About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wall Street Journal article omitted Bush Treasury Department's role from AIG bonus timeline

March 23, 2009 3:23 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal article about Tim Geithner and his aides' involvement in decisions about AIG's bonus payments did not note that it was the Bush administration that negotiated a November 2008 stock purchase agreement with AIG through which the Bush Treasury Department injected $40 billion into the company without requiring that the bonus contracts be nullified.

25 Comments

A March 23 Wall Street Journal article about Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and his aides' involvement in decisions about AIG's bonus payments did not report that it was the Bush Treasury Department that signed a stock purchase agreement with AIG, whereby AIG received $40 billion in aid, without having to terminate those payments. The Journal reported, "As New York Fed president [at the time], Mr. Geithner was central to AIG's initial $85 billion bailout in September, which was carried out in a tumultuous four-day period." The Journal further reported, "One of Mr. Geithner's top bank supervisors at the New York Fed, Sarah Dahlgren, became the government's lead overseer of AIG. She sat in on AIG board meetings, joined at times by other top Fed staffers, and also participated in compensation-committee meetings. It isn't clear whether the issue rose to the board level until this month. AIG received an expanded government rescue in October and another in November, bringing the total to about $150 billion, including $40 billion in Treasury funds." But the Journal article did not make clear that it was President Bush's administration that negotiated a November 25, 2008, stock purchase agreement with AIG through which the Bush Treasury Department injected the $40 billion into the company without requiring that the bonus contracts, which AIG had signed with employees, be nullified.

As Media Matters for America previously documented, on March 20, FoxBusiness.com reported that in a November 1, 2008, email, a Treasury Department official wrote, "Have your benefits team made any progress on the 'soft' issues, or heard anything from the fed [sic] on the bonus situation?" The article further reported, "Despite their deliberations at the time, the Treasury and Fed officials, which were part of the Bush Administration, eventually decided to restrict compensation on just the top 75 company executives -- and some of them may still have received hefty bonuses." But in reporting on "how Mr. Geithner and his aides were apprised of the AIG bonuses," The Wall Street Journal did not report that, after deliberating over the bonus contracts, the Bush administration signed the November stock purchase without requiring AIG to nullify those contracts. Indeed, Neil Barofsky, a Bush-appointed special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), noted in March 19 testimony that the executive compensation section of the Treasury's TARP agreement with AIG limits compensation for "Senior Partners," including "all retention payments paid or payable to such Senior Partner under any retention arrangement between the Senior Partner and the Company for any period ending on or prior to March 31, 2010." But the agreement does not affect retention payments for other AIG employees.

From the March 23 Wall Street Journal article:

Since the fall, senior aides to Timothy Geithner have closely dealt with American International Group Inc. on compensation issues including bonuses, both from his time as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and as Treasury secretary.

The extent of their involvement, which wasn't widely known, raises fresh questions about whether Mr. Geithner could have known earlier about AIG's $165 million in bonus payments. When the bonuses sparked a political firestorm last week, Mr. Geithner said he learned about their full scope in early March, just days before they were paid.

Mr. Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke will be grilled by Congress on Tuesday in a hearing that is likely to focus heavily on AIG. The flap has prompted lawmakers to seek curbs on an array of bonuses, tested the Obama administration and undermined Mr. Geithner's standing as he attempts to implement measures to stabilize the financial system.

Treasury officials say the department's staff kept Mr. Geithner in the dark until March 10. "Secretary Geithner, who has been actively engaged in shaping and executing the president's broad economic agenda, takes full responsibility for not being aware of these programs" before that date, Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker said Sunday in a written response to questions.

This account of how Mr. Geithner and his aides were apprised of the AIG bonuses was based on interviews with government officials, lawmakers and congressional testimony.

As New York Fed president, Mr. Geithner was central to AIG's initial $85 billion bailout in September, which was carried out in a tumultuous four-day period.

After Edward Liddy took over as AIG chief executive, the company hired consultants to look at its payment plans around the world. One of Mr. Geithner's top bank supervisors at the New York Fed, Sarah Dahlgren, became the government's lead overseer of AIG. She sat in on AIG board meetings, joined at times by other top Fed staffers, and also participated in compensation-committee meetings. It isn't clear whether the issue rose to the board level until this month.

AIG received an expanded government rescue in October and another in November, bringing the total to about $150 billion, including $40 billion in Treasury funds.

In early November, the Fed, outside auditor Ernst & Young and AIG officials began examining through a committee the bonuses set to be paid to AIG's financial-products division, including those that sparked last week's furor. The committee concluded that the bonuses, which were in contracts signed before the government takeover, couldn't be legally blocked, according to a person familiar with the matter. The Obama administration has since agreed with that legal interpretation.

AIG cited the retention plan in a public filing in early November, and Fed officials were aware AIG planned to pay $55 million in bonuses to financial-products employees the next month. Mr. Geithner remained involved in major AIG matters, seeking updates from Ms. Dahlgren and other top Fed staffers. He recused himself from dealing with aid to specific companies around the time of his Nov. 24 nomination as Treasury secretary.

Fed officials declined to make Ms. Dahlgren available to comment on the bonus issue.

Lawmakers were also scrutinizing AIG's operations. Some raised the matter of the AIG bonuses at a hearing in December where they grilled Neel Kashkari, a Bush Treasury official who remains at the department.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by gcxtid3498BID (March 23, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
         

      RE:  Paulson on Bonus Provisions

      Henry Paulson was adamantly opposed to restricting bonuses; he repeatedly made the point publically while he was Sec of Treasury.

      "...it was the Bush administration that negotiated a November 2008 stock purchase agreement with AIG ."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by thejbomb65 (March 23, 2009 3:57 pm ET)
         

      but of course wsj would never ever criticize W. and his buddies. that would be going against rupert and roger ailes.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by thejbomb65 (March 23, 2009 3:57 pm ET)
         

      and we all know the standing order at wsj....print what rupert tells you or your fired.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Newt2012 (March 23, 2009 4:05 pm ET)
         

      The fact of the matter is Geithner DID know about the bonuses and had the ability to STOP them. Obama and Bush were not talking in November? BO knew about this as well and the bonuses are being paid out under HIS watch. The 'Blame Bush" stuff is starting to get old, at what point is BO going to be held accountable?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by smarshall1432997 (March 23, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
           

        Newt2012, where have you been over the past few days (getting the next Republican Talking Points or something) because President Obama told the finger pointers in Washington (and anyone) that would listen - "...to blame him."  President Obama took the blame days ago, and have moved on to make "sure" that this thing does "not" happen in the future.  I hope this info. helps your worries in some way.  Enjoy your day.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Newt2012 (March 23, 2009 5:24 pm ET)
             

          Yeah-yeah, just like he is, "going to go line by line", right? How about worrying about NOT spending TRILLIONS and instead of worrying about millions he already knew about.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by steveanders_62273 (March 24, 2009 9:19 am ET)
               

            Where was your outrage over spending when Bush was in office.  You ask when are we are we gonna hold BO accountable.  The answer is as soon as Conservatives admit that they played a large roll in this financial crisis.  I love how 60 days in to an administration the president is at fault for an economy that was in recession for a year before he was in office.  People tried to point to the stock market declines prior to him being in office and pin them on the the probability that he would win office yet there is nothing said when the stock market has it's 5th largest point rally ever, after he announces plans to fix the banking problems.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Newt2012 (March 24, 2009 9:44 am ET)
                 

              The conservatives being Barney frank and Chris Dodd? I love how in 60 days the market hits a 12 year low, Bush's fault right? No, it's lack of confidance in a president with zero experience running anything, let alone a country. Maybe if he had made those plans a month ago the market would not have suffored as bad and I would still have a 401K. Instead he was making plans to push his socialism scheme.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by MickD (March 23, 2009 4:07 pm ET)
         

      Is anybody who is reading this on the "street" believing that BushieCo is totally innocent in this whole debacle? I wouldn't want them for my financial consultants.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by commonsenseliberal (March 23, 2009 4:28 pm ET)
           

        Exactly.  Weren't the bonuses paid to AIG considered retention bonuses?

        If these people were working for me, they'd be fired...not retained.  And definitely no bonus.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (March 23, 2009 8:13 pm ET)
           

        I wouldn't want them for my financial consultants.

        Don't forget that Bush the Lesser wanted them to control Social Security.  I bet Wall Street was having a continual wet dream about getting their criminal hands on all that FICA cash.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by jwcoop715110 (March 23, 2009 8:32 pm ET)
             

          Are you referring to bush the lesser or bush the even lesser?

          Report Abuse
      • Author by my4cents (March 23, 2009 10:07 pm ET)
           

        how does it mater if BushieCo is innocent, or not?

        Does Geithner know what he was/is doing?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by my4cents (March 23, 2009 10:18 pm ET)
             

          Either the bonuses were good for the tasx payer, or not. In either case he should have explained his stand to public satisfaction.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Floyd (March 26, 2009 9:45 am ET)
           

        MickD---I wouldn't want them for my financial consultants.

           Are you kidding? Where else are you going to get a $200,000,000 return on a $100,000 investment? AIG gave Obama $100,000 during his campaign and Obama is giving AIG $200,000,000 in bailout money. Geez the reasoning for the bonus's being paid is right in front of you. All you have to do is open you eyes.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (March 23, 2009 6:20 pm ET)
         

      The wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert murdoch, right ? Probably rules with an iron fist.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Reality (March 23, 2009 8:47 pm ET)
         

      You hear so much about Haliburton and Cheney.

      The most hilarious part of all of this is the person AIG donated the most to was Obama.  $100,000.  Are you kidding me? 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Reality (March 23, 2009 8:48 pm ET)
           

        I think Obama should give THAT money back.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by steveanders_62273 (March 24, 2009 9:23 am ET)
             

          Do you understand research or do you just parrott what the right says.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (March 23, 2009 10:10 pm ET)
           

        It's not AIG that gave Obama money. It's employees of AIG. There's no evidence that those campaign contributions are affecting his behavior now.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by steveanders_62273 (March 24, 2009 9:22 am ET)
           

        Thiose are from AIG employees not from AIG lobbyist.  Obama got more money from employees at most companies as he raised more money than any candidate ever.  This arguement is silly.  You need to look up AIG lobbying activities.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (March 24, 2009 6:23 pm ET)
           

        that is a political CYA

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.