Streams

Eliot Spitzer on AIG

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Former AIG insurance giant chief Maurice 'Hank' Greenberg was sued by then New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who accused AIG and Greenberg of cooking the firm's books to deceive regulators and investors. (AFP/Getty Images)

Former AIG insurance giant chief Maurice \'Hank\' Greenberg and then New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. (AFP/Getty Images)


Eliot Spitzer, columnist for Slate and former governor of New York, talks to WNYC's Brian Lehrer about AIG bonuses, CEO compensation, the NYS budget, and other matters of the day.

Brian Lehrer: What put AIG in your sights as New York attorney general?

Eliot Spitzer: We were approached by some sources who said that AIG, which was at the time guided by Hank Greenberg as CEO, was, to speak in street vernacular, juicing its books by creating false reinsurance contracts that would appear to add capital to its balance sheet. Now that sounds all very complicated but, what it really means is they were playing games with their accounting in order to look stronger than they were. Hank Greenberg, there are tapes that prove this, was very, very concerned with any, even minor, fluctuation in their stock evaluation.

These contracts, it was alleged, were designed to make them look better in the eyes of Wall Street. We investigated, brought a civil case to settlement of $1.4 billion. At the time, $1.4 billion seemed like a lot of money. It was the biggest financial settlement ever. The board removed Hank Greenberg because he invoked the Fifth Amendment, when he was asked about this. Four people were charged criminally and convicted for basically playing games. But it lead us to inquire and to probe into the inner workings of the company and what we saw was a mess.

Lehrer: You say the real AIG scandal is not the bonuses, but the payments in full to the counterparties that AIG does business with: Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase?

Spitzer: In essence, and the numbers are just astronomical. The initial payment was $80 billion and there have been subsequent payments bringing it up to about $183 billion, which to put it in perspective is larger by significant percentage, than the entire budget of the state of New York for fiscal year, but much of that money, AIG was a conduit. It was given to AIG, and AIG then shipped it on through to other firms. My question is, when the group got together, and as we best understand it, it was Mr. Bernanke and Tim Geithner and Hank Paulson, and Lloyd Blankfein, I think was there as well, the CEO of Goldman. When they got together last Fall and decided very very quickly that AIG needed $80 billion, why did they make that determination? That is the issue Congress should be probing. The bonuses yes, they matter, but they are penny ante compared to this money. Why, if they knew that that money was going to go back to Goldman, BofA and Morgan Chase, did they need it? What were they getting the money for and what was the premise that made them pay that money up front?

Lehrer: Do you disagree that the AIG bailout is necessary, that precisely because they are so intertwined with the big banks and all this money on their toxic assets, that if AIG were allowed to fail like Lehman Brothers, the whole financial market would really collapse way beyond what we’ve seen so far?

Spitzer: Let’s go back to where we were last fall, right after Lehman had failed which is, almost universally viewed, as having been a policy error. You had Bear Stearns, you then had Lehman on the cusp and I think what really happened is that Washington said, we have to show that somebody can fail, that we won’t bail everybody out. The whole discussion of too big to fail is a separate discussion. I think policy was fundamentally flawed to let these banks get that big without putting real constraints upon them. Either you are too big to fail and we regulate you, or we break you up so you are not too big to fail. You can’t have it both ways, too big to fail, without the regulation.

Lehrer: Are they now, in fact, too big to fail for the good of America?

Spitzer: Parts of AIG needed to be preserved, some of these contracts needed to be stabilized, you couldn’t have another credit crisis such as that happened after Lehman failed, but that doesn’t mean that you write a check for $173 billion, 100 cents on the dollar, to cover all these contracts.

Lehrer: When you were looking at AIG’s books, as NY State attorney general, did you see the credit default swaps and the outsized risk that they represented?

Spitzer: We were not looking at that part of the company. We were looking at their reinsurance contracts with Gen Re, but what we saw was a company, when you peeled back the first layer of the onion, that was without anything close to adequate controls and adequate structure to know what was going. The way they put their financials together was something that was absolutely beyond what was acceptable, which was why they paid a fine of $1.4 billion.

Lehrer: The Wall Street Journal lead editorial went after you, actually blamed you for kicking of the AIG crisis and the housing crisis even.

Spitzer: The Journal Editorial page has been wrong on just about every issue out there and I hope nobody relies upon them to make important life decisions. It is akin to blaming the doctor who discovers the cancer, saying if you hadn’t discovered it, it wouldn’t have been there. When we looked at the books, they were a mess. The board of extremely wise individuals and notable individuals in the hierarchy of American business and politics looked at Hank Greenberg and said, “No, this is not the way to run a company.” And we have seen what has happened as we have had needed to work through the resulting problems. The company when we looked at it was in deep trouble and the finances continue to get worse, absolutely, because they were following the policies that were put in place while he was there. The Editorial page is always looking for a scapegoat. They have never been able to accept that any of the CEOs that they liked made any errors in judgment.

Lehrer: The editorial also says that you bullied out the responsible Hank Greenberg on trumped up charges, that you never even tried to actually prove and a lot of Wall Street thinks that.

Spitzer: No, what happened, in fact, is that the company agreed to pay the fine, restate its earnings, it had no controls that were adequate. Our complaint alleged all that. There are tapes and overwhelming evidence that proved our case, four people went to jail because of it, he was called, he being Hank Greenberg, by the federal prosecutor in that criminal case, an unindicted co-conspirator in that precise set of facts. Now the larger reality is that the company itself was not being managed in a way that the board could tolerate,which is why the board, independent of our judgment, asked him to leave after he invoked the Fifth Amendment. That historical record will speak for itself. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, I think everyone should keep in mind speaks to an ideology that is precisely the ideology of that last 10 years that got us to where we are. Never wanting a regulatory framework that would require either adequate capital, reasonable controls, or an examination of the types of remarkably outsized risks that we are talking about. So you have a clear ideological choice to be made here. Either The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page or the one that I think we are all now gravitating towards which is sound, reasonable regulation.

Lehrer: Again now, it is the New York state attorney general who is really pressuring AIG on the bonuses. Andrew Cuomo discovered these bonuses and told Barney Frank, which is raising the question, “Where was Tim Geithner, the treasury secretary, who was head of the New York Fed at the time?" Is Geithner asleep at the wheel or maybe too in the Wall Street tank?

Spitzer: Tim, along with Mr. Bernanke, and Hank Paulson and lloyd Blankfein, who were all there, need to answer some real questions about why they made those initial judgments. Those questions, as I say in my article yesterday, I laid them out. I said they should be answered in public, very quickly, about the initial decisions, what was known, about who the counter parties were, who were the beneficiaries going to be of these payments, because that needs to be understood in terms of evaluating the wisdom of their judgments. Tim has got to answer those questions and I think that should be done very quickly.

Lehrer: These are retention bonuses, meaning so people don’t leave the company, but why weren’t these executives, who were specifically in this credit default swap division of AIG fired for failing at their jobs, rather than bribed so they wouldn’t leave?

Spitzer: My answer to that, if I had to make a judgment right now, I’d put you in as CEO of the company so you could do precisely that. As I understand, it only pays a buck a year right now. There is a sense in corporate America at the top, that individuals become indispensable and are then paid based upon that premise. It’s not right. Especially when you look at the record that we now have before us and you see the egregious misjudgments that have been made. Your question is precisely the right question. “Why do we want them in the first place? Aren’t there other people who can come in, either to unwind the contracts that they have put in place, or to make better judgments going forward?”

Lehrer: It was a year ago yesterday that you left office. How do you feel now about having taken yourself out of the position of being more directly involved with all this?

Spitzer: I am obviously disappointed in what led to that. I’ve apologized and in my view, have acted in the past year the way I should have, which is to say I will remain quiet, others will step in and hopefully pursue these issues, whether it’s the MTA refinancing or AIG investigations and continue to move forward. I, like others, also am disappointed in what I have seen in terms of public policy in these domains and as you suggested, there was a period when as attorney general of New York I was pursuing issues that nobody else wanted to pursue. And we pursued AIG and Wall Street’s structural failures in a way that others shied away from because it was politically unpalatable for them to address those issues. Now it is the flavor of the month. Everybody is jumping up and down serving subpoenas, beating their chests trying to be tougher than the next person. That’s wonderful. But I think as you say, there was a moment when that was not the case. And so perhaps I can add a slightly different perspective.

Lehrer: Are you trying to make a comeback as a media person?

Spitzer: No, I am simply trying to add a few words, occasionally as I best can, to shed light on some very vexing policy problems that are out there that have not been addressed necessarily in the best possible way by our leadership. We all have to work together to do what we can do to move forward and to the extent that writing a few columns and adding my perspective can help, I’m thrilled to do that and help in any way. I think that’s what we all owe to our society.

Visit The Brian Lehrer Show page for this interview

Tags:

More in:

Comments [16]

Jonny Andrews

I really like your writing style, its not generic and extremly long and tedious like a lot of blog posts I read, you get to the point and I really enjoy reading your articles! Oh, and merry Christmas!

Jun. 22 2010 05:19 AM
Em

Great interview. Spitzer should be in a position where his insights can have real impact. Washington: Here's your guy.

People who have a problem with Spitzer's personal life are looking for perfect father-figures to lead them. Welcome to humanity - all people are flawed and wrestle with various demons. That's no reason to waste unique talents, especially in a time of crisis.

Mar. 22 2009 10:57 PM
frantzbernier

Spitzer has always been the type of the official personnage I like.I am sorry for the way he has ended his political career.If that ever happen in his life,his point of view about AIG will be the most respectable one.Still,the interview he had given the Brian should an inspirational source for certain official in President Obama's administration.
For any comment,e-mail me at : bernierfr@verizon.net or bernierfr@yahoo.com

Mar. 22 2009 12:53 PM
anonymous

You will lose listeners forever if you give Mr. Spitzer a voice. We do not need someone who has demonstrated such immoral behavior advising anyone on what to do in any capacity. He threw away that right along with the public's trust.

Mar. 20 2009 12:41 PM
anonyme

Brian! the support is overwhelmingly for Spitzer! Why did you harass him like that! I could see if that's all you heard - maybe - but really!

Mar. 19 2009 12:04 PM
Norma Weisberg

Brian, you were not wrong for having Eliot Spitzer on your program. He has alot to offer. He has suffered greatly for what he did. It's not necessary to keep punishing him.

You do a great job!

N. Weisberg

Mar. 19 2009 08:58 AM
michael Solomon

thank you for having the courage to have Elliot Spitzer on - his view is important and should be heard. I have felt from the begging that he was politically destroyed for a reason - to shut him up - yes he did the crime and paid the political price, but his history and perspective on AIG are important and should be heard

Mar. 19 2009 05:28 AM
Mickey

Shame on you Brian. You stooped real low (for ratings? ad $) You let a sick man, a liar get air time all over NYC. Never has been rehabiliated. This guy has zero credibility. I would not trust or believe anything he says. I am boycotting the show/telling others to do so.

Mar. 18 2009 08:35 PM
Fred Ager

If ever there was a case to rehabilitate and bring back a dedicated "public servant" Mr. Spitzer is it. Besides he will perform at a much higher level of integrety than someone of a bad behaviour that hasn't been caught (yet).He,I'm sure, will never want to go there again.

Mar. 18 2009 06:45 PM
opedanderson

Thank you for having Spitzer on. He is man we need now. Too bad that we are so immature about sexual politics that we cant just move on.....

Mar. 18 2009 06:16 PM
superf88

Loved the interview but c'mon, Spitzer pointing the finger at Goldman and others getting obscenely rich on the backs of real estate dupes?

Isn't Spitzer the scion of a (probably smarting right about now) real estate empire? Putting him on the opposing side of the Goldmans out there?

Let's not be toooo contrarian just because he is so smart. The problem with playing so often on a slippery slope, as Eliot does, is that it is so dang slippery.

Mar. 18 2009 06:08 PM
Paul

I also believe that any personal faux pas Eliot Spitzer engaged in are completely irrelevent and his service and commitment to the public are very hard to find. It would not surpise me if the same thieves in AIG didn't work hard to bring him down. Please don't keep hopping on his personal scandal. Would you interview Clinton as the disgraced ex President?

Mar. 18 2009 06:07 PM
Marilyn Strakey

To Brian:
I always love your show. Your interview with Eliot Spitzer was very interesting. I was really puzzled by your telling him some listeners were angry that you had him on and asking him how he felt having taken himself out of the position of being more directly involved in all this stuff. Did you feel you owed it to the listeners to give him some kind of slap on the wrist? It struck me as jarringly inappropriate and un-Brian Lehrer-like. I fully get why people don't like this guy. But even arrogant, bullying, disgraced former governors seem entitled to a shot at rehabilitation. Asking if he was trying to become a media personality I can understand, but all of the rest of it seemed overly hostile.

Mar. 18 2009 02:51 PM
Dianne Heidke

Brian,
I live in Panama ( 5 years now ) and listening to WNYC is STILL my addiction. It is because you guys have the guts and the what?..sheer common sense?..to do interviews like this,that I can't say good-bye. Fantastic Job..as always.

Mar. 18 2009 01:48 PM
Norma Rossi

Brian, thank you for including Mr. Spitzer's point of view on this important issue. I may not like how his career ended, but he was for many years an active participant in reform and has a unique perspective. Thanks for not giving in to our Puritan heritage.
Norma

Mar. 18 2009 01:07 PM
williambanzai7

Elliot Spitzer:

1. Is a lawyer with the brains to connect the dots.

2. Has no conflict regulating Wall Street.

We should bring him back.

HERE'S TO YOU ELLIOT SPITZER
(Mrs. Robinson, Simon and Garfunkle)
WilliamBanzai7's Bailout Smart Club Band

Sing along link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfkb4qLIQ7k

And here's to you, Elliot Spitzer
We all miss you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, Elliot Spitzer
Wall Street's one big golden playpen for those who prey
(prey, prey, prey...hey, hey, hey)
We'd like to know a little bit about your Slate blog for our files
We'd like to help you learn to help yourself
Look around you, all you see are securitized Wall Street lies
Stroll around downtown and feel at home

And here's to you, Elliot Spitzer
We all need you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God help us all, Elliot Spitzer
Wall Streets stilla place for those who prey
(Prey, prey prey...hey, hey, hey)

Hide it in a hiding place while the taxpayers get hosed
Put it in an offshore pantry with their bonus cupcakes
It's no little Goldman secret, AIG's the biggest Wall Street affair
By and large, Blankfein's kept it under a bespoke trash lid

Coo, coo, ca-choo, Elliot Spitzer
Wall Street's a bigger con job as you know (Wo, wo, wo)
God help us please, Elliot Spitzer
Sing, Sing holds a place for those who prey
(Prey, prey, prey...hey, hey, hey)

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Listening to the Washington cretens debate
Cry about it, shout about it
They've got lots of time to schmooze
Ev'ry way you look at it, in the long run we lose

What are you doin, Andrew Cuomo
A nation turns its payback eyes to you (Woo, woo, woo)
What's that you say, Elliot Spitzer
Joltin' Cuomo has got to go a long, long way
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

Mar. 18 2009 12:06 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Sponsored

Latest Newscast

 

 

Support

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public

Feeds

Supported by