« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Did Cassano Shut Out AIG Risk Officers?
Did AIG's entire risk management team fall down on the job? Or, like the firm's auditors, were they prevented from doing it?
Yesterday we told you about Bob Lewis, AIG's chief risk officer, who still has his job despite a rather obvious failure to ensure that the firm wasn't taking on an unmanageable level of risk.
But it looks like it's not just Lewis. The Wall Street Journal reports that several longtime members of AIG's Credit Risk Committee are also still in place. That committee, says the paper, was in charge of overseeing those disastrous credit default swaps.
At least five of the committee's ten members have served for several years. In addition to Lewis, the chief risk officer, they are:
- Kevin McGinn, chief credit officer and chairman of the committee
- Win Neuger, chief executive of AIG Investments;
- William Dooley, head of AIG's financial-services division, which includes the financial-products unit that sold the credit-default swaps, and...
- Barbara-Ann Livanou, director of financial institutions in the credit-risk-management department.
Lewis and McGinn appear to be the most directly implicated here. It was Lewis' department, of course, that handled the company's "major risks," according to SEC filings looked at by the Journal. (A former AIG exec yesterday confirmed to TPMmuckraker that Lewis' role would have been to avoid letting AIG get into the exact position that brought it down.)
As for McGinn, he headed a department focused on credit risk, and reported to Lewis. That group's "primary role is to support and supplement" the Credit Risk Committee's work, according to the SEC filing. At a December 2007 meeting, McGinn assured investors that "essentially" every credit default swap was overseen by the risk committee.
But another interesting name on the list is that of Dooley. As head of the financial-services division, Dooley worked closely with AIGFP chief Joe Cassano -- the man who was primarily responsible for pushing the unit into the credit default swaps -- according to a 2004 deposition that Cassano gave in a breach of contract case. Cassano said he consulted with Dooley, for instance, before asking key executives to resign.
But there are signs that the access of figures like Lewis, McGinn, and Dooley to AIGFP's books was limited. We've already reported how Cassano took steps to keep the firm's internal auditor in the dark. But the Journal adds that at a January 2008 meeting, AIG's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, concluded that the access to AIGFP enjoyed by Lewis' departments and other groups "may require strengthening."
And:
Two months later, the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, which regulated AIG's financial-products unit, sent a letter to the company, also released by Congress. OTS said the unit "was allowed to limit access of key risk control groups while material questions relating to the valuation of the [swap portfolio] were mounting." The OTS said those "control groups" included Mr. Lewis's department and an official in the financial-services division, which Mr. Dooley oversees.At a congressional hearing last week, Rep. Gary Peters (D., Mich.) asked AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy, "Where was the risk management of your company? Where was the failure of your own internal risk-management procedures?"
Mr. Liddy responded, "We had risk-management practices in place. They generally were not allowed to go up into the financial-products business.
So did Cassano succeed in cordoning off AIGFP from any external scrutiny? If so, how? And how much blame attaches to figures like Lewis, McGinn, and Dooley -- not to mention Martin Sullivan, who ran AIG in the years leading up to its collapse? Those sound like pretty good questions for the many AIG investigators to pursue.
Late Update: The rest of that exchange between Rep. Peters and Liddy -- after Liddy had said that AIG's risk officers weren't allowed access to AIGFP -- is worth looking at:
REP. PETERS: How could that be? How could they not be allowed to go, when they are putting trillions of dollars at risk?MR. LIDDY: I -- as I said earlier to someone's similar type question, you need to get the people who ran FP -- Mr. Cassano -- and the people who ran AIG before my arrival, and ask them that question.
REP. PETERS: Yeah. Well, that's a big question.
Sure is.

















Might "how" be the most important question to ask? I mean how does somebody that is head of a small arm of a company obtain immunity like this? Especially with the amount of money that it appears other company officers were aware opf being handle by this division. Where in God's name do you find the authority to not be audited. Sounds like Dick Cheney has his back.
March 27, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm very happy that TPM is finally waking up and making a distinction between two critical things: investigating a potentially illegal wrong-doing versus parroting the media meme on bonuses and blanket condemnation of everyone at AIG as axis of evil.
March 27, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we meet half way? I'll agree to stop condemning all of AIG, but there needs to be public executions on Wall St. for those found responsible.
Deal?
March 27, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wouldn't suprise me if the Risk team was shut out. Generally speaking, the traders and PMs at a firm have much more clout than risk officers and auditors who are sometimes seen as raining on the parade. This doesn't mean that the Risk wasn't incompetent, they may well have been. But they probably would have stood no chance of exercising meaningful oversight if their job was to tamp down on high-rolling traders and their shady deals.
March 27, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, when does the AIG risk assessment team get to testify and get to cover their asses also?
Before they get drawn and quartered, they should have a chance to present all the warnings (letters and e-mails) they gave to the executives about the inflated risks AIG and the AIGFP division was taking.
That could really make things interesting.
March 27, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I mean, if I'm a risk officer, probably the primary signal of risk is when the "deal-makers" say, "you aren't allowed to look behind the curtain".
Major clue - If you aren't allowed to look behind the curtain, then there is something wrong behind the curtain.
March 29, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its a perfect example of a Catch 22.
The risk officer doesn't assess the risky portions of AIG.
In Heller's Catch-22, Major Major would only see Yossarian or others in his office when he wasn't in his office, sometimes requiring him to exit through the window.
March 27, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't blame this solely on Sullivan. This was Hank Greenberg's company and he ran it with an iron fist. It didn't all of a sudden go out of control when Sullivan took over.
March 27, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Don't blame this solely on Sullivan. This was Hank Greenberg's company and he ran it with an iron fist. It didn't all of a sudden go out of control when Sullivan took over."
Thank you. That was what I was going to say.
According to the Washington Post series on AIG back on December, 2008, Greenberg set Cassano up as a little prince in his own kingdom. Cassano's dynamic apparently was he kissed Hank's ass and gave everybody else the back of his hand and because at the time he was making Hank so much money, Hank let him.
Those credit guys probably couldn't or wouldn't take on Cassano even if they wanted to at least at of fear of Hank. Even after Hank was thrown out, Sullivan apparently wouldn't take on Cassano either, according to Sullivan's testimony before Congress.
These credit guys were/are probably underlings, essentially nobodies. How come none of the rage or inquiry has been directed at Greenberg, who was the facilitator and the person ultimately responsible during much of the time this disaster was developing?
March 29, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
So instead of throwing $200 billion at these frauds, so far, and allowing them to funnel it to GS and Deutsche Bank, couldn't the fire everyone, take it over for 6 months, then sell it back to someone in the private sector? I know the right wing would call it "socialism" (hardly different than what we are doing now) but wouldn't this be more efficient and much cheaper?
March 29, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much of this speculative investments at AIGFP was involved in the increase of the price of gasoline last summer?
Someone with a lot of money available either cornered the market for crude oil, or came very close to cornering it, and made a pile of money while doing so.
Who were the major investors in oil futures and where did all those profits go?
.
March 30, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the Washington Post series that ran at the beginning of the year, it seemed that this was a result of the Financial Products Group starting out as essentially a joint venture between the boy geniuses who developed the computer risk models in the first place and AIG, pretty much in the person of AIG CEO Hank Greenberg.
The boy wonders wanted complete independence and wanted attachment to AIG only in the sense that they used AIG's name to get the AAA rating. Giving the amount of money they raked in, that was fine with Greenberg.
I think it is Greenberg who really needs to be held to account for this, although Joey Casino didn't bring a lot of light to the matter when he took over FPS either. He ALSO should take a lot of heat for this mess.
March 29, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to remember that risk assessment was not allowed at the ratings agencies either. Weren't underwriters specifically told that they should not look into the risk aspects of the underlying mortgages in these now "toxic" bundles?
March 29, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see gkhanesq made largely the same point as I did, but I believe Greenberg was hands-off earlier in the game than the arrival of Joey Casino. I also remember that it was Joey Casino's lack of understanding of the complicated risk assessment system that added enormously to the problem. Basically, he threw the system out the window and was just all "Sell sell sell."
Still, Greenburg was in charge so it is Greenberg who should be sued for ginormous damages for failure to exercise his fiduciary duty to shareholders of AIG.
March 29, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
With this being the case I would think top management knew and blessed what was happening in this group. It was a significant reason for their large bonuses.
They knew it would not survive an audit and were complicit!
March 29, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chutzpah be thy name.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/02/news/newsmakers/aig_suit.reut/
Former CEO sues AIG
Maurice Greenberg, ex-chief executive of the hemorrhaging insurance giant, and the largest individual shareholder, accuses AIG of hiding losses.
Will Hank have to subponea, deposition, and cross examine himself?
March 30, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink