The Financial Institutions Are Acting In Bad Faith

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 13:59


Building upon my last post, it is important to emphasize how the problem with the bonuses and the bailout overall are connected. The reason the bonuses and compensation packages are a problem is because they demonstrate that the financial institutions to whom we are giving bailout money are simply acting in bad faith. While the Obama administration has created a bailout plan designed to fix the economy, they are giving the bailout money to people who don't care about fixing the economy, and are instead acting in bad faith. No matter what the people who run these financial institutions say, personal enrichment is their only purpose.

The Obama administration wants to fix the economy. That goes without saying. Even beyond their personal motives to help people, politically speaking, it is an imperative for them to fix the economy, since they will be tossed out of office, and remembered poorly in history if they do not fix the economy. The problem is, they have designed a bailout plan to fix the economy that requires the cooperation of people who don't give a rat's ass about fixing the economy, and who only care about making more money.

The leaders of these financial institutions are acting in bad faith. They say they need this money to fix the economy, but they don't actually care about fixing the economy.  We know this because they told us they will only partner with the Obama administration if their huge compensation packages are left untouched (more in the extended entry):

Chris Bowers :: The Financial Institutions Are Acting In Bad Faith

A senior executive at one of the nation's largest banks said he had heard from several hedge funds that they would not partner with the government for fear that lawmakers would impose retroactive conditions on their participation, such as limits on compensation or disclosure requirements.

Personal enrichment is their primary motive, not fixing the economy. We know this because they said they won't participate in the bailout unless they get rich. We know this because they claim that making themselves rich is necessary to fix the economy:

The attack by lawmakers on AIG pay has provoked renewed complaints from some financial company executives that federal involvement in business decisions is making it difficult for struggling firms to return to profitability. In particular, executives say they need to offer bonuses to keep and motivate their most valuable employees and are already seeing an exodus of talent.

They say they won't help us fix it unless we make them richer. They say they can't help us fix it unless we make them richer. Hell, they broke the economy in the first place as part of their never ending attempts to make themselves richer. And they keep lying to us about how much they are making themselves richer:

Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit received nearly $11 million of compensation in 2008.

A month earlier, he testified to Congress that his compensation for 2008 was just $1 million.

There is no reason to believe that the people receiving the bailout money will do anything with it expect try to get even richer. They are acting in bad faith, and trying to partner with them is foolish. They want our money alright, but only if it will make themselves richer. Whether or not the economy gets better is entirely incidental to them. If it happens, it will be a coincidental accident.

The bonuses are yet another demonstration that they are using the bailout money in order to make themselves richer, not to try and fix the economy. They don't care about fixing the economy--they only care about getting richer. We know this because the reason you join one of these institutions in the first place is to get rich, not to engage in the public service of helping the economy. While the bonuses are a small percentage of the money involved, if you think these people are acting in the public's interest with the rest of the bailout money, then you are getting played.

The bonuses show why the bailout won't work. We are giving the money to people who only care about making themselves richer, not about fixing the economy. If we give our money to people who don't care about fixing the economy, then it is a pretty safe bet the economy will not be fixed.


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Agree (4.00 / 3)
I don't agree 100%, but definitely over 50%!

There are huge risks to taking the receivership/bankruptcy approach, and that approach will probably cost even more than what we are doing now, but I think it is necessary.


Yeah, of course (4.00 / 5)
It's absurd to claim that the bonuses and the financial crisis are different issues.

The very problem with Obama's approach to the crisis is that he is refusing to take control of institutions that taxpayers own. He's just throwing no-strings $$$ at companies; hence the bonuses. If the government had control, no bonuses.



The issue of bad faith (4.00 / 6)
is, I think, the exact, pivotal point at stake in this controversy.

Of course in the larger scheme of things, ~$100M is a drop in the bucket. But it goes to the very core of how -- on what basis -- decisions will be made regarding the bailout money in the future.

It was the culture of pure, blinding, irresponsible and unaccountable greed that got us into this putrid mess. If the people responsible for it are, to this day, and in the teeth of their own ignominious failure, insisting on their pot of gold, then how can any decision they make be trusted? How can their be any expectation that they will perform their fiduciary duty with honesty and integrity, rather than skew it any way they can to profit themselves, the larger public be damned? How can we reasonably expect that they won't concoct whatever further schemes they can imagine that will collapse in the end, but profit them immensely in the interim?


Chris, any thoughts on this? (4.00 / 1)
http://www.creditwritedowns.co...

An article in the Financial Times caught our eye that makes plain that the TALF (Term Asset Security Program) is a bailout for the shadow banking system (HT Tom). The bailouts for the banking industry continue unabated despite a change in Administration on January 20th. The Obama Administration has topped up bailout money for Bank of America, AIG and Citigroup, three of the weakest 'too big to fail' institutions without putting them through a bankruptcy process.

Now, the Federal Reserve and the Administration are set to move on the TALF program which we chronicled here in three earlier posts, "TALF: A bailout if one reads the fine print," "TALF details suggest Obama doesn't get it," and "A few words from a reader on TALF mechanics."

Here is what the FT had to say (my highlighting included):

When a group of men who got rich by buying low and selling high want to make you their partner, hang on to your wallet. That bit of financial wisdom was amply demonstrated by the 97 per cent peak to trough drop in the common stock of Fortress Investment Group on its second anniversary as a public company last month. Leverage cuts both ways, and its impact has been almost entirely bad for the alternative asset manager with the low point being a temporary halt to redemptions at its Drawbridge hedge fund late last year.

But investors looking over the detritus left by the financial crisis seem suddenly to realise that, having survived so far, Fortress is ideally suited to reap a future bonanza. They looked past a hefty net loss for the fourth quarter and bid Fortress' shares up as much as 40 per cent yesterday on hearing its optimism about participating in the first round of the term asset-backed securities loan facility. Fortress is one of a handful of groups that retain the size and credibility to play a role in what may prove to be a high reward and relatively low-risk exercise. Fortress executives dub the coming period "the great liquidation".

Meanwhile, much of the bleeding has stopped in Fortress' existing business. About 82 per cent of its capital is long-term in nature with an average remaining life of 9.2 years, leaving plenty of time for mark-to- market losses to be reversed. With important debt renegotiations and redemptions mostly behind it, nasty surprises are unlikely. Management's optimism about the future of their hedge fund business may sound like bluster after huge outflows and no inflows recently, but it is not so implausible. If it can build new funds while using the taxpayer as a low cost prime broker, new investors should be willing to let bygones be bygones.

I won't go into specifics here because we have chronicled that in the prior three posts. The crux of the matter is the 'Great Liquidation.' Financial service companies in the shadow banking system like Fortress are now able to rid themselves of a good portion of their Level-3 hard-to-price, so-called toxic assets. Now, mind you, these assets must be rated AAA and will be taken on as collateral for a haircut. But, I sense the Fed will be stuck with these assets for quite some time as the loans they are giving for them are non-recourse.

What was once 'You Walk Away' for home owners on their non-recourse mortgages is now you walk away for hedge funds and broker-dealers.

Quoting a good friend, this is "a huge windfall for the hedge fund industry. This whole exercise is designed as much as possible to restore the status quo ante. That's the real scandal."


Your friend's quote is what puts the Obama Administration in such an awkward (4.00 / 1)
position.

Saving this system, 'restored to the status quo ante' is despicable.

And when one runs as someone who will bring "CHANGE we can believe in" sets out, through appointees, to preserve something so putrid it undercuts the entire premise of the candidacy. It threatens the entire agenda of what is needed in all areas.

It breeds cynicism.

And when people are outraged over the bonuses being paid out and then apparently lectured that they are missing the point and that they are allowing themselves to be distracted it certainly says something when people are displaying all the signs that they are engaged, focused, or using this item of news to re-enter the nature of a participatory government to be told, in effect, you just don't get it.

They get it:

They do not want to preserve the status quo ante.  


[ Parent ]
Liddy testimony (4.00 / 6)
He just said that his rationale for paying the retention bonuses was all based on a notion of risk - that the deals that needed to be unwinded were systemically important and if anything went wrong in any of those deals it could cause AIG to go bankrupt.  He then said that without the incentive of the retention bonuses, then the folks working on unwinding those 30+ books worth of deals would simply walk away.  That is what he just said.  Without payment of millions of dollars in bonuses, the people in charge of protecting the whole financial system (by extension of AIG) would not do it out of altruism alone.  They would only perform the function of protecting the global economy from collapse if they received an average of 400K each.  That is bad faith, my friends, and it is unethical, and unpatriotic.  This is powerful framing Chris, please continue to amplify.


Sounds like extortion to me (4.00 / 5)
These are the same executives that "wound up" all these toxic assets in the first place, right? Now that the little toxic time-bomb has been set, they are demanding money from the US central government and if they don't get paid, they'll walk away and not disarm (un-wind) the time bomb they created.

Hand over the cash and we won't crash your economy.

Extortion. Pure. Simple.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
You don't learn about credit default swaps (4.00 / 3)
in the Peace Corps.

Is Obama being played for a fool or just playing us for fools? (0.00 / 0)

Are Geithner and Summers the real decision-makers in the Obama administration, handing out big bonuses after squelching Congressional legislation to prohibit the bonuses, thereby playing Obama for a fool?

Or is Obama playing us for fools by creating the false impression that he is outraged when in fact he signed off on their actions?

Unless he fires Geithner and Summers for allowing these bonuses to go forward, then he is playing us for fools with his fake outrage.

I really don't care what Obama says. The only issue is who gets money from an Obama administration.

Just follow the money. Forget about the words.

The bonus money went out on Obama's watch and it's a huge stain on him and his administration. . . unless he fires Geithner and Summers.



USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox