AIG Faces $10 Billion in Losses on Bad Bets

American International Group Inc. owes Wall Street’s biggest firms about $10 billion for speculative trades that have soured, according to people familiar with the matter, underscoring the challenges the insurer faces as it seeks to recover under a U.S. government rescue plan.

The details of the trades go beyond what AIG has explained to investors about the nature of its risk-taking operations, which led to the firm’s near-collapse in September. In the past, AIG has said that its trades involved helping financial institutions and counterparties insure their securities holdings. The speculative trades, engineered by the insurer’s financial-products unit, represent the first sign that AIG may have been gambling with its own capital.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Economics, Politics, Credit Markets, Economy, Stock Market, The Credit Freeze Crisis of Fall 2008/The Recession of 2007--, The September 2008 Proposed Henry Paulson 700 Billion Bailout Package

5 comments on “AIG Faces $10 Billion in Losses on Bad Bets

  1. Marion R. says:

    I have a close friend who works for an AIG competitor. Her company is well run and is in good shape. A big part of her job is to take customers away from AIG. None are moving. They figure AIG is safe because the Feds are bailing it out. So her company is forced to compete for business in a market where 65% of the accounts are locked in with a single competitor that is completely subsidized by the Central Government.

    Are we calling it that yet? The “Central Government”?

  2. tgs says:

    A perfect example of the distortions in the market caused by government interference.

  3. ny_ben says:

    NEW YORK, Dec 10, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) — American International Group, Inc. (AIG) has issued the following statement regarding an article that appeared today in The Wall Street Journal:
    “A story in today’s Wall Street Journal incorrectly reports that AIG has a previously undisclosed obligation to counterparties of about $10 billion. The Journal’s story relates to AIG Financial Products’ multi-sector credit default swap portfolio. Included within that $71.6 billion portfolio (notional amount as of September 30) is approximately $9.8 billion of swaps that were sold as credit protection on “synthetic” securities. The swaps on these synthetic securities are also referred to as “cash settlement” or “Pay As You Go” (PAUG) swaps because they are settled in cash as and when losses are taken.

  4. ny_ben says:

    [continued…]
    The majority of the multi-sector CDS swaps were written as “physical settlement” swaps, where AIG is required to physically buy the underlying collateralized debt obligation (CDO) bond in the event of a CDO credit event.

    The $9.8 billion notional amount does not represent a loss to AIG or a debt it owes to counterparties. It represents the notional value of the maximum potential cash settlement portion of the multi-sector portfolio. Cash settlement swaps have lower liquidity risk because they are PAUG. A credit event on a physical settlement swap requires AIG to buy the total underlying CDO tranche in an amount equal to AIG’s full notional exposure whereas a PAUG contract only obliges AIG to pay losses on that tranche as and when they occur therefore reducing the cash impact.

    AIG is addressing its exposure to its entire multi-sector CDS portfolio through its existing credit agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. As previously announced, AIG and the Federal Reserve have funded the Maiden Lane III facility, which has negotiated agreements to settle $53.5 billion of AIG’s $71.6 billion CDS portfolio.

    The notional amount attributable to the cash settlement portion of the AIG Financial Products multi-sector credit default swap portfolio has been consistently included in the total AIG Financial Products multi-sector credit default swap exposure in AIG’s SEC filings and is explained on page 117 of AIG’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008.”

  5. Jeffersonian says:

    A fine story, #1. Indeed, the federal government stomping around in financial markets is a huge part of today’s uncertainty. Yours is an excellent example of the damage this is causing.