The Wonk Room

Bernanke: Nationalizing AIG ‘Would Have Been Far Preferable’ To The Current Situation

bennie.jpgToday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testified before Congress regarding the AIG bonus debacle. In his opening statement, Bernanke expressed remorse that AIG has not been nationalized:

If a federal agency had had such tools on September 16, they could have been used to put AIG into conservatorship or receivership, unwind it slowly, protect policyholders, and impose haircuts on creditors and counterparties as appropriate. That outcome would have been far preferable to the situation we find ourselves in now.

Indeed, a lot of the AIG mess could have been prevented if it was just nationalized at the beginning. Instead, it’s been kept alive by infusion after infusion of federal funds, without the government ever exercising any of the control that should come from an 80 percent ownership stake. As Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig pointed out, we’ve simply nationalized institutions “piecemeal, with no resolution of the crisis.”

Bernanke’s wider point, though, is that there is no formal process that currently exists for nationalizing huge, complex financial institutions. According to a Washington Post report, the administration is well aware of this, and is considering a plan that would grant Treasury such authority:

Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG’s most troubled unit. The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.

According to Reuters, the FDIC has also “hinted it could take on that job, with Chairman Sheila Bair saying recently that the agency’s model for failed banks works well.” Either way, the change would have to be passed through Congress.

Nationalizing these giant firms would not be easy or inexpensive. But, there is not much else that can feasibly be done with giants like AIG or Citigroup — they’re too-big-to-fail and in no shape to carry on as they once did. If nationalized, AIG and firms like it could be wound down and broken up, and hopefully a new regulatory framework will be implemented to keep firms from growing so large in the future.






One Response to “Bernanke: Nationalizing AIG ‘Would Have Been Far Preferable’ To The Current Situation”

  1. stateofthedivision Says:

    For AIG I don’t see how nationalization differs much from bankruptcy. AIG’s stock became a penny stock, thus shareholders took it majorly in the shorts.

    Judicial conservatorship provides the same benefits as Treasury conservatorship, contract renegotiation and creditor haircuts.

    The problem is all the credit bets placed on AIG. Are they handled differently in nationalization vs. bankruptcy? If so, CDS are the tail wagging the dog.

    I still don’t understand why AIG fully met its counterparty obligations. If The Carlyle Group can buy back affiliate debt for 23 cents on the dollar, why is AIG paying 100 cents on credit derivatives?



Jump to Top

About Wonk Room | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site) | RSS | Donate
© 2005-2008 Center for American Progress Action Fund
image Register imageimageRSSimageimage imageimage
image
Latest Posts

Advertisement

Issues

Alerts

image
Sign up for Wonk Room Alerts



image
Visit Our Affiliated Sites

image image
imageTopic Cloud


imageArchives


imageBlog Roll


imageAbout Wonk RoomimageimageContact UsimageimageDonateimage