Creditors May Have Pushed For Chrysler Bankruptcy To Rake In Bailout Cash

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Creditors May Have Pushed For Chrysler Bankruptcy To Rake In Bailout Cash stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 05- 5-09 03:55 PM   |   Updated: 06- 5-09 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Aig Chrysler

The White House, auto executives and union representatives were all able to come to an agreement last week to keep Chrysler out of bankruptcy. But the car company's creditors -- Wall Street banks and hedge funds -- refused repeated compromises and drove the company under.

The refusal doomed a major American auto company to bankruptcy, but it may have been a smart business move for the lenders.

Many of the Wall Street firms holding Chrysler bonds may also own credit default swaps that they bought to hedge their bets. These swaps, which are essentially like an insurance policy on the bonds should Chrysler default, were likely mostly issued by AIG.

AIG, thanks to the government bailout, has paid off swaps in the past at 100 cents on the dollar. Under the deal they would have had to accept with Chrysler, the bondholders would have received as little as 30 cents on the dollar, for example.

Why take 30 or 35 cents on the dollar from Chrysler when you can get the whole buck from the American taxpayer?

"The basic story is very simple," says economist Dean Baker of the liberal-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research. "If they hold credit default swaps on the bonds, they're totally happy with them defaulting."

In what would rank as one of the great scams of this financial crisis, government bailouts may be colliding. Wall Street may be raking in taxpayer dollars through AIG and returning the favor by driving the auto industry into bankruptcy.

Are they? Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), who has been closely tracking the AIG bailout, wants to find out.

Story continues below
advertisement

Last week, he met with Neal Barofsky, special inspector general for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), and asked him to look into it. Barofsky was intrigued.

"He seemed open to looking into the bondholder issue when we met last week, and I am hopeful that he will be able to shed some light on this issue if he deems it worthwhile," says Cummings.

He followed up with a letter to Barofsky on Tuesday, outlining his concerns and formally requesting an investigation.

"While differing accounts exist as to how the actual negotiations played out, the fact remains that Chrysler was not able to reach an agreement with its creditors to the $6.9 billion," writes Cummings. "As an issuer of credit default swaps, it is plausible that AIG had issued swaps on the debt of the American auto companies. We know that the collateral calls and threat of payouts triggered by an AIG bankruptcy forced the federal government to commit up to $182.5 billion to the insurance giant. We also know that many holders of AIG credit default swaps were apparently compensated at 100 percent of par value in order to retire the swaps they held and enable the purchase of the underlying securities (the counterparty payments). Finally, the recipients of the counterparty payments in some cases were the same firms that held auto industry debt."

He goes on: "These circumstances could create tremendous potential for abuse of government assistance to AIG. Knowing that AIG swap counterparties have previously been paid with government funds without being compelled to take any discount or "haircut", if auto creditors had purchased swaps on their debt, they may have had a perverse incentive to allow Chrysler to fail. By not negotiating down the claims or accepting a debt-for-equity arrangement, the auto creditors could collect any credit default swap payments triggered by a Chrysler bankruptcy. Essentially, these creditors could stand to potentially benefit more from a Chrysler bankruptcy than from a restructuring out of court."

If the creditors negotiated a settlement outside of bankruptcy, the swap payoff becomes ambiguous, "but it's much clearer if you're in bankruptcy," says Baker.

Instead of negotiating against itself, the White House could have told creditors that AIG wouldn't be honoring Chrysler swaps in bankruptcy, says Baker. Of course, the creditors could sue AIG to recover the money. But without further taxpayer injections into AIG, even by winning in court the creditors would find very little blood to squeeze out of that dying turnip.

Cummings has five questions for Barofsky to look into:

1. Did AIG issue credit default swaps on debt securities of automobile companies?
2. Did creditors to GM or Chrysler hold credit default swaps on the debt? If so, were these AIG-issued swaps?
3. How many creditors to the auto companies also received payments as AIG counterparties?
4. What obligations are owed by the swap issuers to the holders of auto debt in the event of a bankruptcy or other default event?
5. What was the extent of the potential for abuse of taxpayer funds based on the scenario laid out above?

Read the whole letter:

May 5, 2009

The Honorable Neil M. Barofsky

Office of the Special Inspector General for the

Troubled Assets Relief Program

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1064

Washington, DC 20220

Dear Inspector General Barofsky:

Thank you for your work investigating the American International Group, Inc. (AIG) counterparty payments. I appreciate the update you provided me on this audit on April 28.

As we discussed, I am also concerned by the circumstances surrounding the current efforts to resuscitate the American automobile industry. The Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have provided billions of dollars in working capital for General Motors (GM) and Chrysler LLC (Chrysler) while the two firms pursue financial restructuring solutions. While the assistance to Chrysler terminated at the end of April, GM has approximately three weeks left to complete its restructuring before the working capital ends.

The Chrysler situation was particularly troubling. The company had some $10 billion in outstanding debt that was due to the United Auto Workers Retiree Health Plan. Chrysler and the union were able to negotiate an agreement that modified worker contracts and gave the union an equity position in the restructured auto company.

However, in addition to the contributions owed to the union health plan, Chrysler also carried additional debt in the amount of $6.9 billion. Creditors included JPMorgan Chase & Co., The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley, and several smaller banks and hedge funds. Perella Weinberg Partners, Oppenheimer and Stairway Capital Management have been identified thus far as hedge fund creditors.

As you are well aware, Chrysler recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, though a deal is ostensibly in place to merge Chrysler with the Italian automaker Fiat SpA, pending court approval. Until the filing occurred, eleventh hour hopes persisted that Chrysler could reach an agreement with the creditors that provided the $6.9 billion. While differing accounts exist as to how the actual negotiations played out, the fact remains that Chrysler was not able to reach an agreement with its creditors to the $6.9 billion.

As an issuer of credit default swaps, it is plausible that AIG had issued swaps on the debt of the American auto companies. We know that the collateral calls and threat of payouts triggered by an AIG bankruptcy forced the federal government to commit up to $182.5 billion to the insurance giant. We also know that many holders of AIG credit default swaps were apparently compensated at 100 percent of par value in order to retire the swaps they held and enable the purchase of the underlying securities (the counterparty payments). Finally, the recipients of the counterparty payments in some cases were the same firms that held auto industry debt. The Wall Street Journal ran a story on April 30, 2009 detailing the objections identified by some creditors:

Bank-debt holders, many of them hedge funds or distressed debt funds, voted against the latest deal for various reasons, ranging from financial interests to philosophical ones. Some said their funds had bigger positions in Ford Motor Co. or General Motors Corp. and could benefit by a Chrysler bankruptcy and the production capacity that may eliminate. Some funds may also have credit-default swaps on Chrysler bank debt that pay out in the event of a bankruptcy[1].

These circumstances could create tremendous potential for abuse of government assistance to AIG. Knowing that AIG swap counterparties have previously been paid with government funds without being compelled to take any discount or "haircut", if auto creditors had purchased swaps on their debt, they may have had a perverse incentive to allow Chrysler to fail. By not negotiating down the claims or accepting a debt-for-equity arrangement, the auto creditors could collect any credit default swap payments triggered by a Chrysler bankruptcy. Essentially, these creditors could stand to potentially benefit more from a Chrysler bankruptcy than from a restructuring out of court.

While the issues were described in the context of the Chrysler bankruptcy, I believe that potential conflicts could have existed regarding the debt of each Chrysler and GM. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you address the following questions:

1. Did AIG issue credit default swaps on debt securities of automobile companies?
2. Did creditors to GM or Chrysler hold credit default swaps on the debt? If so, were these AIG-issued swaps?
3. How many creditors to the auto companies also received payments as AIG counterparties?
4. What obligations are owed by the swap issuers to the holders of auto debt in the event of a bankruptcy or other default event?
5. What was the extent of the potential for abuse of taxpayer funds based on the scenario laid out above?

Thank you for your continued advocacy on behalf of the American taxpayers and for your examination of these issues. Please contact Martin Levine in my office...with any questions.
Sincerely,

Elijah E. Cummings

Member of Congress

Ryan Grim is the author of the forthcoming book This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America


The White House, auto executives and union representatives were all able to come to an agreement last week to keep Chrysler out of bankruptcy. But the car company's creditors -- Wall Street banks and ...
The White House, auto executives and union representatives were all able to come to an agreement last week to keep Chrysler out of bankruptcy. But the car company's creditors -- Wall Street banks and ...
 
Comments
139
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
- CentralVA I'm a Fan of CentralVA 10 fans permalink

The allegations about the administration's behavior are very troubling.

An article in the Business Insider reports:

"Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as 'a farce,' saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats.

Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said.

Although the focus has so been on allegations that the White House threatened Perella Weinberg, sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.

The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. ..."

Read the whole thing:

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-allegations-of-white-house-threats-over-chysler-2009-5

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 PM on 05/05/2009

This should concern everyone, irrespective of ideology. Change you can believe in - exhanging little bullies on Wall Street for a giant bully in the White House.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:39 PM on 05/05/2009
photo

"The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler..­." Right. These are the funds in question. Of course they're going to squeal like stuck pigs about any concessions. That's Bargaining 101, and if it fails, PR 102. Some scandal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 05/05/2009
- markinaz I'm a Fan of markinaz 6 fans permalink

If that person felt that the present administration is the most "shocking ends justifies the means" group, then he must have been asleep from 2001-2008.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:17 PM on 05/05/2009
- MSaxe I'm a Fan of MSaxe 25 fans permalink

And you expected what to happen?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:13 PM on 05/05/2009
- gratonite I'm a Fan of gratonite 8 fans permalink

no mas.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:04 PM on 05/05/2009

It is exactly what happened. Do you think Nardelli and Ceberus five a flying ____ about running a car company?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:03 PM on 05/05/2009

I hope you people are happy. You got just what you voted for. These are legal bond holders. These are people's retirement pension funds who Obama is once again trying to screw over and steal their money. He will not stop until we are all on our knees at his feet begging for a handout. Well those who stand for nothing will lie down for everything.

This is nothing but f-----g communisim and I am sick to death of people trying to tell us it is not! What a bunch of blind, idiots anyone who cannot see just what a piece of crap this administration and every person he is appointing is!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:56 PM on 05/05/2009
- toadicux I'm a Fan of toadicux 2 fans permalink

Please don't give Obama so much credit. It took generations of weasels to get us here.

People here don't grasp the difference from the people who actually worked to produce wealth to invest and those who move paper around their desk to steal that money.

Of course the Bolsheviks saw no difference between a Duke and the Kulak farmers that grew most of the food.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:12 PM on 05/05/2009
- dngrwill I'm a Fan of dngrwill 2 fans permalink

Well, first start by spelling it correctly communism, next could you please explain how this relates to communism?

Thought not.

You know what I am sick of - stupid people saying things 'with a passion' thinking that if they say them loud enough or passionately enough it will somehow be magically true.

I am not going to go into detail to 'dummy this down' to your level, but suffice it to say that capitalism is the balance of free-market theory and 'maintaining production capacity'. If you research the latter, then you will understand why you should not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs (unless you are a hedge-fund and you see a 20% gain to shareholders).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:28 PM on 05/05/2009
- CentralVA I'm a Fan of CentralVA 10 fans permalink

Good points, patriotparty1. But will the people take to the streets to defend due process and the rule of law?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 05/05/2009
- CentralVA I'm a Fan of CentralVA 10 fans permalink

I very much doubt that anyone who knows anything about due process and the rule of law is happy about this, patriotparty1. Even--or perhaps especially-- those who voted for Obama.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:48 PM on 05/05/2009
photo

So communism now consists in not writing a blank taxpayer check to a destitute car company destroyed by a German conglomerate and currently owned by a private equity group? Then how would you define capitalism?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:49 PM on 05/05/2009

And you have any doubt that GM isn't doing the same?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 PM on 05/05/2009
- Halfwit I'm a Fan of Halfwit 28 fans permalink
photo

The moral hazard of bailouts..­.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:28 PM on 05/05/2009
- noaxe397 I'm a Fan of noaxe397 129 fans permalink

If you all think trhe hedge funds, etc. are looking to feed at the government trough, just wait until you see Fiat swing into action. They see all the money the US government is pumping into Chrysler and believe they will be able to skate on the government dime. Daimler id the same thing, except then it was really Chrysler's money they sucked up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:25 PM on 05/05/2009
- Gumby123 I'm a Fan of Gumby123 15 fans permalink
photo

watch in 4 years, government spending will be such a high portion of GDP that no country would ever loan money to us, much less respect us

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:24 PM on 05/05/2009
photo

You may be right about that. the economic shot and bank bailout are dangerously inflationary, and probably only slightly better than the only alternative of risking systemic bank failure and economic collapse. It's a crying shame we pizzed away 4 trillion in tax cuts and wars during 2001-2008 that we could have used as a reserve fund so that all this borrowing wouldn't be required. But I'm sure you've been warning about that for several years now, right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:55 PM on 05/05/2009

What a great story spin. The Obama administration could not force the Chrysler investors into dumping more than 40% of their financial rights, which the investors were willing to give up. They then could not move the union ahead of the investors for collection of bankruptcy funds. So now, there is a conspiracy.

I would have LOVED to have seen the comments on here if a hedge fund which has investments for retirements and union benefits had taken a crappy 30% or less deal, then told their investors that they basically killed a large portion of their retirement. Then all you Dim Libs would be screaming about that.

How many of you would take 30% or lower on an investment when you knew you could do better in a completely legal an normal manner? How many of you would drop 40% of an investment for nothing huge in return?

There were plenty of people screaming about the auto bailouts until Obama said he was in favor of them. Then, the calls for support and explanations of the differences between banks and auto giants began. You should have just let them go under with no bailout funds and let them restructure. If you honestly believe every UAW worker would have lost their job, then you know nothing about bankruptcy and the auto industry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:23 PM on 05/05/2009
- parrotista I'm a Fan of parrotista 3 fans permalink

Shooting from the hip here so I could be wrong. But I think you're missing the point. You ask how many people would take 30% when "you knew you could do better in a completely legal and normal manner" but what you're ignoring is that without prior government bailouts (AIG, specifically), you would not be able to do better because you would not be able to get paid on your so-called insurance, the credit-default swap. Left freely to the free-market, your credit-default swap would've been worthless in an AIG bankruptcy.

So how is this "normal"? So how can you depict the bondholders here as simply smart, rational players who are simply reaping the benefits of their "smarts" and their cool, level-headed foresight?!

I'm not going to place easy blame on this anywhere while I'm shooting from the hip. But the heroes aren't who you think they are and the villains aren't "Dim Libs" as you like to call them.
- Craig

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 PM on 05/05/2009

The whole point of the negotiations was to ask the creditors to give more than their protected creditors rights, being the first in line. The creditors gave up 40% in most instances, but the White House was looking for 70% or more. The creditors would not budge further, which would force the bankruptcy. Under the standard bankruptcy laws, a creditor is entitled to up to 100% depending on assets distributions. The Obama administration has threatened to attempt to intervene on the bankruptcy proceedings to try to persuade the judge from giving them even less.

The AIG bailout is something different entirely, we are dealing with the Chrysler issue. And for the record, I was opposed to that bailout as well. The AIG swap argument is currently an unknown, and even in the event of a bankruptcy, the credit swaps are still not automatically worthless.

And I was not placing blame. I just don't see why someone can be outraged by this when they were in favor of the bailout in the first place, instead of letting a natural bankruptcy occur.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:13 PM on 05/05/2009
- zlohcuc I'm a Fan of zlohcuc 4 fans permalink

Why the surprise after what we have witnessed over the past several years? "Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash" It's the American way and the headlines here and elsewhere are proof of it every day. We are hopeful that Karma is real for the soulless scoundrels who diminish us all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:23 PM on 05/05/2009
- dmyron I'm a Fan of dmyron 8 fans permalink

The system is broken. Simple as that. When is white collar crime going to be punished commensurate with the offense? Surely this cannot be described as victimless.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:20 PM on 05/05/2009
- infinity I'm a Fan of infinity 3 fans permalink
photo

I'm SHOCKED to hear the hedge fund guys are manipulating the game! Please. And it couldn't be that all those Paul Rubin proteges in Treasury are reluctant to regulate these thieves because they previously worked with them? Only guessing..­..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:12 PM on 05/05/2009
- Gumby123 I'm a Fan of Gumby123 15 fans permalink
photo

quip from the following article by

Clifford S. Asness
Managing and Founding Principal
AQR Capital Management, LLC


- http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-this-hedge-fund-managers-not-afraid-of-big-bad-obama-2009-5

"Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing. Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not. The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views. That’s how the system works."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:03 PM on 05/05/2009
- CentralVA I'm a Fan of CentralVA 10 fans permalink

The best line of the piece by Clifford S. Asness is the concluding one:

"I am ready for my 'personalized' tax rate now."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:03 PM on 05/05/2009
photo

Nice Blodgett clip. You may be unaware that he took it from a Milton Friedman essay that's often used in business ethics classes. Friedman's conclusion was that it's up to the gov't to impose ethical regulations to protect society at large. I think the right has remembered the premises and forgotten the conclusion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:06 PM on 05/05/2009

This is so easy, we own most of AIG.......­......... put it in bankruptcy and pay out 20 cents on the dollar to the hedge fund guys.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 05/05/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect