How Much Did The Government Make On AIG, Anyway?

AIG priced a giant stock offering last night at $32.50, making the government rich. A really really simple question you could ask about AIG is “how’s the government doing?” and I Googled around for the answer yesterday and got increasingly frustrated, then angry, then drunk. Why can’t someone tell me that? The answer has to do I think with competing interests and secrecy and embarrassment and innumeracy both real and tactical, and I could write a book about it but won’t.1 Instead, I will just tell you how the government is doing on AIG, and then you will know.2

  • The government has gotten back $12.3 $15 billion more than it put into AIG so far, plus it has about $10bn $8 billion worth of AIG shares left over. (This is what the government says too, to within rounding error.) [Update: revised for greenshoe exercise.]
  • So, great!
  • Its IRR is 3.2% 3.9%, or 5.7% if you assume it sold the remaining AIG shares today (which: it didn’t).
  • If you assume the government’s cost of capital for the bailout was 3.04%, or roughly 5-year Treasury rates as of the time they signed on to this almost 5-year bailout, then the government’s made an economic profit (returns in excess of cost of capital) of $600 million $3 billion, or $9.9 billion including the remaining AIG shares.
  • If you assume the appropriate discount rate for the bailout was 12%, or roughly what AIG’s initial Fed credit facility paid, then the government has undercharged AIG by about $26.3 $24.6 billion, or $19.7 billion including the remaining shares.
  • Neither is a good assumption.3
  • The end.

Here’s a chart:

Here is the math. Here is a footnote with sources, caveats, instructions for correcting errors, etc.4

Here is one speculation: Hank Greenberg? The government is more or less out with what looks like a pretty modest profit for saving his company. How does that influence whether you think he should win his lawsuit saying that the government unfairly diluted him out of a perfectly healthy AIG? Some people think there’s something to that suit, but to really feel for him you need to think that the government got a really sweet deal on its bailout. On the evidence so far – which is basically all of it – that doesn’t seem especially true.

A Horrible Spreadsheet [Google Docs]
Treasury sells big chunk of AIG stock at a profit [Reuters]
Plot Twist in the A.I.G. Bailout: It Actually Worked [DealBook]
$182 Billion Commitment to AIG During Financial Crisis Now Fully Recovered After Pricing of $18.0 Billion Treasury Common Stock Sale [EDGAR]
Overall $182 Billion Committed to Stabilize AIG During the Financial Crisis is Now Fully Recovered [Treasury]

1. As of this morning the situation is better, with a nice overview accounting from the government in the AIG press release itself [update: and this very nice set of pictures from Treasury]. Some other useful efforts include this paper (no math but lots of bailout details), this GAO report, this ProPublica accounting (Treasury only), this Treasury accounting (Treasury only), and the Fed’s disclosure (Fed only and … diffuse). Unsatisfactory efforts include calculations of “breakeven prices,” all kinds, and SIGTARP’s weird efforts to partition TARP from non-TARP and bang on about TARP losses even when they’re Treasury gains.

2. Also if you know someone who’s already figured this out and put it online in a user-friendly way:

  • don’t tell me, because I wasted a lot of time and anger on this and am not sure I could take it, and
  • tell the person who’s already figured it out to improve his/her search engine optimization. My inbox is full of promising SEO leads if s/he needs a recommendation.

3. However: I like discounting at 12% because, at the moment that the government committed to the bailout, that’s what it was charging on its 2-year loan commitment. Plus 80% of the equity but whatever. I don’t think anyone at the time thought 12% was too high, except maybe Hank Greenberg and probably not even him. If you’re discounting these cash flows at less than 12% I think you need a reason. (The fact that some of them are collateralized, etc., is a plausible one.)

4. If you think I’m wrong read this note then email me. But read the note first.

Basic methodological question number 1: What is the government? I started with “programs special to AIG,” meaning the Fed credit facility and a few related lines, the Treasury bailout that restructured it, and Maiden Lanes II and III. So not, in particular, the commercial paper program, which AIG partook of. But also not, like, low fed funds rates or whatever. I don’t think that those things are as bailout-y as the specific AIG lashings of money. You disagree, that’s fine. I also don’t count AIG’s ability to deduct losses for tax purposes as a bailout – again, not special to AIG – despite the fact that the bailout changed rules that would have wiped out those losses without the rule changes. That doesn’t sound like extra bailout to me, but if it does to you – and it does to Andrew Ross Sorkin [update: or did in February; this is a bracing riposte from the broad-view-of-bailouts school of thought] – then have at it.

Basic methodological question number 2: Commitments or cash flows? My aim here was to measure actual disbursements of cash by the Fed or Treasury, not undrawn commitments. As a matter of credit risk this is aggressive – the government was on the hook for all committed amounts – but as a matter of calculating IRRs it seemed easier. I am somewhat ashamed of this choice.

One other source of shame is that I am not rigorous about “maximum amounts outstanding” – when one program replaces another I have two separate line items, which means that when the Fed says its maximum commitment was $112.5bn and I have a total of $172bn for them, it comes from combining maxima for each separate item. Theirs is philosophically better but, again, mine makes it easier for my feeble brain & spreadsheet to calculate IRRs.

Ooh, more shame: many items are glommed into the last months of quarters (because disclosed in quarterly reports) rather than digging through (often non-existent) contemporaneous sources to find exactly when they happened; this makes IRR and NPV calcs necessarily imprecise but cash flows are accurate to within a quarter.

Finally, sourcing is I think adequately explained in Column BE of the “Horrible Math” tab of the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet is intended to be … um … not quite intuitive, but close.

(hidden for your protection)
Show all comments

115 Responses to “How Much Did The Government Make On AIG, Anyway?”

  1. Im_a_Dude says:

    footnotes are bigger then the post (not including charts)

  2. Jay says:

    It's finally happened. The footnotes are longer than the article.

  3. Guest says:

    Matt's really coming into his own here.

  4. 2 cubes over says:

    I love it when Matt posts spreadsheets.

  5. guest says:

    Does nobody have anything interesting to say about this article or are people genuinely interested in Matt's formatting choices?

  6. Guy says:

    thanks, I actually read this one

  7. 2ndYearSummer says:

    Not even kidding, I was actually looking forward to reading a Matt post about the AIG bailout.

  8. Guessed says:

    Very interesting format choice, Matthew.
    Article word count: 378 (including "here's the chart").
    Footnote word count: 624.

  9. pazzo83 says:

    What do you mean by "cost" of capital?

    – Government of Japan

  10. pazzo83 says:

    "I Googled around for the answer yesterday and got increasingly frustrated, then angry, then drunk"

    What is, a normal day for a Knight algo developer when he runs into errors in his code?

  11. A. Merkel says:

    What do you mean by cost of 'capital?'

    -Almost every Euro Government

  12. guest says:

    not going to write a book? too late.

  13. A NEW FAN says:



  14. Guest says:

    Why even bother with the article anymore. Not that I ever did.

  15. Guest says:

    The more I read of Matt's articles, the more I realize I don't know shit.

  16. Duncan says:

    those might be the best footnotes ever.

  17. Beerio says:

    So basically you're saying the AIG bail-out profits paid for about half of the GM bailout losses?

  18. ThxRgds says:

    Matt I'm so impressed you got drunk while researching this, that is really cool, thanks for pointing it out.

  19. Guest says:

    looks like that CFA lvl 1 is really coming into fruition here

  20. Guest says:

    Haven't y'all read any David Foster Wallace. Outsized footnotes make great literature.

  21. 6JSJou I value the article.Much thanks again. Fantastic.

  22. 7Hsjr1 This is one awesome blog article. Awesome.

  23. ZvF0oR Really informative blog.Really thank you! Keep writing.

  24. 1ihOaQ I appreciate you sharing this blog.Much thanks again. Really Cool.

  25. crork says:

    X7noTy A big thank you for your blog. Will read on…

  26. olAzct Thanks a lot for the article.Much thanks again. Want more.

  27. crork says:

    o6kW1Y Great blog post. Really Cool.

  28. ntchoZ I think this is a real great article post.Thanks Again. Fantastic.

  29. crork says:

    cBpSVM I am so grateful for your article post.Really looking forward to read more. Awesome.

  30. crork says:

    wnOrTe Say, you got a nice blog article.Thanks Again. Much obliged.

  31. 9tacSR Fantastic blog.Much thanks again.

  32. AHb0Vr Thanks-a-mundo for the article.Really thank you! Want more.

  33. zP3Dkp Im thankful for the post.Really thank you! Keep writing.

  34. crork says:

    xg9LVj Awesome blog.Much thanks again. Really Great.

  35. CBkqq2 A big thank you for your blog article.Much thanks again. Cool.

  36. XOFZP0 Muchos Gracias for your blog article.Thanks Again. Cool.

  37. PSpDUa Muchos Gracias for your blog post.Much thanks again. Really Great.

  38. XelQpC Muchos Gracias for your article post.Really thank you! Really Great.

  39. ncNNmL Very neat article.Thanks Again. Awesome.

  40. 7SDGPh Thanks a lot for the blog article. Awesome.

  41. Guest says:

    What would have been the cost of not bailing out AIG?

  42. Any office 2010 key Compatibility Inspector enable you to operate on many different projects. An option can also be provided and run mark certain areas within the code which can are identified by the text search as being a potential object model match. The marked comment would show all information that has been found with the text search as well as a potential suggestion for an online link that might be helpful for use. Any office 2010 professional Compatibility Inspector also integrates itself with all the Microsoft Visual Basic Applications 7.0 (VBA 7) and also the Microsoft Visual Studio 2008. The ‘microsoft office’ 2010 Compatibility Inspector features a simple scanner in which each of the helpful links and recommendations are updated at a link to one central server location, making the program super easy and completely hassle free to use. While using the it, the Microsoft office 2010 download Compatibility Inspector can also generate automated summary and detailed reports that can be used by users to prevent further problems. Inside the summary, the complete lines in the scanned code and also the total lines which might be acknowledged as possible replacements for the object model changes are included. windows 7 download Conversely, the facts report consists of the module name, line number, and links to remediation for each recognized problem which might have occurred plus the color coded flags for quick help and guidance. Overall, the Microsoft ‘office’ 2010 Compatibility Inspector is really a highly helpful tool and this can be easily downloaded in the Microsoft website. It will help maintain Office Suite updated, by automatically checking while using central server for brand new updates.

  43. Fantastic looking web page and thanks for this excellent article

  44. How is it that just anyone can write a weblog and get as popular as this? Its not like youve said anything incredibly impressive more like youve painted a quite picture above an issue that you know nothing about! I dont want to sound mean, here. But do you actually think that you can get away with adding some quite pictures and not seriously say something?

  45. crork says:

    vvMPJ8 Thank you for your blog.Much thanks again. Really Cool.

  46. wkDaC4 Very neat blog.Much thanks again. Fantastic.

  47. I loved your blog.Thanks Again. Really Cool.

  48. Enjoyed every bit of your article.Really thank you! Will read on…

  49. I cannot thank you enough for the blog.Thanks Again. Awesome.

  50. batteries says:

    Thanks so much for the article.Much thanks again. Really Cool.

  51. Im thankful for the blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Awesome.

  52. Maxine Daly says:

    I loved your blog article. Want more.

  53. I am so grateful for your post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.

  54. cool says:

    I truly appreciate this post.Much thanks again. Will read on…

  55. I cannot thank you enough for the article post.Much thanks again. Really Cool.

  56. Wow, that’s what I was exploring for, what a stuff! existing here at this weblog, thanks admin of this website.
    link building

  57. Very informative post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.

  58. Thanks so much for the blog post.Much thanks again. Keep writing.

  59. Thank you for your blog post.Really thank you! Much obliged.

  60. car tint says:

    I cannot thank you enough for the article post.Really thank you! Really Great.

  61. Still the sexy website page manufactured each individual update that much better BOO!!!

  62. Appreciate you sharing, great blog article.Thanks Again. Cool.

  63. click here says:

    hello from across the ocean I’m Sarah I’m such a silly girl but I still really loved your writing

  64. I really enjoy the article post.Thanks Again.

  65. Say, you got a nice article. Cool.

  66. Really enjoyed this blog. Really Great.

  67. Great, thanks for sharing this article post.Really thank you! Keep writing.

  68. zija says:

    Really enjoyed this blog article.Thanks Again. Keep writing.

  69. Appreciate you sharing, great blog article.Really thank you! Great.

  70. I appreciate you sharing this blog article.Thanks Again. Will read on…

  71. I appreciate you sharing this blog article. Awesome.

  72. I truly appreciate this blog. Will read on…

  73. Thanks again for the blog post.Much thanks again. Really Great.

  74. I really enjoy the post.Thanks Again. Cool.

  75. I appreciate you sharing this post.Thanks Again. Really Cool.

  76. Thank you for your article post.Really thank you! Fantastic.

  77. Thanks-a-mundo for the article.Really thank you! Awesome.

  78. Really informative blog article. Really Cool.

  79. Hey, thanks for the article post.Really thank you! Awesome.

  80. Thanks for the post.Much thanks again. Will read on…

  81. smartphone says:

    Thank you ever so for you article.Much thanks again. Fantastic.

  82. I cannot thank you enough for the article.Thanks Again. Awesome.

  83. VPS Server says:

    Very neat blog article. Keep writing.

  84. I think this is a real great blog.Much thanks again. Great.

  85. advoyant says:

    Really enjoyed this blog.Really looking forward to read more. Cool.

  86. Enjoyed every bit of your blog post.Much thanks again. Keep writing.

  87. praracacy says:

    mgzyyfqs keoxfbfe [url=]peuterey outlet[/url] mepujdxg peuterey outlet mbmnhuak gdmlnrcr

  88. etizolam says:

    Not what I was looking for but wonderful anyway! Good for you!