This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Federal Reserve Moral Hazard Smoking Gun: In August 2008 Goldman Was Willing To Tear Up AIG Derivative Contracts, Offered To Take Haircut

Tyler Durden's picture





 

As observant readers will recall, a week ago we pointed out a letter in which the New York Fed's Steven Manzari instructed AIG to stand down on all discussions with counterparties on "tearing up/unwinding CDS trades on the CDO portfolio." At the time we focused on the word "stand down" as an indication of the Fed's lead role in the process. At this point there is no doubt that the FRBNY, together with its law firm, Davis Polk, were in the pilot's seat during the entire AIG negotiation, and while Tim Geithner may not have been the responsible man for this, someone must have been - and for the record, our money is a double or nothing on recently promoted FRBNY Senior Vice President Sarah Dahlgren, who as of January 21st is in charge of the Fed's Special Investments [AIG] Management Group. We sure hope Sarah gets the chance to recall her memories beginning in the fateful month of September 2008 when she became the person in charge of the FRBNY's AIG relationship. But back to the letter - little did we know that our focus was on the right sentence... but on the wrong word. What should have struck us front and center, was Habayeb's admission that contract "tear downs" had been evaluated. This means that someone, aside from AIG, must have expressed an interest in a tear down, which if true would have dramatic consequences for the entire AIG debacle. Today, the WSJ presented the missing piece of the puzzle.

In tonight's Heard On The Street section, the WSJ notes:

As everybody knows, AIG got a huge government bailout in September 2008
to help make payments on derivatives contracts with banks, including
Goldman. Yet in the previous month, Goldman approached AIG about
"tearing up" its contracts, according to a November 2008 analysis by BlackRock, then an adviser to the New York Fed. S
o was Goldman prepared to offer AIG a haircut in the month before its
rescue? A legitimate question, given that Goldman refused to accept
such a cut when the New York Fed raised the idea after it bailed out
AIG.

The implications of this discovery are huge as they essentially destroy all the arguments presented by the FRBNY about an inability to extract concession out of Goldman (which being the largest AIG CDO counterparty, was the critical negotiating factor). It also casts doubt on the veracity of any arguments presented in Congress by Goldman representatives discussing the potential to take a haircut on their AIG exposure. What this means in plain English is that, in the month before the Fed entered the scene, GOLDMAN SACHS ITSELF OFFERED TO TEAR DOWN THE CDS ON AIG'S CDO PORTFOLIO (we don't use caps lock lightly). This is basically a smoking gun on the moral hazard issue perpetrated by the FRBNY when it got involved, and indicates that through their involvement, Tim Geithner, Sarah Dahlgren or whoever, not only did not save US taxpayers' money, but in fact ended up costing money, when they funded the marginal difference between par (the make whole price given to all AIG counterparties after AIG was told to back off in its negotiations) and whatever discount would have been applicable to the contract tear down that had been proposed by Goldman a mere month earlier. This, more so than anything presented up to now, is the true scandal behind the New York Fed's involvement.

If this November Blackrock report indeed exists, and if Goldman did in fact offer to tear down contracts, this is an act of near criminal implications and heads at the FRBNY must roll immediately.

We hope this is the number one question asked by Chairman Towns of Mr. Geithner. But as the latter will plead the fifth due to his lack of involvement, we kindly suggest that the correct person, the person who can not claim lack of knowledge on the AIG situation due to a prior recusal, and is therefore the right person to grill before a live studio audience, is the FRBNY's Sarah Dahlgren: as it stands, Wednesday will merely be yet another spectacle, in which Geithner will claim stupidity, and this time very likely get away with it: is there any wonder why he agreed to provide testimony so promptly after his "invitation." What about Goldman's Stephen Friedman - did he accept the invitiation yet? How about Goldman's Hank Paulson? It sure must be nice to have the luxury to kindly decline the privilege of providing sworn testimony, and avoid perjury.

Goldman representatives, Lloyd Blankfein among them preferably, have to be on the stand next to Geithner, as they are the people who have bee at the core of this whole problem from the start till bitter end.

Last but not least, was it not Mr. Blankfein who just two weeks ago, before the FCIC committee, noted he had never gotten a request to take less than 100 cents on the dollar on AIG CDS? So what happens if it was he who offered less than 100 cents? Should that maybe have been at least mentioned in passing? Is that some equivalent of perjury, or will the semantics lawyers come out in force?

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:22 | Link to Comment Anal_yst
Anal_yst's picture

I think its less conspiracy and more just incompetence and ineptitude on behalf of the Fed (and all ther other regulators/enforcement bodies, of course)...

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:55 | Link to Comment ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

I disagree, it was clearly intentional.  no way in hell the NYFed didn't know about these precendent setting settlements, settled only weeks prior.

http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/117_147/-293049-1.html

These were big news at the time, because everyone was afraid of the failure of the FG's.  And these transactions were facilitated by the state of NY.  Everyone on the street new about them.  There was a precedent set.  Transactions were settled for 40-60cents on the dollar, and no one failed, there was no systemic collapse.

And the NYFed ignored that precedent.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:35 | Link to Comment Careless Whisper
Careless Whisper's picture

near criminal implications

strap on a pair of balls and call it what it is

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 07:53 | Link to Comment BoeingSpaceliner797
BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

Treason.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 09:57 | Link to Comment Mr. Anonymous
Mr. Anonymous's picture

+100

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 19:39 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Watch Darrell Issa tomorrow...

http://www.jubileeprosperity.com/

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 03:07 | Link to Comment Dirtt
Dirtt's picture

I actually have less tolerance for incompetance vs. criminality in these matters.

 

Ineptitude means they should all just walk away from their posts.  "Any idiot can screw up" is comforting how?  And current court jester should be reconfirmed why?  The Clinton Admin. made a mockery of forgetfulness.  (the Nixon people were kicking themselves in the ass)  At least the criminal in some ways has a greater moral standard in that he isn't a bullshit artist too.

 

Incompetence Defense should cost more than outright 'guilty'.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 09:58 | Link to Comment Mr. Anonymous
Mr. Anonymous's picture

Prove to us, sir, that you are a crook and not a moron and we will go easier.  The burden is on you.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 14:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 11:52 | Link to Comment Orly
Orly's picture

Anal,

You are as blind and naive as the day is long.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:25 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:24 | Link to Comment deadhead
deadhead's picture

The hits just keep on coming.

As the timeline continues to unfold, many of the so called "conspiracy" theories seem to be playing out as the truth.

Though the focus on this matter appears to be the NY Fed, the bottom line is that  this is on Bernanke's watch as are so many other failed matters.

President Obama: This guy has your "strongest support"?

The US Senate needs to have these questions answered and must vote "no" on the cloture motion so that a proper and reasonable investigation can take place. 

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 04:33 | Link to Comment MrPalladium
MrPalladium's picture

"the bottom line is that  this is on Bernanke's watch as are so many other failed matters."

Bingo. It should be clear to all by now that the Fed made a policy decision that they simply would not (and will not to this day) accept any liqidation of debt - as would occur in a CDS tear up. In a financial system geared 30 to 1, the contraction of debt - even of a few parties that could afford it - could cascade when the effects of contracting credit among the strong cause the strong to curtail marginal lending to the weak.

In essence, the prohibition on the liquidation of debt and the contraction of credit is a "monetary policy" decision that the Fed dare not explain, because to do so would require that they confess just how unstable they allowed the financial system which they regulate to become. They chose instead to have the public think they were just slopping the goodies on their pals on Wall Street - which of course they did.

Frankly, I am surprised that the Fed prefers to be though of as corrupt and criminal, rather than merely asleep at the switch.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 07:35 | Link to Comment Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

And from the WSJ, not a publication you could deem run by the tin hat crowd.  Timmah's testimony will be "must see" TV, but I must say I agree with the prediction that Timmah will simply plead that he had already gone into seclusion in preparation for his Ascension to Treasury, and had no knowledge of these proceedings.  Then that leads to Ben, who heads the FRB and on whose watch this thievery occurred.  It's called "accountability."  I also agree that if you want to get the real story, the underlings must be called in, and when you get the story , then bring in the big fish.  An investigation, not a staged conversation, is what we need.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 08:59 | Link to Comment deadhead
deadhead's picture

+1

Thanks Ned!

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 11:18 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:50 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 19:42 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

CNBC.com polls with over 10,000 votes have

51% thumbs down on BB and 77% down on TG...

http://www.jubileeprosperity.com/

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:22 | Link to Comment Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh's picture

Put this is the previous AIG post comments, but looks like Barofsky has something to say about this too:

TARP IG opens new probes of AIG

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31995.html

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:26 | Link to Comment deadhead
deadhead's picture

Thanks for the link and info, Gilga.

Let's hope those folks in the US Senate come to their senses very soon.  An investigation must be conducted before Bernanke is given another 4 years.

And for the love of all that is sane, please remove Geithner from his US government post as he is an absolute embarrassment.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 01:50 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 07:37 | Link to Comment Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

He has been remarkably ineffective, largely due to utter lack of interest on the part of the MSM and the American Idol audience.

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:23 | Link to Comment GoldmanSux
GoldmanSux's picture

It is absurd we still have to speculate about this. My vote goes to Don Kohn who is the uncrowned King. Regardless, we have been told Geitner is not involved. Well then, who the hell is? Who made these decisions without Geitner's approval? Not one so called journalist has asked this question, nor one congressperson. Let's get on it, you incompetent fools!

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:45 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 09:48 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:25 | Link to Comment Daedal
Daedal's picture

Where the hell is Cuomo?!

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 10:01 | Link to Comment koaj
koaj's picture

busy going after process servers and having tea with david patterson

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 11:39 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:26 | Link to Comment Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

 

This ceaselessly erupting scandal will be the political death of the Obama Administration, if it's not too late already.  It is marked by all the greed, hubris, arrogance and condescension of the classics (Watergate, Iran-Contra etc).

The principals involved should do the honorable thing and at least offer to resign.  More importantly, the White House and Big Mojo Handlers need to get off the schneid and FIRE IMPORTANT PEOPLE which is the only firewall left.  Otherwise it's 'what did the White House know and when did they know it' time.

Oh well, the Bubble of Unreality in DC remains the most important bubble among all the bubblicious bubbles going.  Too much power and Xanax will do that to an elite.

I guess the fine and noble patriotic aspirations of the Obamanauts will simply founder and sink on billions of dollars of dirty payola, and the ensuing coverup.  Rinse and repeat.

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:27 | Link to Comment deadhead
deadhead's picture

This ceaselessly erupting scandal will be the political death of the Obama Administration

FEDGATE

FEDGATE

FEDGATE

FEDGATE

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 03:19 | Link to Comment Master Bates
Master Bates's picture

I think that no matter what Obama does, he can't save this nation from its deep, structural problems.  He will be regarded as the next Hoover in 50 years, whether he likes it or not.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 05:39 | Link to Comment jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

when one seeks continuity and bipartisanship don't be surprised when history can't remember exactly which decision was obama's and which bush's.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 09:45 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 07:00 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 10:13 | Link to Comment BoeingSpaceliner797
BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:01 | Link to Comment Orly
Orly's picture

It should be obvious to all well-informed observers that all these boys are part and parcel to the entire shenanigans.

I do get a kick out of people who still believe in Red = Good, Blue = Bad, though.

Wake up, people!  This scheme has been in place since the middle of the Second World War. Just have a gander at what Averill Harriman and his good friend Prescott Bush were up to and that will go a long way toward clearing all this up.

:D

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:39 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 03:20 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 10:23 | Link to Comment Cheeky Bastard
Cheeky Bastard's picture

I think you have mistaken this site for HuffPost. Go there you goddamn fanboy. 

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 10:45 | Link to Comment BoeingSpaceliner797
BoeingSpaceliner797's picture

Hello Cheeky,

Glad to see you here.  Wish more folks on both "sides" of the alleged aisle understood, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss," aren't just words at the end of a song.  Hope all is well with you.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 19:20 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 13:41 | Link to Comment Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

Sigh, eyeroll....politics 101: It isn't the crime, it's the COVER-UP

The Bad Things are happening now which is easily proven by the fact that we have to dig and post this stuff ourselves, here on this site and other fabulous sites, and have it trickle, or ooze, into the mainstream media, and have Congressional committees and independent investigators and Bloomberg lawsuits fight and scrap for every little memo and email and telephone log.

Obama is strapped to this thing and it is going very, very deep into the ocean.  The Abyss, if you will.  To fail to see that is to be doomed to a very tragic end.  The principals all work for him!!!!!  He is responsible for their past and present conduct inasmuch as he retains their services (and those of Enron lobbyists to pimp their Congressional rides).

Get a fucking clue.  I voted for Obama, you think I like this?  I do not!  But I can see the goddamn nose on the end of my face.  Apparently the 'new best and brightest' in DC cannot.

No One Is Immune To The Iron Laws Of Scandal

No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition

Knock Knock

You're IT

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:40 | Link to Comment illyia
illyia's picture

Fine job, Tyler.

You are getting quite the "rep" around the internets for these reports.

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:43 | Link to Comment mthomas
mthomas's picture

boy is that Sarah Dahlgren hideous looking, besides being engaged in a huge amount of corruption

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:31 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:43 | Link to Comment glenlloyd
glenlloyd's picture

Fedgate

It's like any government subsidy, if the Fed is providing it everyone takes all that they can get because it clearly doesn't hurt anyone. (sarcasm intended)

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:43 | Link to Comment straightershooter
straightershooter's picture

One Big American Mistake, Axxxxxxxx!

Is that  what "OBAMA" means Changes you can believe in!

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:45 | Link to Comment myshadow
myshadow's picture

"We hope this is the number one question asked by Chairman Towns of Mr. Geithner. But as the latter will plead the fifth due to his lack of involvement,"

 

Well, he can't/won't.  First if one 'pleads the fifth', they would have to apply it to every question.  Second if a sitting cabinet official plead the fifth, it would be grounds for immediate dismissal.
Also, if congress offered him immunity he would have to spill if he took it.  He will, I'm sure, be less than forthcoming.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:05 | Link to Comment Orly
Orly's picture

Here's a warm-up:

"I do not recall that."

"I'll have to refer to my notes on that, Senator.  I'll have my staff get back to you."

"I'm sorry.  I just don't recall that conversation."

"Not that I am aware of, Senator."

We should have a running list of phrases and count how many times Geithner and Pauslon say these things.  It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:52 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:47 | Link to Comment bingocat
bingocat's picture

WSJ says...

"Yet in the previous month, Goldman approached AIG about "tearing up" its contracts, according to a November 2008 analysis by BlackRock, then an adviser to the New York Fed. So was Goldman prepared to offer AIG a haircut in the month before its rescue? A legitimate question..."

There is NOTHING in there which says that GS was offering to take less than 100cts on every dollar they were owed - not one tiny implication. If you had been trading and AIG was still alive but clearly in pain, what would you have done? I know what I would have done - I would have called them and offered to unwind, at a price, and squeezed them for 110cts on the dollar. GS was the only possible c/p for unwind and GS knew that. And they would not have tried to squeeze a little extra? Come on...

This is a time-honored tradition for brokers - offer to take your customers out of their pain on the wide side of the bid-offer when they are struggling to stay alive or when their asset starts spiralling downwards. It happens every single time an asset or a client blows up. Why would this time have been different? I bet GS is happy they didn't, but I guess they figured they had market demand to buy the AIG name protection they were long, and they could buy on the low side of a wide bid/ask, and they knew they were big (every sell-side trader knows that if you are unwinding THE BIG TRADE you start before the top (or before the bottom if you are short)) so I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:59 | Link to Comment taraxias
taraxias's picture

Tim, is that you?

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 01:07 | Link to Comment bingocat
bingocat's picture

Oops. I've been outed. 

:^)

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:12 | Link to Comment Unscarred
Unscarred's picture

WSJ says...

 

"Yet in the previous month, Goldman approached AIG about "tearing up" its contracts, according to a November 2008 analysis by BlackRock, then an adviser to the New York Fed. So was Goldman prepared to offer AIG a haircut in the month before its rescue? A legitimate question..."

 

There is NOTHING in there which says that GS was offering to take less than 100cts on every dollar they were owed - not one tiny implication.

I agree.  There is nothing that explicitly states otherwise.  That's what makes it A LEGITIMATE QUESTION.  Please, try not to allow your predisposition to complete the story in your mind before you've actually read it.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:19 | Link to Comment Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

Tear downs with distressed counterparties at par plus? Good luck. Even a 1 cent discount to par implies a willingness for a haircut. How big of a haircut will become obvious as soon as the Blackrock report becomes public (paging Darrell Issa).

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:49 | Link to Comment ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

Exactly, I posted this below but it deserves a repeat:

http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/117_147/-293049-1.html

Note the date.  August 4, 2008.  Exactly when AIG was negotiating with its counterparties.  These were the same transactions.  There was a precedent.

And Geithner blew that precedent to hell.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 01:52 | Link to Comment Unscarred
Unscarred's picture

Tyler, did you assume that my comment was directed towards you and not towards bingocat?  I'll rephrase my original post to remove any ambiguity.

 

[Edited]

'Edit' option not available after my comment, so I'll do it here:

WSJ says...  "Yet in the previous month, Goldman approached AIG about "tearing up" its contracts, according to a November 2008 analysis by BlackRock, then an adviser to the New York Fed..."

bingocat says... "There is NOTHING in there which says that GS was offering to take less than 100cts on every dollar they were owed - not one tiny implication."

@bingocat:

I agree that there is nothing explicitly stating "...that GS was offering to take less than 100cts on every dollar they were owed," but the implication is blatantly obvious.  At this point, you're simply debating semantics.

WSJ says... "So was Goldman prepared to offer AIG a haircut in the month before its rescue? A legitimate question, given that Goldman refused to accept such a cut when the New York Fed raised the idea after it bailed out AIG."

ABSOLUTELY this is a LEGITIMATE QUESTION.  That's the entire purpose of this story- to help ensure that this question gets asked and answered on the record.  If you fail to recognize this, it stems from your predisposition to complete the WSJ story in your mind before you've actually finished reading it.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 04:50 | Link to Comment A Man without Q...
A Man without Qualities's picture

The way GS would value unwind would be the value of the contract, adjusted for the credit risk of AIG.  Although the trades were collaterized, we don't know the exact terms and it may be that there was a loss provision, so they could appear to offer a haircut, but would infact represent a return of more than 100% of where they valued the position.

 

This does happen often with distressed credits.

Wed, 01/27/2010 - 22:14 | Link to Comment bingocat
bingocat's picture

Thank you.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 01:06 | Link to Comment Chumly
Chumly's picture

Really, in the end who needs a smoking gun?  Not that there isn't one here and that it should not continue to be brought to light by ZH and the underground press, but the "political" implications alone are too damaging to keep Timmy around.  Barry-O can't afford to stay behind the curve of the ground swell of anti-GS, anti-Fed. anti-everything status quo in this country.  The 2010 and 2012 elections don't bode well for the elite in DC.  Forget the Watergate-type potential of this circus.  This is much greater and much deeper than any other scandal in this country's history.  The average citizen, and I'm not even talking about the Tea Partier-types here, is becoming more and more knowledgeable about the seriousness and the depth of this crisis as each day passes.  Even they are becoming more informed about what brought us to this breaking point (the corrupt oligarchy), this point of no return, that all of it has been one big ruse for a long time.  Smooth-talking politicians will not be able to save their skin this time around, as things progressively deteriorate,  and nothing will be able to contain the anger of the citizenry then.  Just wait until the average private worker in this country discovers that the average government worker makes twice as much as he or she does and he or she is paying for it to boot...it will get ugly very quickly.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:17 | Link to Comment Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

Which is why haircuts are so industry standard that the agreements with the Fed had to have the percentage writedown CROSSED OUT BY HAND to get to par...right, Einstein?

I think you are mixing up your markets here.  Margin calling a day trader or condo flipper "in pain" (how noble--did you get, what, three grand?) isn't much like having multi-billion-dollar, yet purely speculative, assets go to zero.  At all.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:46 | Link to Comment ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

Your analysis absolutely fails when you consider Ambac and other financial guarantors settled nearly identical transactions with other Wall Street banks for 40-60 cents on the dollar in August.

No doubt Goldman saw that a precendent was being set and was willing to negotiate, and other evidence supports this view (reportedly AIG was negotiating to pay, guess what, 40 cents on the dollar, exactly the precendent that was set).

Then the Fed stepped in and paid 100 cents on the dollar.

http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/117_147/-293049-1.html

"New York insurance superintendent Eric Dinallo said that pact between SCA and Merrill could serve as "template" for others between insurers and counterparties. Merrill has said it is negotiating settlements on CDO hedges with MBIA Inc. and other lower-rated bond insurers."

"New York insurance law says that credit default swaps are not considered insurance, and, in the event of regulatory takeover, the claims of CDS holders would be subordinate to insured policyholders, even if the CDS contracts say otherwise, Haines wrote in a recent report. This gives the counterparties an incentive to get capital now - essentially jumping municipal policyholders - rather than wait for regulatory intervention, which could make their holdings "worthless"."

 

 

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 01:41 | Link to Comment TimmyM
TimmyM's picture

Wasn't the CDO insurance paid in the future without a collateral call? While the CDS contracts were backed daily? I am not saying there should not have been a haircut, but the uncollateralized insurance may have been worth less.

Also, the context of the specific business arrangements created different incentives for the parties to settle. How Merrill through regulatory/accounting arbitrage was abusing SCA's balance sheet was also different than how GS was abusing AIG's balance sheet. The culpability was different. I am not saying which one was worse.

Also, there was an issue of where in the corporate structure the insured liability fell. CDS or insurance written in a holding company or an insurance subsidiary all makes a difference.

Yes there is no question of a precedent of haircut. The magnitude cannot be directly extrapolated.

 

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:48 | Link to Comment tom a taxpayer
tom a taxpayer's picture

Ghostfaceinvestah - Excellent point. The 40-60 cents on the $ was the prevailing environment at the time of AIG bailout, yet FED offers 100 cents. Even recognizing TimmyM's point about a possible adjustment in the magnitude of the haircut, the extreme shock and scandal of the FED paying par is because the FED's sweetheart gift is completely at odds with the prevailing hard-nosed less-than-par environment. 

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 04:11 | Link to Comment bingocat
bingocat's picture

Yes, I admit it is worth the question to investigate. Everything is.

Assuming GS was not lying when it said it had sufficient AIG name protection, accepting a haircut on a tear-up might have been a good idea on the underlying risk because the net difference in collateral posted in and back out the other side vs the mark spread (mark vs AIG vs mark to the other side) may have been positive but unless they had an out for the massive name protection position, that would have been a big naked residual risk. If they could have sold that protection on the offer, that would have been an excellent reason to tear up even at a discount. Otherwise, assuming GS had a collateral and mark spread, and name protection, letting it drag on was probably the more appropriate risk solution (if not the most politically friendly solution).

Ghostfaceinvestah, I know of the FG situations. I don't believe the FG tear-ups were completely obvious and applicable precedents to the AIG situation based on the fact that AIG was also an insurer. The FG tear-ups were against US insurers, which are not eligible for protection/benefits under Bankruptcy Code (they get put into run-off by relevant state insurance departments). AIG and AIG FP were not insurers - they were/are financial companies which owned insurance operations as equity owners - and were very much subject to Bankruptcy Code. If we assume that all the insurance operating units/subs of AIG were solvent (make it clean), then parentco/FP counterparts DID have super-senior rights against the whole of the equity of the AIG empire, AND were backstopped by the $50-odd billion of unsecured debt taken out by the AIG parent and AIG FP, the owners of which were behind the derivs C/Ps in any waterfall (if one could even trust that anymore, which was no longer a no-brainer after the automaker debacles). If THAT was worth 40cts on the dollar (when AIG/FP senior debt was 80cts of the payoff), that would have meant the AIG parent was substantially liable to its subs, which would have meant the subs were NOT wholly protected from AIG parent bankruptcy (which meant all the state insurance depts were also lying). If the whole of the equity ownership of the empire of solvent insurance operating units globally were not worth more than $15-20bn in a fire sale, then we'd run into issues of GS, SocGen, and friends not getting their 100cts of their money back over time (NPV-ing that is obviously a different issue). That said, noone anywhere (other than perhaps Michael Hirsh's hasty/ugly article in Mar09) suggested that the combined sale value of all the fully solvent AIG subs was going to be worth less than a boatload of money, even in a fire sale.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 04:08 | Link to Comment Rick64
Rick64's picture

 I would have called them and offered to unwind, at a price, and squeezed them for 110cts on the dollar. GS was the only possible c/p for unwind and GS knew that. And they would not have tried to squeeze a little extra? Come on...

 Even if they were going to default and go bankrupt? Yeah that maneuver would have been difficult to say the least.

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:47 | Link to Comment Reven
Reven's picture

If AIG had defaulted on their derivatives obligations it could have caused a chain reaction of panic and loss of confidence in the entire derivatives market bringing the entire financial system down.  It can be argued that such a ponzi system deserves to fail so a stable system can replace it, but it's so much easier to kick the can down the road and inject a little moral hazard and printed money to keep the ponzi going as long as you possibly can.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:51 | Link to Comment ghostfaceinvestah
ghostfaceinvestah's picture

Bullshit.  I will post a link to this article 100x if I have to: not a month before the financial guarantors settled identical positions for 40-60cents on the dollar, and it precipitated no collapse.  In fact, those transactions were facilitated by the NY Insurance Commissioner at the time.

http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/117_147/-293049-1.html

There was no excuse for settling at 100 cents on the dollar

Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:50 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:27 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 23:52 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 04:14 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 10:10 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 05:56 | Link to Comment jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

like the name.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:05 | Link to Comment Chumly
Chumly's picture

Inside of a month Geithner gone - anyone???  Obama should "Bork" ZB for the re-appointment and sit down with TTT and help him with the resignation letter, do a RR-type Iran-Contra speech, admit we're in a depression, that Keynsian econ didn't work and roll-out Volcker 2.0....It won't fix this mess, but it would be a start.  Of course, he'd still have to deal with the wicked Babylonian bankers and their Russian mafia hit men (you know, those ex-KGB guys running the porn web sites out of Israel).

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:05 | Link to Comment Stuart
Stuart's picture

I'm gonna need more popcorn, lots more popcorn.   Oh my...I smell blood, lots more blood.

 

 

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 11:48 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:07 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:11 | Link to Comment tewkatz
tewkatz's picture

This is a misinterpretation - they meant "tearing up" over their AIG contracts...they were going to make so much money, it made them cry.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:11 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:22 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:43 | Link to Comment Assetman
Assetman's picture

I didn't know quite where to place my comments, but it totally agree that the NYFRB has been doing some nasty stuff that stinks to high heaven-- and perhaps, the AIG debacle is just the tip of the iceberg.

In short, there are two things I take from the AIG timeline: (1) there's an active coverup going on within the NYFRB, and apparently, it's bad enough to invoke the "national security" card as a cloak; and (2) this has the fingerprints of Timmy Geithner near it-- he may not have been involved in the dirty little details, but his preference to save the banks at everyone else's expense is very well known.  He may not have cared how it "got done", but it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that Timmy commanded 100% payout-- no matter what.

The NYFED looks more like a money laundering operation for the elite than anything else.  The more they lie and conceal, the more I want to see the very senior level people on trial.

Not that we'll ever see that in the light of day...

 

 

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 07:47 | Link to Comment Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

Timmah is a tool. He follows orders.  He is a plutocrat sychophant.  The corruption that needs to be rooted out extends to Bernanke, Summers, Geithner and, as a recipient of large GS political contributions for which the AIG bailout was part-compensation, Obama himself.  There's no getting around it. 

We can only hope this ends badly for them.  It is getting interesting, that is for sure. Look for Tim to assume new attitudes of righteous indignation tomorrow, and interesting shades of red. And to those who predict our imminent demise if we do not blindly follow our so called "leaders", I say go straight back to hell where you came from.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 09:03 | Link to Comment deadhead
deadhead's picture

Ned is correct.  Tim Geithner has been and still is a complicit waterboy.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:12 | Link to Comment bugs_
bugs_'s picture

Brian Sack.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:23 | Link to Comment Giovanni Zucchetti
Giovanni Zucchetti's picture

LMAO.

 

Read it again, Sam.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:34 | Link to Comment Quantum Noise
Quantum Noise's picture

For fuck's sake, Tyler, how many times does Timmay have to remind you to stop digging into this shit since it's a matter of national security? Do you really want to hurt the children?

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:51 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 20:00 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

edited out

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 19:56 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Censored...

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:52 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 00:58 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 01:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 01:32 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 01:36 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 01:36 | Link to Comment Bear
Bear's picture

IHRA = Immoral Hazard Run Amok

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:18 | Link to Comment tom a taxpayer
tom a taxpayer's picture

 

Tyler - Regarding: "Last but not least, was it not Mr. Blankfein who just two weeks ago, before the FCIC committee, noted he had never gotten a request to take less than 100 cents on the dollar on AIG CDS?"

However, according to SIGTARP: "On November 6 and 7 2008 FRBNY [staff]...contacted eight of AIGFP's largest counterparties (...Goldman Sachs...) by telephone. They [FRBNY staff] described a proposal under which each counterparty was asked to take a haircut from par." SIGTARP-10-003 Nov 17,2009 page 15

"According to Goldman Sachs, it had one telephone conversation with the FRBNY staff in which the possibility of concesssions was mentioned. Goldman Sachs has since explained that it did not agree to concessions because it would have realized a loss if it had." SIGTARP-10-003 Nov 17,2009 page 16

Might Lloyd have some explaining to do?

 

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:13 | Link to Comment darkpool2
darkpool2's picture

ok, we can generally accept the premises that FRBNY was fully alert to the following; a)the street was aware of precedent setting discounts on settling CDS contracts, and b) AIG was known to be in a financially stressed state. Therefore to me the interesting questions revolve not around whether they willfully/stupidly/ or criminally ignored these facts and offered 100cents, but rather what was their motive in doing so. Back-door bailouts, protecting the insiders etc etc.....inquiring minds want to know.   

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:14 | Link to Comment Chopshop
Chopshop's picture

excellent reporting and analysis.

legality and lies aside: the bottom line remains the same as yesterday and seventeen months ago ... price discovery is a major no-no.  period. 

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:16 | Link to Comment Hustler Elite
Hustler Elite's picture

"this is an act of near criminal implications and heads at the FRBNY must roll immediately."

 

If this is true (and anyone with even a molecule of a brain knows it is) then Congress should launch a full investigation and question all related parties immediately, then do the only thing that will bring America's sails back on charter: Exercise their full authority and revoke the Federal Reserve System's charter.  

 

The whole Fed system should roll!                        

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:27 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 02:57 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 04:10 | Link to Comment bingocat
bingocat's picture

edited for place in queue...

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 03:45 | Link to Comment polizeros
polizeros's picture

> less conspiracy and more just incompetence

My wife, a CPA and Certified Fraud Examiner, says "given a choice between incompetence and culpability, which one do you think people will choose."

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 03:42 | Link to Comment hound dog vigilante
hound dog vigilante's picture

THIS. IS. HUGE.

 

FedGate. Bombshell. AIG. Paulson. Geithner. Goldman Sachs. Bernanke. Obama. Bush. Bailout. Extortion. Fraud. Conflict of interest.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 04:23 | Link to Comment Rick64
Rick64's picture

Ben should not be voted in, tim g. and larry s. should be fired and replaced with anybody with common sense and no links to the major banks in the interest of National Security. This fucking of the taxpayer has to stop.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 08:01 | Link to Comment reading
reading's picture

They should also make sure they appoint someone who can stay awake during meetings.

Maybe, Larry slept through some of this important stuff.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 05:05 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 05:33 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 06:06 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 07:19 | Link to Comment 10044
10044's picture

is blackrock trying to take over GS?? i.e. is the Gambini family about to whack the Corleone family???

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 08:19 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 08:19 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 08:22 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 09:41 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 08:25 | Link to Comment obamaphobe
obamaphobe's picture

This boils my blood.  Tax cheat Timmy does it again.  I dont know if I can read this blog anymore.  I may go postal.  Good thing for Timmy and his gang that I'm a God fearing man.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 08:37 | Link to Comment Miyagi_san
Miyagi_san's picture

pick a different god

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 09:01 | Link to Comment obamaphobe
obamaphobe's picture

currently being considered

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 10:45 | Link to Comment wang
wang's picture

 Alumni Works in Eye of Financial Storm

Sarah Dahlgren, a member of the Sanford Board of Visitors since 1993, didn’t make it to most recent board meeting, but she had a pretty good excuse. She was busy trying to save the financial world.

 

http://sanford.duke.edu/alumni/news/dahlgren.php

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 08:56 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 09:04 | Link to Comment Catullus
Catullus's picture

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akYMsCezpjlk&pos=4

I believe this continues on a theme that zerohedge has touched before.  The target federal funds rate is dead.  The Fed may begin using the interest paid on reserves at the Fed as the benchmark rate.  The logic seems pretty obvious: the more money we print to pay interest on reserves, the less banks will loan out, the less inflation.  Leading to the obvious equation in fed land: more money printing leads to less inflation.  Economics, bitches.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 20:08 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Bingo.

The destruction of free markets and the economy

fait accompli.

Deflating price discovery until producticity and

savings return.

The Fed was founded on the lie of free lunch

and economic monetary market stability.

Jefferson knew whereof he spake:

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

http://www.jubileeprosperity.com/

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 09:17 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 09:53 | Link to Comment John McCloy
John McCloy's picture

Bunning just said on CNBC he saw an email where Bernanke sent instruction for AIG to be "left alone". He also noted that his COLLEAGUES (Fed Governors) did not agree with his decision.

Geithner is a pimp.What I did not know until this day was...It was Bernanke all along.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 23:32 | Link to Comment tom a taxpayer
tom a taxpayer's picture

John - Great line from "Godfather"!

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 11:13 | Link to Comment Angry-Taxpayer
Angry-Taxpayer's picture

So what do we do now as a community ?

The clan of thieves at the table won't go away unless over-thrown... Are we peons power-less ?

I can't believe I'm watching our future blow up in smoke contiously right before my eye's...

The fifth reich has been un-veiled for what it really is...  SOCIALISM EAGLE HAS LANDED...

Will Obama be impeached and thrown out of office?

Will Uncle Ben and Cousin Timmey see "STARS & BARS" ?

Short Answer > Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo,    ( They're our champions )

And we all sit around and allow the greatest theft in HISTORY out of the 223 years since our Declaration as a country... 

Wake me up when the physical war starts please... 

I will be asleep for-ever like the rest of the Sheeeeople if no fireworks go off...

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 10:47 | Link to Comment phaesed
phaesed's picture

Jim Bunning on Squawk Box said he got to read an internal Federal Reserve email which advised Big Ben to not bail out AIG by his own staff and he did anyways.... bit interesting there.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 11:44 | Link to Comment B9K9
B9K9's picture

For the life of me, and of all places, I cannot understand the level of anger and overall emotional reaction @ ZH regarding these disclosures.

The system was gamed to induce credit leveraged asset price inflation. Once it reached its inevitable stall rate, the primary architects had to paid out at par. The Fed not only printed money to purchase these underwater bank assets, but also to fund newly nationalized mortgage activities via Fannie/Freddie/Ginnie. The discount window was made available to allow the banks to loan public money @ 0% and earn 3-5% on newly issued government debt. And finally, rules were relaxed so that financial markets could be goosed higher with all the free money to influence consumer confidence.

This was the checklist. It was approved from the highest levels. It was a matter of national security. It doesn't matter what legal proceedings occur from these revelations. The POTUS has the ability to issue pardons.

The only real question is whether or not the architects think there might actually be a real recovery. If not, then there are already a series of trades in place waiting for the right moment to execute. The only real unknown is the level & degree of political change that might occur. If we get a real shit-storm, a la French Revolution style, then I would imagine that would be considered a black swan event to the PTB. It's about the only scenario where they don't get away with their crimes.

 

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 13:45 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:09 | Link to Comment wcvarones
wcvarones's picture

Timmy the Tax Cheat poll on CNBC:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/35064913

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:12 | Link to Comment bugs_
bugs_'s picture

wtg TD.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:15 | Link to Comment rapier
rapier's picture

Lying before congress or congressional committee is a routine and in fact confirs a badge of honor to the liar.  Perjury is second nature in that venue, particularly from corporate officers who would only suffer negative consequenses if they told the truth. Imagine if the tobbacco executives had told the truth about their belief in nicotines addictiveness. They would have been fired.  Meantime everyone knew they lied and they knew everyone knew they lied and they have settled into comfy retirement. Still honored guests wherever they roam. 

And really why should they have to tell the truth to a bunch of politicians. Hardly a class of people noted for honesty.  As to their symbolic stature as representatives of the people and the governement?  Oh please.  The people don't want the truth, don't care about the issues and of course government is a piece of shit.

So let's get a grip on this perjury stuff and get back to the real world.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:22 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:46 | Link to Comment Orly
Orly's picture

"The POTUS has the ability to issue pardons."

At that point, there will be blood in the streets.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 13:14 | Link to Comment Warren Laurde
Warren Laurde's picture

@rapier: +1

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 14:06 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

The Fed’s winners and losers game continues to benefit the investors and bankers with the big bucks.   Case in point: bankruptcy and its advantage to corporate raiders such as Carl Icahn is a major story in this recession.

The AP gathered data from the nation's 90 bankruptcy districts and found 1.43 million filings in 2009.  There were 116,000 recorded bankruptcies in December, up 22 percent from the same month a year before.

“The numbers indicate clear correlations to recession-weary regions. Arizona saw the fastest increase, a jump of 77 percent from the year before, followed by Wyoming (60 percent), Nevada (59 percent) and California (58 percent).”

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/05/BU441BDCQ2.DTL#ixzz0djbb58mL

While 101Bankruptcy.com’s Bankruptcy News compiles list after list of bankruptcy filings, the political fallout from the Fed’s Winners and Losers Game continues.   Case in point is Jewish-American billionaire, financier, corporate raider, and private equity investor, Carl Icahn, whose net worth in 2008 was US$14billion..  From the 101 Bankruptcy listing:

Debt-free, Tropicana sees light after bankruptcy
Less than two years after its bankruptcy filing, Tropicana Entertainment’s debt has been wiped clean, and the company’s new owner, billionaire Carl Icahn, is injecting $150 million to pay creditors and upgrade properties. (Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:02:34 GMT) 

http://www.101bankruptcy.com/bankruptcy_news/

The Tropicana, according to the Las Vegas Sun, is the first cash-strapped major casino company set to emerge from bankruptcy in the recession, “the worst downturn this industry has ever seen.”

Says the Sun, “Many casino companies — including several that are close to bankruptcy or may avoid bankruptcy altogether — are hamstrung by lenders who are owed billions of dollars and, in some cases, have mortgage rights on casinos."

Tropicana Entertainment CEO Scott Butera, the former investment banker who engineered Donald Trump’s second exit from bankruptcy in 2005,  took over the reins of the Tropicana after lenders booted former owner Bill Yung from the company.

“In New Jersey, regulators called out Yung for various violations, including his failure to adequately staff the Tropicana Atlantic City,” the Sun said. “Regulators revoked his casino license in New Jersey, setting in motion the fire sale of the property to Icahn, his company’s Chapter 11 filing and his own exit.”

According to the New York Times on January 20, Reuters reported that billionaire investor Icahn’s Icahn Nevada Gaming Acquisition L.L.C. also “made the winning bid to buy the bankrupt and unfinished Fontainebleau Las Vegas resort.”  Icahn offered $156.5 million to buy the casino in November…

Last year, Icahn “also teamed up with Beal Bank to present a restructuring plan for the bankrupt Trump Entertainment Resorts, also in Atlantic City.”

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/icahn-wins-in-bid-for-las-vegas-resort/

Immediate Fed transparency—without months’ and years’ advance notice to allow the Fed to cook its books before they are seen—is necessary if confidence is to return to American markets and business.  America’s economic survival itself is dependent upon abolishment of the Fed.

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 14:41 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Pulitzer!

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 20:07 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 01/26/2010 - 20:22 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

Move on, nothing to see:

Moody's and S&P just won dismissal

of cases against them for $100 B

in bad MBS Ratings...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=aQRE2xtY3Q4A

Tue, 01/26/2010 - 20:40 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 08/10/2010 - 18:50 | Link to Comment omniscient oxymoron
omniscient oxymoron's picture

You have to check out how Whalen exposes the incompetent Dahlgren.  Why can't we vote on the federal people that are supposed to protect taxpayer dollars from the wall street oligarchs?

http://us1.institutionalriskanalytics.com/pub/IRAMain.asp

 

Thu, 02/24/2011 - 00:53 | Link to Comment shawnlee
shawnlee's picture

Nice work TD. The one additional thing pointed out by the FCIC that I think we should focus on is that "no collateral" was put up by Goldman in most cases. I didn't say "little collateral". I said "no collateral". There in lies the moral hazard. Near the pike of the subprime bubble , Goldman would pile on even more contracts with AIG, with posting NO COLLATERAL. Maybe that's why they offered to tear them down, because without any exchange of money, there is no CONTRACT. Period. They should be questioning Rubin. He seems to be in the center slot.

adidas watches|70-448|642-415|links of london earring

Tue, 03/22/2011 - 03:44 | Link to Comment shawnlee
shawnlee's picture

I didn't say "little collateral". I said "no collateral". There in lies the moral hazard. Near the pike of the subprime bubble , Goldman would pile on even more contracts with AIG, with posting NO COLLATERAL. Maybe that's why they offered to tear them down, because without any exchange of money, there is no CONTRACT. Period. They should be questioning Rubin. He seems to be in the center slot.alexander hi tek watches - alpina watches - and 1 watches - fossil watches - mens watches - seiko watches - citizen watches

Mon, 04/18/2011 - 21:29 | Link to Comment Canny
Canny's picture

In 1985, after none of their children showed any interest in the company, the air

max 97 sold it to the Sara Lee Corporation, with Lew Frankfort taking over the reigns as president. Despite decisive measures to increase production, like doubling the

workforce and extending the work week to 6 days, nike trainers sale was still unable to meet demand by 1987. Despite the

reduction in retail nike running trainers they had still doubled their profits by the end of 1987.

Thu, 06/09/2011 - 17:01 | Link to Comment sun1
sun1's picture

Its one of the good platform for awareness of people. Keep sharing such stuff in the future too. xbox 360 s

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 12:29 | Link to Comment sun
sun's picture

I found lots of interesting information here. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. Keep it that way masters in athletic administration

Tue, 07/12/2011 - 01:25 | Link to Comment newdeals2
newdeals2's picture

max 97 sold it to the Sara Lee Corporation, with Lew Frankfort taking over the reigns as president. Despite decisive measures to increase production, like doubling the ase exam questions | ccda exam questions \ ccent exam questions \ ccia exam questions \ ccie exam questions \ ccip exam questions \ ccna exam questions \ ccna security exam questions \ ccna voice exam questions \ ccna wireless exam questions \ ccnp exam questions \ ccnp security exam questions

Tue, 08/16/2011 - 00:41 | Link to Comment newdeals2
newdeals2's picture

Staff has also projected the Fund balance and reserve ratio for each quarter over the next several years using the most recently available information on expected failures and loss rates and statistical analyses of trends in CAMELS downgrades, failure rates and loss rates. Staff projects that, over the period 2009 through 2013, the Fund could incur approximately $100 billion in failure costs. Staff projects that most of these costs 650-195 | HP0-P14 | 642-874 | Pass4sure 642-971 | Pass4sure 310-200 | Pass4sure 642-533 | Pass4sure 642-611 | Pass4sure 642-691 | HP0-D08 |

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!