Mr. Obama - What happened to transparency?

[WhiskeyGirl]

"For the life of me I can't understand why the American people should not know who the counter parties are that have gotten these billions and billions of dollars through AIG," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Org., told Geithner at the hearing.

Geithner responded to Wyden and the other lawmakers that he "understood that view." He said that the AIG rescue was orchestrated largely by the Federal Reserve, and it would be up to the Fed to determine how much information to publicly disclose.

Conflicts of interest?  Who owns the Federal Reserve?  (NOT "who is a member")

read more here -
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200903121805DOWJONESDJONLINE001068_FORTUNE5.htm

[WhiskeyGirl]

I would like to see all the smiling faces of those that have bailout money in hand...  Maybe someone has the number of that website?  I can't seem to find it.

[nonesuche]

There is no transparency WG, only the Pelosi/Obama agenda. For Geithner to state the Federal Reserve can decide which details to share of the AIG debacle, is ludicrous. We as taxpayers supposedly 'own' a considerable amount of AIG now, so see we have no voice as Obama defines it.

What truly blows my mind is that we as Americans, would sit here and take that as a valid answer from his administration?

We need to have our heads examined.

[oldiebutgoodie]

AIG got into the business of insuring much of the world's financial system against the consequences of a global financial meltdown. It turned out to be incapable of delivering on that insurance—no private company could deliver on it, which is one reason why AIG's business of selling credit default swaps was a scam.

This is from Joe Nocera's column in Saturday's New York Times:

When you start asking around about how A.I.G. made money during the housing bubble, you hear the same two phrases again and again: “regulatory arbitrage” and “ratings arbitrage.” The word “arbitrage” usually means taking advantage of a price differential between two securities — a bond and stock of the same company, for instance — that are related in some way. When the word is used to describe A.I.G.'s actions, however, it means something entirely different. It means taking advantage of a loophole in the rules. A less polite but perhaps more accurate term would be “scam.”

When the Federal Reserve effectively took over AIG in mid-September (2008, that would be under the Bush Administration), fearful after the fall of Lehman Brothers of letting a firm even more central to global financial markets go belly up, the plan was for a quick turnaround: The government loaned AIG $85 billion on pretty tough terms, installed new management, and ordered the firm to start selling off its still-profitable insurance subsidiaries pronto to pay off the debt. But in the middle of a global financial crisis there aren't a lot of people who can afford to (or want) buy insurance companies. So in November the terms were relaxed and the bailout grew to $150 billion, and now they're easing yet again and the government is pumping in another $30 billion.

Costs keep going up on the AIG bailout not because CEO Ed Liddy is doing stupid stuff. All appearances are that he's trying to wind down the bad parts of the company as quickly and responsibly as possible and keep the rest alive. It's just that the losses are bigger than the government and the company anticipated, plus they keep growing as the global economy worsens.
SOURCE

I thought it would be helpful to get a little background on the whole AIG mess.

From the CNN article linked above by WhiskeyGirl, we learn:  "Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was looking at how to respond, but he noted there were some confidentiality issues that had to be resolved."

So, Mr. Bernanke is trying to reconcile the public's "right to know" with an insurance or banking company's need to protect the confidentiality of its business arrangements with its clients/customers. Apparently, AIG and others wish to reassure potential new business partners that their confidentiality will be protected. If they can't do business with anyone because there is zero confidentiality, then they fail and the bailout and all those billions will have been spent for nothing.

It is a balancing act. The Obama Administration seems to be very keen on transparency and disclosing data to the American public. Many lawmakers of both major political parties are demanding transparency.

And Mr. Bernanke is stuck in the middle of it all and seems to be the arbiter of what gets disclosed and what doesn't get disclosed.

Ben Bernanke succeeded Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United States Federal Reserve on February 1, 2006 during the Bush Administration.

[oldiebutgoodie]

MEMORANDUM FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government
 
 
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.  We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent.  Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.  Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.

Government should be collaborative.  Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperate among themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector.  Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.

I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.
 
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
 
This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.
 
BARACK OBAMA

[nonesuche]

A memorandum does not supercede the under the covers relationship which Obama has with Pelosi.

Smacks of do as I say and not as I do.

[oldiebutgoodie]

AIG Paying Millions in Bonuses Despite Receiving Federal Bailout

Despite receiving $170 billion in federal aid and recording a staggering loss for the last quarter, insurance giant American International Group is doling out tens of million of dollars in bonuses this week to senior employees.

While AIG agreed to pay the bonuses months before the government's rescue of the company began [DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION], the matter still is a source of anger for government officials. In a phone call on Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told AIG Chairman and chief executive Edward M. Liddy that the payments were unacceptable and needed to be renegotiated, according to an administration source.

The company has since agreed to change the terms of some of these payments. But in a letter to Geithner, Liddy wrote that the bonuses could not be cancelled altogether because the firm would risk a lawsuit for breaching employment contracts.

[...]

AIG has agreed to restructure the $9.6 million in bonuses it would have paid to the firm's top 50 officers. AIG's top seven executives, including Liddy, have already agreed to forgo this payment altogether. The next 43 highest ranking officers would still receive half of their bonuses now. A quarter would be dispersed on July 15 and the rest on Sept. 15, but these last two payments would be contingent on whether the company makes progress on its restructuring plan.

Other bonus payments to thousands of employees, which total in the hundreds of millions of dollars, are still on track to be paid out.

LINK

[nonesuche]

The sticking point that's part of the big picture not being portrayed here is that Wall Street traditionally structures executive pay with very low salary bases but with large upsides/incentives to compensate. As a result AIG does have an argument that the banks receiving TARP funding have essentially the same compensation structure. Those are defined in their employment contracts and should AIG just abandon all of the incentive payments then a possible class action suit is born.

Obama's bailout has addressed only shipping monies in, not once has his leadership examined the structure of pay for performance or not - on Wall Street. Perhaps that's because of the 19 positions attached to the Treasury and/or Commerce depts, have yet to be fulfilled by Obama and team?

This is a far bigger picture than they want to admit to.

[WhiskeyGirl]

I had the opportunity to talk politics the other day and was amazed at how angry the mortgage bailout makes some people.  If these homeowners are looking to stay in their home for the long term, why can't they pay off the loss in value, even if it is not paid off with interest?  Why should they get a free ride?

Car loans are upside down all the times, and no one asks for a bailout.  If these homeowners sell their home in the future, why shouldn't the government be in line for repayment?  Government sometimes does this to recover money spent on nursing home stays for the elderly.  Government looks for repayment of student loans.  Business people put liens on homes all the time.  

If Bernanke expects the recession to be over with in a year, why transfer all these losses to taxpayers in the first place?  Wouldn't it be easier for everyone if these people just downsized?

[WhiskeyGirl]

The sticking point that's part of the big picture not being portrayed here is that Wall Street traditionally structures executive pay with very low salary bases but with large upsides/incentives to compensate. As a result AIG does have an argument that the banks receiving TARP funding have essentially the same compensation structure. Those are defined in their employment contracts and should AIG just abandon all of the incentive payments then a possible class action suit is born.

Obama's bailout has addressed only shipping monies in, not once has his leadership examined the structure of pay for performance or not - on Wall Street. Perhaps that's because of the 19 positions attached to the Treasury and/or Commerce depts, have yet to be fulfilled by Obama and team?

This is a far bigger picture than they want to admit to.

Perhaps the current structure, low base pay and big bonus was intended to produce growth for the company?  What do they lose for failure?  Their bonus?  Their job?  Their stock options? 

What do stockholders gain from all these pay plans?  A pay for performance scheme?  What was the intention of the current system?  Pay for performance?