brian Lamb)
http://dailybail.com/home/janet-tavakoli-talks-about-banks-derivatives-and-financial-m.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a.OzozJQwrjQ
Consumers’ Debt-Tactic Changes May Hurt Banks, Tavakoli Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=adCfAzsl1QcE#
http://www.tavakolistructuredfinance.com/press.html
RC
It was placed into a blind trust...I don't remember but i believe it was sold in its entirety...so Paulson got out of Goldman stock near the top...
But his reputation was at stake certainly...and perhaps i remember it incorrectly and not all the stock was sold...
Everything was sold and put into the blind trust, but what did the blind trust contain and was it really "blind"? Those are the questions people should be asking, but I think this is a dead end for trying to nail Paulson. I mean, isn't there enough already? It would be interesting if there were a smoking gun showing that Paulson knew what was in the trust and that it was heavy in financials or... dare I say, Goldman Sachs?
It is not that I am so clever, but that the others are so stupid.--Cleopatra, Act IV