Recent Blog Posts
-
The $4.5 Billion Dollar Bank Run
Nov 07 201111:20 am EDT -
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Why AIG Had to be Nationalized
Chris Kaufman uses the example of AIG as a reason not to nationalize:
If voices of wisdom aren't enough for skeptics, the example of AIG may be. AIG is not a bank, but it faces a lot of the same problems that banks do. And nationalization has done little to help the insurer, which has been losing bailout dollars with dizzying speed, and is seeking more cash from the U.S.
I'm not sure I understand this. The losses exist. They will have to be taken by some combination of bondholders, shareholders, and taxpayers -- plus, conceivably, depositors (in the case of banks) or policyholders (in the case of insurers). It's possible that the efficiencies and strictures of private ownership might, at the margin, reduce the magnitude of the losses -- although the recent history of Wall Street gives us no real reason to believe that to be the case. But even if the losses are reduced, they're still enormous.
There is no doubt that, absent nationalization, AIG would be bankrupt by now. And the systemic consequences of an AIG bankruptcy would have made Lehman look like a walk in the park. For starters, Wall Street would be in much worse shape than it's in right now, since AIG Financial Products insured hundreds of billions of dollars of assets on banks' balance sheets, and has been putting up precious magin as the value of those assets has continued to decline.
On top of that, AIG's bonds would be largely worthless at this point, and the write-downs on those bonds would have caused another few hundred billion dollars in wealth destruction at precisely the financial entities which most need healthy assets.
And most importantly, the failure of AIG would probably have caused what the failure of Lehman brothers didn't -- a catastrophic cascade of counterparty failures in the multi-trillion-dollar CDS market, from which the global financial system might never have been able to recover.
Against all that, we have some very large and painful losses for the US taxpayer, which will never fully recover the money it's put into AIG. But compared to the alternative, we're all much better off.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.




