Liddy’s Lies to Congress: Meet AIG’s $6.4 Million Man

As I noted this morning, Doug Poling was the guy whom AIG decided last year should get a $6.4 million "retention" bonus for sticking around a year. (He has since turned down the bonus.)

The WSJ has some details on what Poling has done to be worth so much money.

In August 2007, Douglas Poling sat in on a meeting at which Joseph Cassano, then-head of American International Group Inc.’s financial-products unit, berated an in-house auditor for raising questions about the accounting for a joint venture Mr. Poling led.

The auditor, Joseph St. Denis, resigned the next month after his reporting lines were changed to limit his communications with auditors at the parent company, according to an account of AIG’s dealings he detailed in a letter he wrote to Congress last October.

[snip]

A former Wall Street lawyer who joined the AIG unit in the early 1990s, Mr. Poling oversaw legal work on the contracts that sat at the core of the unit’s business — such as customized insurance-like swaps and other derivative contracts that generated a steady stream of fees, according to former colleagues.

[snip]

In May 2007, as AIG’s swaps problems began developing, Mr. Poling expressed confidence about the business approach of AIG’s financial unit toward one of its products, in an investor presentation with Mr. Cassano.

"We are very careful and disciplined and rigorous in the way in which we structure and document these transactions, and are very sensitive to ensuring that we have early termination rights so that if the rules change, we’re able to unwind those transactions and move on to other segments of the business that are more attractive," Mr. Poling said, according to a transcript of the investor presentation.

[snip]

The Poling-led joint venture discussed at the meeting preceding Mr. St. Denis’ resignation was a partnership announced in March 2007 between AIG’s financial-products unit and closely held Tenaska Energy in Omaha, Neb. AIG began unwinding the partnership in January. [my emphasis]

So, our $6.4 million man was one of the people cheering the safety of AIG’s CDS business, and one of the guys in charge of an energy deal that seemed to be based on dicey accounting. (For more on Tenaska, see page 6-7 of this).

Now, when he testified before Congress the other day, Edward Liddy repeatedly assured the Committee that the people who had put together the CDS business were gone. He stated clearly that the people left over were the good guys, people tied to "traditional" derivatives business. For example, here’s Liddy telling Bill Posey that the guys managing the derivatives–who are distinct from the guys who brought the company to its knees–are getting the bonuses.

Posey: We wouldn’t care about the bonuses if it weren’t for the bailout money. A big bonus for these people is that they’re not in jail, and that they still have jobs. I can’t imagine that the demand is that great for someone who can screw up an entire company.  Have you seen any signs of what someone might normally consider criminal activity.

Liddy: Nothing has come to light that I am aware of. It really is easy to paint with one brush. There are people who worked on one piece called CDS. Another regulatory capital. Derivitives book. For the most part those are separate people. Those are the ones that brought our company to our knees. In the derivitives book those are the ones we’re asking to please wind this down. Those are the ones that got the bonuses. [my emphasis]

Here’s Liddy telling Don Manzullo we’re not paying the architects of this collapse bonuses.

Liddy: Top people in AIGFP. Top people in AIG are receiving no bonus. 

Manzullo: When Kashkari testified, he said the top people who were responsible had been removed. 

Liddy: I think he meant AIG.

Manzullo: I was questioning $4 million bonus. His statement that the key people who made it go sour had been removed. Those people getting bonuses were people in charge when it collapsed.

Liddy: We’re not paying Cassano and other architects. [my empahsis]

And yet, Liddy had to know that we were, in fact, paying the legal architect of the CDS contracts. We were, in fact, paying the top bonus to one of the guys who brought the company to its knees. We were paying the guy whose title has varied from AIGFP General Counsel to Chief Administrative Officer (I wonder if his current title, EVP for infrastructure and energy investments, is a way to hide that he’s still there) a $6.4 million bonus, all the while pretending that we weren’t paying any of the guys who were in charge when AIGFP went under!!

Just for fun, consider the fact that Liddy knew that Poling, one of the guys who sat in on a meeting where Cassano basically dismissed a risk manager, was getting the biggest bonus, when he answered this question from Gary Peters.

Peters: Where was your company’s risk management?

Liddy: Risk management practices in place. Not allowed to go into FP business. You need to get those who ran AIG before my arrival and ask that question.

Poling, our $6.4 million man, could well answer where the company’s risk management was.

And for a heap of fun, consider Liddy’s refusal to answer Grayson’s demand for names of the 20-25 people who ruined the company.

Grayson: What are the names of the 20-25 people.

Liddy: I don’t have their names at my disposal.

Grayson: Names please? I’m asking for the names of the people that caused your company to lose 100 billion dollars.

Liddy: I don’t know them.

Grayson: Not a single one.

There’s a reason Liddy didn’t want to answer that question. One of those 20-25 people led the list of bonus recipients.

Liddy deliberately hid this fact when he testified on Thursday. Not only did Liddy lie when he said all the CDS people were gone. But he was hiding the fact that the US taxpayer was being asked to pay $6.4 million to one of the geniuses who wrecked our economy.

image_print
31 replies
  1. BoxTurtle says:

    Was Liddy under oath when he made those statements?

    Boxturtle (If so, he can expect a strongly worded letter)

    • scribe says:

      It was definitely a tissue of lies, but all non-specific enough so that they are likely unprosecutable.

      This is a practiced liar we’re talking about.

  2. MadDog says:

    And what do we hear from AG Holder and the Obama Administration’s DOJ wrt AIG?

    Crickets!

    If we ever hear, I suspect the excuses will be that AG Holder and the DOJ just couldn’t do anything because, to quote President Obama himself (h/t to EW and her earlier post):

    “The same is true with AIG,” he said. “It was the right thing to do to step in. Here’s the problem. It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.”

    Or perhaps AG Holder and the Obama Administration’s DOJ don’t feel up to the job and prefer New York’s Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to do all the heavy lifting.

  3. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Risk management, like audit or legal and sometimes HR, can’t function without unrestricted access to operating units, and similar access to their superiors.

    Stage one is to work with units to help them transact their business by all legal means and within whatever ground rules the company and each unit sets. When divisional ops potentially violate the law or corporate rules, or put at risk assets beyond those of the relevant operating unit, then RM, audit, legal and/or HR have channels (in well-managed companies) to senior management and are obligated to use them.

    These managers are informed about the problems and share the “hit” if they approve of them and things go sour as internal advisers warned.

    If AIG put its risk managers in a box (the dream of most company sales types) it goes all the way to the top and is persuasive evidence that AIG knew it was undertaking significant, potentially bet the company risks with inadequate systems in place to manage those risks. They did it anyway because the short-term money was so good.

    I would not want to be AIG’s auditors, lawyers, board or D&O insurance carriers. (Who wants to bet they self-insured, a contradiction in terms.) They’re gonna be working overtime for the next five or six years scraping the undigested organic matter off the front porch.

    • klynn says:

      You and I are on the same page on that. I mentioned that yesterday in the comments.

      I continue to be pretty ticked that Liddy had the gall to mention “risk” as the “reason” for the bailout. Suddenly “risk” means something…

  4. bmaz says:

    Contemptuous, but not perjurious, from what I saw. Doesn’t matter, Holder wouldn’t do anything anyway. And you know Jeff Taylor won’t, and Obama doesn’t seem to give a rat’s ass about replacing him or any of the other Bush pods in the various USA offices. Really, it is a brilliant plan Mr. Obama is implementing; it must be, because he plays eleven dimensional chess and all that.

  5. emptywheel says:

    Just put the YouTube of Posey and Manzullo up.

    He definitely hedged. “Most of the people who are directly responsible, those people are gone.”

    But not all, huh Mr. Liddy?

  6. plunger says:

    Z, from Big Dan’s site, just wrote this. I think he nailed it:

    Is AIG laundering bailout money actually intended for Goldman Sachs and then to the ultimate benefit of big honcho David Rockefeller ?

    AIG the culprit? NO.. Here’s the real beneficiary of the bailout money.

    If AIG fell, Goldman Sachs was going to be hurt, badly, because of the counter party issue.

    The original bailout last fall to AIG was pushed by Paulson, Bushie Sec. of Treasury.

    Who used to be CEO of Goldman Sachs.

    Who was also a mentor to Geithner.

    Lehman Brothers was a rival of Goldman Sachs. Lehman was allowed to sink.

    The bailout program, designed by Paulson to give about 12 billion indirectly to Goldman Sachs via AIG, is being “managed” by…Neel Kashkari, a former Goldman Sachs VP.

    Geithner was a protege of Robert Rubin.

    Rubin was Clinton’s Sec. Treasury who pushed for the deregulation which led to this mess.

    Rubin came to Treasury job from……………..Goldman Sachs.

    Geithner’s Chief of Staff, Mark Patterson, was a lobbyist for…Goldman Sachs.

    The new AIG CEO, Liddy, who was appointed by Paulson, came from Goldman Sachs.
    *
    *
    ž | 03.20.09 – 8:18 pm

    I’ve personally observed that all money and power flow to David Rockefeller in the United States…that he is indeed the King.

    Connect the dots through Congress/Treasury/The FED (one and the same under the ownership and control of David Rockefeller) through AIG to Goldman – and then on to the control of Rockefeller from there.

    The ridiculous secrecy about use of public funds to support publicly traded companies is EVIDENCE OF CRIMINALITY AND COVERUP.

    Connect All The Dots

    Geithner is CLEARLY Rockefeller’s agent…and lying his ass off…poorly.

  7. Ishmael says:

    “The Poling-led joint venture discussed at the meeting preceding Mr. St. Denis’ resignation was a partnership announced in March 2007 between AIG’s financial-products unit and closely held Tenaska Energy in Omaha, Neb. AIG began unwinding the partnership in January….”

    Haven’t we seen this movie before, with Enron? Malleable accountants, lawyers, deregulation? And wasn’t Sarbanes-Oxley supposed to strengthen public company accounting controls? So, there should be liability on all the CEOs who personally certified all the quarterly financial statements, no? Or is that the real reason that AIGFP did all its dirtywork in London?

  8. Petrocelli says:

    Toronto was a balmy 5 degrees this p.m. (not counting the windchill, which made it close to zero) … ain’t Spring gorgeous ? *g*

    • LS says:

      Interesting. They withheld the tapes from the 9/11 Commission too. I wonder what else they withheld from the Commission. Cough.

  9. Professor Foland says:

    What does “not allowed” to go into FP business mean in this context? Not allowed by–the owners?

    Memo to Mr. Liddy: that guy asking you the questions? He is the owners.

  10. JohnLopresti says:

    Tenaska has an interesting presentation in its FY07 annual report concerning the market venture with AIG. I have yet to review other germane fiscal reporting, though have some business memory of AIG interactions in a lawfirm which had a bundle of cases involving their munificience, over one year’s span quite a while ago. So far, not in the duck blind with the former Naval observatory denizen in March 2001. Athough small measures of elision are seen in the recent news, I continue to look for the industry dynamics underpinning the shifts both AIG and the energy sector are traversing; the brief and colorful FY07 report first linked provides an inside glimpse at a tranche of that.

  11. emptywheel says:

    From the document Lopresti linked:

    MV’s services are tailored to
    meet the customer’s needs
    for buying and selling natural
    gas, price hedging, transportation
    and storage services, supply
    or demand swing management, asset
    management and capital products.
    AIG-FP acquired a 50 percent interest
    in TMV Holdings, LLC in April 2007,
    which allowed TMV to expand its ability
    to serve existing and new customers,
    develop new capital products and
    undertake new business opportunities.
    AIG-FP Partnership Adds Growth
    TMV President Fred Hunzeker said
    the partnership has gotten off to an
    exceptionally successful start, with a 34
    percent increase in 2007 transactional
    pre-tax net income compared to the
    record-setting level in 2006. TMV also
    increased its asset position in gas
    transportation by 100 percent and,
    through Tenaska Gas Storage, increased
    its asset position in gas storage by
    50 percent.
    “We looked for a highly-rated
    creditworthy counterparty that would
    bring a substantial balance sheet to the
    business and help us continue to grow,”
    he said. “We achieved that with AIG-FP
    and its parent company’s balance sheet
    and AA rating.”
    The partnership with AIG-FP
    has allowed TMV to add a $1 billion
    backstop credit facility as further
    support for TMV’s existing five-year
    $1 billion revolving line of credit. The
    increased size of TMV’s credit facilities
    enhances TMV’s liquidity and credit
    capability and provides more support
    for its customer guarantees. Through
    the partnership, TMV is expanding the
    services it can offer customers, including
    a line of capital products that
    might be used to help customers meet
    additional needs.

  12. Peterr says:

    I am highly amused at the fact that when I clicked on this post, I got an ad in the box between the post and the comments for “help with my credit” highlighting credit cards from Citi, Capital One, and Discover.

  13. sumpls says:

    Any chance of an interview with Paul O’Neill, former sec of treas who was ‘let go’ for trying to be honest? I read his book when it came out as he was among the first (besides Richard Clark) to throw some light on what was going on in 2000-2001. It’d be interesting to hear his assessment. If you find something, could you post it?
    Great job- you never disappoint!

  14. BooRadley says:

    ew, great catch.

    I really hope the House will bring Liddy back to amend his testimony so as to avoid indictment 4 perjury.

  15. bobschacht says:

    Rachel Maddow had a great segment tonight on the history of deregulation, called “Cops and Robber Barons.” As she points out, there were two critical pieces of legislation that set this whole disaster in motion: one was the Gramm, Leach Bliley(?) Act, that essentially repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, and the second, less well known, was the “Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000,” which is what deregulated Credit Default Swaps, etc. Both of these were signed by President Clinton!

    Is Clinton’s hand resting a little too heavily on the Obama economic team???

    Bob in HI

    • radiofreewill says:

      bob – Imvho, once the Goopers had Clinton over the barrel on the Lewinsky Affair, in ‘98, they appear to have ‘leveraged’ it by pushing through some ‘favorable’ legislation under his signature. The Goopers ‘knew’ that those two bills, in particular, were going to produce ‘toxic’ waste in the Financial System, so why not ‘tag’ Clinton with them while they’ve got him compromised?

      One of the untold storylines in the demise of Our fair and open Government in favor of Lobbyist-written Agenda Legislation is the consequence of becoming a sexually-compromised Politician.

      It’s not just Clinton, but he’s a great example of how indiscretion – in the hands of political opponents – makes for Marvelous Manipulation opportunities – why ‘prosecute’ when you can ‘use’ the person as a tool to do your bidding, first.

      How much flexibility in Voting did Vitter really have with Rove pulling the strings? Craig? Foley? The Log Cabin Republicans?

      None. They voted just as they were told to – Or else.

      The Occam’s Razor answer, imho, on the ‘lock-step’ block-voting by the Republicans during the Bush years, in particular, is: They were all Compromised.

      Not all of them were Cunninghams – making the most of it – but for all practical purposes, all of them had ’skeletons’ to hide – most of them sexual indiscretions – from public view, and, hence, no ability to honestly Vote for their constituencies – they could only vote as they were told – the Party Line – or else.

      Which would also explain the Goopers’ current scorched-earth, Party-of-No, un-compromising Obstructionism – they don’t have a choice. They’re completely rotten, all the way to the core.

      The Goopers are ‘owned’ by their own Criminally-Culpable leaders. Bush Tortures, Spies on US without a Warrant, Fires the USAs for Dis-loyalty, Gives away a Trillion Dollars with No-Strings-Attached, Invades an innocent sovereign nation on lies, Outs a National Security Asset and her Front-Company, and on and on and on…with No Republican Dissent.

      So, the Goopers, by their own Weakness are All in-for-a-penny, in-for-a-pound. Anything less than Total Obstructionism means Getting Caught and Being Held Accountable – so, you know they’ll Run-and-Hide before they ‘fess up…

      Their bizarre actions are best explained by the dark side of their Mountainous Pride – a Pit Full of Shame – from which wafts the odor of Hypocrisy, and Fear of Being Found Out. Bush and Cheney, Gonzo and Addington, in particular, are Total Cowards – they will run to Texas and Secede, in an attempt to avoid being held accountable for their despicable actions.

      Bush and Cheney didn’t ‘take chances’ on their Ideological Agenda running into ‘principled opposition’ – they had the ‘goods’ on their Minions – just like they did on Clinton – and they weren’t afraid to use them to get their way.

      • 4jkb4ia says:

        With Newt, his sexual indiscretions were out in the open. The mainstream press covered extensively that the generation of 1994 was meant to be narrowly ideological and running against Washington and learning anything from it. If these are the people you are sending there and they think they are part of a “people’s revolution” of course they will vote as they are told.

    • klynn says:

      bobschacht,

      I’ve talked about following the $$$ behind those two Acts getting killed and the impact of the deregulation they unleashed.

      I’ll try to find it, but I came across an article about Clinton and those pieces of legislation. If I recall correctly, Gramm had the Repug (along with some Dems) vote count to override a veto.

      There is more behind the story. I hope Rachel continues to “hunt” and not stop at Clinton’s door. The story is in the lobbying efforts and who was lobbied to kill these long standing critical pieces of legislation.

  16. DeadLast says:

    Put Liddy in jail. He lied. He got paid his $1. So it is fraud. Where is the religious right’s outrage? Didn’t Liddy break one of the 10: thou shalt not bear false witness?

Comments are closed.