« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Stiglitz: Goldman Would Have Fired Paulson For Bailout Investments
Lately at TPM, we've been wondering about exactly what kind of deal taxpayers got on that whole $700 billion bailout that the Treasury isn't doing much to track.
And along comes Bloomberg with a report that suggests we might not want to know the answer.
The lead data point:
[Treasury Secretary Henery Paulson] invested $10 billion in Goldman Sachs in October, twice as much as [Warren] Buffett did the month before, yet gained warrants worth one-fourth as much as the billionaire.
So Buffett's investors got a better deal than taxpayers. Bloomberg explains:
Paulson left money on the table in three ways, according to [former IMF chief economist Simon] Johnson: accepting fewer warrants than Buffett did; setting the certificates' price trigger, or strike, above market values; and receiving an annual yield on the preferred shares that is half of what Buffett will get for the first five years.
And Bloomberg has some damning quotes about Paulson's investing. Johnson calls them "just egregious," adding: "You want to do it the way Warren does it."
And according to Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz: Paulson said "he had to make it attractive to banks, which is code for 'I'm going to give money away.'"
Stiglitz continued: "In many ways, it's not only a giveaway, but a giveaway that was designed not to work."
And he added: "If Paulson was still an employee of Goldman Sachs and he'd done this deal, he would have been fired."













They're on to something there. Obama should recruit Buffett as an overseer, a sanity checker of TARP and the Auto czar. The man is genius at making a dollar squeak and should be in the equation.
January 9, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope no one thinks this was a mistake. This is the Bush administration we're talking about. It was DESIGNED to be a giveaway.
January 9, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And remember that the reason Paulson was selected by Bush was that his predecessor, John Snow, failed to close the Dubai Ports deal for The Carlyle Group. In their minds, Paulson must be better able to deliver.
January 9, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your headline is misleading. It implies Buffett did something wrong ["sweeheart deal"], when in fact Buffett made his deal FIRST. So, he got a good deal, and stupid Paulson, representing the US taxpayers, got a crappy one.
It's not Buffett's fault that Paulson is a crook and and idiot.
January 9, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's astounding to me that the Congress is willing to permit so little oversight. I wouldn't want to be Paulson, just on the off chance someone at some point decides to go back and take a good look at this, maybe try to find grounds to prosecute.
January 9, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me, too! I'm shocked –– SHOCKED -- oh, never mind, I'm not.
January 10, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's worth noting that Obama voted for the stimulus-package-without-oversight. What the hell was he thinking?
January 10, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not at all mistake guys. This is the Bush administration we're talking about right?. It was destined to be a giveaway. The Department of Insurance bailout is not at all important here. I m actually shocked on this behavior. He had to make it attractive to banks, which is code for 'I'm going to give money away.' Have a look at it. You will understand.
January 12, 2009 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink