No, you are wrong. These are ALL transactions based on contracts. There was literally a "naked" seller, and a buyer. AIG was the seller and is the loser. The counterparties are the winners. And yes, it does appear on the surface that this is a way of channeling money into the major investment and commercial banks. But the bottom line is that it is simply the FED's way of guaranteeing that the CDS contracts are honored and that the counter-parties to these contracts don't go under and get screwed. If you really want to "point a finger" in regards to the creation of the CDS market, simply look up wikipedia and the "commodity futures modernization act of 200" in which Texas senator Phil Gramm was able to spearhead legislation without a committee hearing or a recorded vote that wound up getting put into the "FY-2001 Appropriations Bill". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
What's interesting is that some banks may have profited twice from this... Apparently, GS has stated that they hedged their cpty exposure to AIG. If they have done this through shorting AIG stock, they made a tidy profit both sides. A nice Texas hedge, that! http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/taxpayer-funded-gs-profits/
I had a chuckle when I heard the GS comment that they didnt need the AIG bailout "we are too good of traders to not hedge our counterparty exposure", they lay off the risk in a too big to fail company then claim had they failed it would be no big deal. Thats like buying life insurance from a insurance firm in Iceland then claim if Iceland goes bust its no big deal They are also the same great traders who have more level 3 assets than common equity