No apologies from the man who crashed the world

When I read Joseph Cassano’s prepared testimony for the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, there was one phrase that really hit me: “it was the right thing to do.” Cassano, the man whose credit default swap shop at AIG went so haywire it triggered a global financial catastrophe, actually said this twice. It was the reason AIG decided to stop writing deals with subprime exposure in 2006. And it was also why he volunteered to take no bonus for 2007. In nine pages of prepared remarks, there were no apologies, no remorse, no contrition.

Fortunately, when Cassano sat down in front of the congressionally appointed commission yesterday in Washington, he didn’t read the self-serving document, which was too complex for anyone but himself to understand. And he was gracious enough to tell the commission they shouldn’t blame his team at the Financial Products Unit, saying, "Don't criticize them, criticize me."

Well they did, but it took a lot for the commission to get Cassano to admit he did anything wrong. When Cassano was asked if he made any errors, he said, “When I think about the single error that may have been made by me I think how when I retired I didn't volunteer to be the chief clear, chief negotiator for the collateral calls.” Cassano went on to say if he hadn’t left he could have gone to the counterparties and “negotiated a much better deal for the taxpayers than what the taxpayers got.”

Wow. One error from the man who crashed the world, as Michael Lewis dubbed him in his brilliant Vanity Fair piece. And if only he had had stayed at AIG, I guess everything would have turned out so much better.

I commented on Cassano’s testimony on Bloomberg television, saying I was really angry because Cassano not only walked away from AIG with $300 million; he was paid a million dollars a month to consult for AIG afterwards because they needed him to unwind their deals.

After two years of silence, Cassano finally spoke this week, now that he doesn’t have to worry about charges. Afterwards, his lawyers said Cassano hopes his testimony “helps to correct the serious misinformation now buried in the public discourse about AIG FP." But he can’t rewrite history, and the only thing Cassano accomplished was to give the public a good look at the hubris that led to AIG’s downfall.

AIG's Asian Gamble

The collapse of the AIG-Prudential deal could turn out be more promising than the original agreement for the British insurer to buy AIG’s largest Asian life-insurance business, AIA, for $35 billion dollars.

First, it shows that AIG’s board is far more independent than during the Greenberg era. Benmosche battled a highly contentious board over the original Prudential deal until he was able to push it through in March. But this time, he couldn’t get his way. AIG’s board hung tough and refused to accept Prudential’s lower offer. It was reportedly unanimous except for Benmosche.

The big question is why AIG’s board turned down $30 billion, which is more than is being predicted for any IPO. Who knows what went on in that board room, but most interesting reason I have heard is that some directors thought they could eventually sell AIA for a lot more to the Chinese. And already we’re hearing reports that Assicurazioni Generali SpA, Europe’s third-biggest insurer, may be interested in buying parts of AIG’s operations in Asia.

The directors might also prefer to sell off slices of AIA gradually in an IPO, while the business continues to grow. So, over the long haul, they could beat the Prudential price. Since the U.S. government owns nearly 80% of AIG and could have vetoed the board’s refusal to take the lower offer, it suggests they buy this argument.

In fact, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner praised the company’s decision to walk away from the Prudential offer. He told reporters yesterday,”A.I.G. is now free to pursue a bunch of other options to help maximize the return, reduce any risk of loss to the taxpayer. They have got a very strong management team, a much stronger board in place, making incredibly impressive progress frankly in restructuring that entity.”

Geithner’s faith in AIG is pretty remarkable, reflecting the turnaround Benmosche has been able to pull off since he took over last August. AIG’s board is betting the company will do even better and Geithner is letting that bet ride. Of course, the taxpayers who provided the stakes don’t have a say. I personally would have bet on Benmosche over his board, but I applaud Geithner for not interfering. We’ll see how well AIG can do with AIA and let’s hope neither taxpayers nor investors come up short.

Benmosche makes a big promise, but can AIG deliver?

"I'm confident you're going to get your money back, plus a profit." That was AIG CEO Robert Benmosche’s pledge to a Congressional Oversight Panel yesterday. This wasn’t the Benmosche who said last fall he was prepared to tell Congress to "stick it where the sun don't shine." But despite his conciliatory performance, afterwards panel chair Elizabeth Warren told the Wall Street Journal she was frustrated by the lack of detail to back up his projections. She started the hearing by calling AIG “a corporate Frankenstein, a conglomeration of banking and insurance and investment interests that defied regulatory oversight."

I’ve been very impressed with Benmosche’s ability to turn AIG around this year and I was also impressed yesterday that he was able to restrain himself during an inquisition by the people he once called “crazies.” He did get a bit testy at one point when asked about the testimony of Cliff Gallant, a KBW Inc. analyst who cut the stock to “underperform” last month because he thinks meeting U.S. obligations may wipe out common shareholders. Gallant is predicting AIG shares could be worth $6 within a year. Benmosche said of Gallant’s analysis, “You’ll have to see if he understands the company as well as I do,”

I appeared on Bloomberg TV to analyze yesterday’s hearing and told Mark Crumpton that I agree that Benmosche will be able to pay off AIG’s debt in full. The company has great prospects because it’s honed down a gigantic operation into two basic areas: Sun America, a life insurance business, and Chartis, the property & casualty operation, which made a great deal of the $1.45 billion in profits announced in the first quarter of this year. Benmosche is turning AIG into a smaller company with a great core business.

Once the government pulls out, a lot of great things will happen; foreign investments funds will move in along with other investors, and AIG will continue to make money, pay the government back, and grow the company into a reasonable size.
Benmosche will continue to face tough questions along the way, but it appears he now realizes he just can’t say whatever he thinks when it comes to Washington. The best thing for him, taxpayers, and AIG’s investors will be when the U.S. government is paid back and AIG can run its business with only normal regulatory supervision.

Dominating the board of directors – no longer business as usual at AIG

Probably the best part of being an author is getting to discuss the issues you write about with an informed group of people. That was the case at the Metropolitan Club in Washington, D.C., where I was the luncheon speaker last week, talking to a very sophisticated audience that knows both Wall Street and Washington.

There were lots of questions—Hank Greenberg may be gone from AIG, but everyone still wants to know what he is doing and how he is doing. While I spoke about many facets of AIG, most of the questions were about Greenberg. One question I hadn’t heard before was: Is there any connection between Greenberg’s settlement with the SEC and the fraud case again him, which was filed back in 2005 by then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer? A judge recently called that case “devastating” and told Greenberg’s lawyer he saw big problems with establishing a defense. In August 2009, Greenberg agreed to pay $15 million to settle SEC accusations that he altered AIG's financial records to inflate its earnings.

At the time, the SEC did not talk about whether the settlement might have any impact on the related civil fraud charges brought by Spitzer. I noted that in that settlement with the SEC, Greenberg publicly declared that he never engaged in fraud and had no responsibility over accounting issues. That irritated the SEC, which said corporate leaders can’t use accounting gimmicks and sign off on distorted financial reports. Greenberg then released a subsequent statement saying that the size of his fine was “a reflection of the importance of the charge to the SEC.”

I also was asked about last year’s bonus controversy, which I think is finally becoming old news. And even though AIG seems to be on the road to recovery, I was asked if the company still plans to rebrand itself. My answer was probably not, since key subsidiaries, both the Asian ones and ALICO are being sold off and the core business has been renamed Chartis. So AIG remains only as the name of the holding company.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the event was when I was chatting after lunch with people who wanted their books signed. Someone mentioned that when Greenberg was CEO, he put Barber Conable, former congressman and head of the World Bank, as head of the audit committee of AIG’s Board of Directors. Conable reportedly then hired another accounting firm to advise the committee. (PwC had been AIG’s long-time auditor) and Greenberg reportedly strongly objected. People probably don’t remember that the audit committee said that it couldn't vouch for AIG's accounting in 2001 and 2002. The committee said it couldn't be sure that the audits had been carried out according to normal standards or even that PwC was in fact "independent," according to the Washington Post.

Today, because of Sarbanes Oxley, boards are much more independent. And thanks to the current crisis, they will be even more independent. All the D&O insurance in the world won't protect directors and their reputations. Challenging a CEO instead of signing off on whatever he wants is becoming the norm. The Wall Street Journal reportedly recently that a special board committee at AIG, which includes directors with experience in restructuring and workout situations, has engaged investment-banking firm Rothschild as an independent adviser. If AIG’s board had been that independent, proactive, and knowledgeable in financial matters ten years ago, it could have stood up to Greenberg’s domination of the board and AIG today just might be in a very different place.

Will a U.S. Government Selloff of AIG Shares Help Investors?

During my 12 years as an executive at AIG, my salary was never great, but all of us knew that our stock holdings would make up for that many times over. We were destined to become millionaires if we hadn’t already. Well, we all know how that turned out.

Just yesterday, Bloomberg reported that the SEC is looking into whether AIG’s former general counsel deemed the stock worthless when negotiating executives’ compensation. She reportedly told the U.S. pay czar in January that employees preferred cash to common stock. I can certainly understand that sentiment.

Still, that “worthless” stock is now up about 34% for the year. And the market reacted favorably to last week’s Bloomberg report that the government is considering a two-year plan to dispose of its’ nearly 80% stake in the company. I’ve been holding on to my shares, despite the doubts of my investment advisor, and all of us who have stuck it out this long have to be wondering what a government exit will mean. The sale of stock by the government won’t change the number of shares outstanding, so mathematically, there would be no impact on earnings per share. But AIG would be able to operate independently again.

John Frankola of Vista Investment Management has been watching AIG stock closely. He says, “From a transactional perspective, the U.S. government’s sale shouldn’t change the value of AIG. However, since most investors perceive the government’s ownership and influence as negative, there is a possibility that AIG will be viewed in a more favorable light, which could move the stock price higher.”

For me, the biggest issue has always been why the government had to take 80% of the company to begin with. Former CEO Hank Greenberg has argued repeatedly if the government would bring its share down to 30% or so, AIG could attract investment from sovereign wealth funds and others.

Frankola agrees that in hindsight, the government’s decision to take 80% ownership in AIG was a disaster for shareholders, especially compared to other deals struck later. He says, “It’s easy to make an argument that the stock would be much higher today if the government took a less punitive ownership interest, the satisfaction of claims against AIG (like those of Goldman Sachs) were settled at a discount to face value, and they waited for a recovery in prices before forcing management to unload assets.”

Frankola offers a negative overall assessment of AIG: “In my opinion, for long-term investors who lost the majority of their investment in AIG, there is little hope for a significant recovery. Even if AIG returned to its previous peak earnings level, long-time shareholders would likely experience a stock recovery to just 20% of their previous value, due to the 80% dilution resulting from shares issued to the U.S. Considering the recently announced sales of two of AIG’s best businesses (which means less earnings potential going forward) and the sale of stock by Greenberg in the mid-30s (unquestionably the person who knows AIG best), the current price likely provides a good exit point for long-suffering investors.”

Even so, I prefer to remain one of those stubborn AIGers who still believe in the dream and that there will be a greater recovery. I’d like to hear what you think.

A Devastating Twist for Hank Greenberg

This is a bad week for Hank Greenberg. He must be pretty stunned after his hearing Tuesday before a New York State Supreme Court justice. For years, Hank Greenberg has been saying he didn’t bring down AIG, but now he’s facing a “devastating” case in a lawsuit accusing him of using bogus transactions to improperly inflate the company’s finances and mislead analysts. This isn’t just a personal matter for Greenberg--the entities he controls are AIG’s biggest shareholders and he advises current CEO Robert Benmosche.

The New York Times is reporting that Justice Charles E. Ramos said the fraudulent transactions AIG was involved with were “a criminal enterprise” and called the case against Greenberg “devastating.” Up until now, Greenberg has won most of the cases and legal maneuvers he’s faced since his ouster from AIG in 2005. The biggest was between AIG and SICO, a Bermuda-based holding company, over who owned a disputed $16 billion block of AIG stock. In that case, a jury sided with Greenberg.

The irony about this week’s hearing on sham transactions is the case was originally brought by Elliot Spitzer. Many thought Greenberg would walk away from this, and it would become yet another example of how Spitzer overreached in going after corporate executives. But Judge Ramos indicates this case could now be heading to an appellate court. If Greenberg wins, his reputation is finally restored. But this week, he took one of his biggest hits since he was forced out of the company he built.

Robert Benmosche-- AIG’s third great leader?

For 86 years, AIG had just two leaders—C.V. Starr, who started the company in Shanghai in 1919 and ran it for nearly half a century, and Hank Greenberg, who spent 37 years building AIG into one of the world’s largest companies. Starr created AIG by taking an unprecedented gamble that an American could make money selling insurance to the Chinese. Greenberg diversified the company, growing it into the most successful insurer in history. Now it appears AIG has finally found its third great leader—the man who somehow has been able to revitalize a company that was virtually left for dead.

After Greenberg was forced out in 2005, three men took over AIG in quick succession, as the company nearly collapsed before being bailed out by the government. None of those CEOs was able to gain the confidence of the government, investors, or the public. Then, last fall, the former head of MetLife was called out of retirement for perhaps the most thankless CEO job in America.

At first, it seemed as though Robert Benmosche would be yet another short-term CEO mired in controversy. He was attacked for running the company from his vineyard in Croatia, and in November, after just three months on the job, he threatened to quit because he didn’t want the government telling him what to pay employees. It didn’t help when he publicly complained about the “crazies down in Washington."

Now, less than six months later, there’s been a remarkable turnaround. Over the past month, the company sold off two major businesses, bringing in more than $51 billion to help pay back its government bailout money. Standard & Poor’s has even raised its outlook for A.I.G.’s credit rating. Last week, Benmosche told Bloomberg News he expects to be around at least another year or two. Shares of AIG rose nearly one percent afterwards.

Benmosche’s success got me thinking about how similar he is to Greenberg. They are both very self confident and have a large ego, which I consider the perquisite of a great leader. They both use rewards to motivate people. When I worked for Greenberg, salaries weren’t great, but you could make a fortune in stock. Benmosche took Metlife from a mutual to a public company, which meant employees could get stock options and make more money. Almost from the moment he joined AIG, Benmosche argued fiercely with the government pay czar to get his employees the compensation he felt they deserved. He also recently implemented a new performance system designed to better compensate exceptional performers.

I haven’t worked with Benmosche, but we know he’s blunt and has a hands-on style. He’s been visiting employees around the world and holding town meetings. Greenberg was extremely hands on with everyone and everything, from who got to eat in the corporate dining room to what the company had to do to make its quarterly earnings. Greenberg was hard driving and it wasn’t uncommon for him to yell at people. Benmosche can’t spend too much time in New York for tax reasons, so I’m guessing he doesn’t micromanage things at headquarters.

Both men are creative, visionary, and have that “never say die” spirit. Even after Greenberg was pushed out of the company he spent his life building, he showed a fierce loyalty to AIG, and has worked to get the government out of the company. In his short tenure, Benmosche has also fought the government and resisted pressure to sell parts of AIG at fire sale prices.

Obviously the two men became leaders of AIG at very different points in their career. Benmosche is 65 years old, and seemed happy making wine in Croatia until he was asked to turn around the company. His tenure at AIG will end up being only a fraction of Greenberg’s. But if Benmosche can continue the kind of progress he’s made at AIG since August, he’ll be seen as the man who saved the company Starr and Greenberg spent nearly a century building.