PDA

View Full Version : AIG Out of the Woods



menmon
09-30-2010, 11:51 AM
Again, I want to highlight a success of the Obama administration.

AIG, one of the largest insurance company that was on the brink of collapse only 2 years ago, has announced a very probable plan of repaying the federal govenment that own 92% of the failed giant. The experts agree that this will happen and that the Fed will make a profit from this investment.

Now for those of you that struggle with history, AIG, because of financial deregulation, was allowed to partcipate in the underwriting of financial securities that when the markets contracted put them in a position of defaulting on certain trades through out the world, and had Pulson not have encouraged congress to loan them money via perferred stocks and bonds, the failure of this company would have wrecked the entire financial system. Having said this, the first loan was not enough, so our new administration while being heavily criticized by republicans loaned them much more money to keep this giant from failing.

The end result is that they did right things and we and world are better off for it, but the spin doctors have used this to undermine those that had your back. Please take this as another example of being misled by those that you place so much trust to better you life.

Marvin S
09-30-2010, 11:56 AM
and that the Fed will make a profit from this investment.

I believe CNBC reported that the taxpayers will take a bath to the tune of $45,000,000,000 = Only the government would consider that a profit :(.

ducknwork
09-30-2010, 11:58 AM
If the fed govt makes a profit using our money, do we get dividend checks?

menmon
09-30-2010, 12:03 PM
If the fed govt makes a profit using our money, do we get dividend checks?

I thought the size of their dividends were you biggest complaint.

ducknwork
09-30-2010, 12:05 PM
I thought the size of their dividends were you biggest complaint.

Huh?

Actually, my biggest complaint right this minute is that I have to take a leak. And a team leader on the line interrupted my lunch break for me to go try to fix something that he should be more than capable of, and it is within his job duties. Kinda a toss up between the two right now.

menmon
09-30-2010, 12:06 PM
I believe CNBC reported that the taxpayers will take a bath to the tune of $45,000,000,000 = Only the government would consider that a profit :(.

I was tuned in and that was not what I heard. Their an idiot on that show that likes to move a political agenda, and that being a right agenda, instead of sticking with facts. So if that was said, I'm sure it was not factual.

menmon
09-30-2010, 12:11 PM
Huh?

Actually, my biggest complaint right this minute is that I have to take a leak. And a team leader on the line interrupted my lunch break for me to go try to fix something that he should be more than capable of, and it is within his job duties. Kinda a toss up between the two right now.

Sounds like a personal problem

luvmylabs23139
09-30-2010, 01:09 PM
It's a ponzi scheme. So lets see, after the games the fed will increase it's ownership to 92.1% of AIG. Notice, increase not decrease gooberment ownership of AIG.

BonMallari
09-30-2010, 01:19 PM
is AIG Out of The Woods related to Esprit Out of the Woods :p:p


only real retriever folks will know the answer to that one;)

WaterDogRem
09-30-2010, 01:41 PM
It's Funny how some people believe its a victory to save a company that follows questionable, failing, and immoral practices (reason they failed).

Franco
09-30-2010, 01:51 PM
It's Funny how some people believe its a victory to save a company that follows questionable, failing, and immoral practices (reason they failed).



I agree 100% but lets don't forget how the current administration likes to reward failure.

Contrary to what Sambo posted, the failure of AIG would not have wrecked out financial system as it was already wrecked by the investment banking firms. All of whom have escaped prosecution because of thier ties to the White House.

Sambo also states that "the experts agree". Which experts? The ones on the White House payroll.

ducknwork
09-30-2010, 01:57 PM
Sounds like a personal problem

I guess since you won't clarify what you meant, I'll take a stab at it.

You said my biggest complaint is dividend checks. I am assuming that you mean people on the govt dole.

Here's the deal, sambo. When I take MY money and invest it in something, be it a business, 401K, stocks, slot machine, etc...and the thing that I invested in makes money, I will receive my original investment, plus a dividend. SO...if the govt took MY money and invested it in AIG and now are going to receive a profit, I should receive a % of the dividends equal to the % stake I held in the company as a result of MY money being invested.

Franco
09-30-2010, 02:20 PM
Upon further review here is the bad deal for tax payers;

As of June 30, AIG still had $132.1 billion in outstanding aid from the government, including $49.1 billion in loans from the Treasury Department. The new shares will give the Treasury a 92.1 percent stake in AIG before it begins selling shares.

.............................

The Gov is swapping Preferred Stock for Common Stock, taking a larger share of AIG in the HOPES that thier price per share increases! In other words, the Gov. is playing investor speculating on AIG stock.

Tax Payers might be better off it the Gov kept the preferred stock and sold it to private investors. What if the stock price falls and stays low because AIG's reputation is not anywhere close to being good? With a 92% ownership, there is a slim to no chance if the Feds try an sell that much stock that the price will rise because rising stock prices are caused by the demand for that stock! Oh, and slim just left town.

menmon
10-01-2010, 11:45 AM
I guess since you won't clarify what you meant, I'll take a stab at it.

You said my biggest complaint is dividend checks. I am assuming that you mean people on the govt dole.

Here's the deal, sambo. When I take MY money and invest it in something, be it a business, 401K, stocks, slot machine, etc...and the thing that I invested in makes money, I will receive my original investment, plus a dividend. SO...if the govt took MY money and invested it in AIG and now are going to receive a profit, I should receive a % of the dividends equal to the % stake I held in the company as a result of MY money being invested.

I'll take a crack at this too. I agree had the government taken your money and invested it you should be entitled to a dividend, but they didn't. They borrowed the money because they were the only ones that could borrow at the time and loaned money to this company that has now been converted to common stock which will be sold to the public returning the loaned money with appreciation.

ducknwork
10-01-2010, 11:47 AM
Where did they get the money they loaned to AIG?

menmon
10-01-2010, 11:48 AM
Upon further review here is the bad deal for tax payers;

As of June 30, AIG still had $132.1 billion in outstanding aid from the government, including $49.1 billion in loans from the Treasury Department. The new shares will give the Treasury a 92.1 percent stake in AIG before it begins selling shares.

.............................

The Gov is swapping Preferred Stock for Common Stock, taking a larger share of AIG in the HOPES that thier price per share increases! In other words, the Gov. is playing investor speculating on AIG stock.

Tax Payers might be better off it the Gov kept the preferred stock and sold it to private investors. What if the stock price falls and stays low because AIG's reputation is not anywhere close to being good? With a 92% ownership, there is a slim to no chance if the Feds try an sell that much stock that the price will rise because rising stock prices are caused by the demand for that stock! Oh, and slim just left town.

I don't see the problem in this. I deal with customers all the time that have to give up the majority of their company for debt and equity investments. If the company is doing well they have to give up smaller percentages, but in AIG's case, I think we can agree their would be no AIG had the government not stepped in.

menmon
10-01-2010, 11:49 AM
Where did they get the money they loaned to AIG?

Mostly from Soverign Enties and large corporations that park their cash in treasuries

menmon
10-01-2010, 11:51 AM
I agree 100% but lets don't forget how the current administration likes to reward failure.

Contrary to what Sambo posted, the failure of AIG would not have wrecked out financial system as it was already wrecked by the investment banking firms. All of whom have escaped prosecution because of thier ties to the White House.

Sambo also states that "the experts agree". Which experts? The ones on the White House payroll.

Yes it would have, because the counterparty losses to the other banks would have further wiped out the capital, or we would have had to have loaned them more money

ducknwork
10-01-2010, 12:13 PM
I really have to stop taking yalls word for things and do some digging on my own...:) This doesn't sound as peachy as you have made it out to sound, sambo.

If I am reading this article correctly, they aren't paying anything back because they are doing so well, but they are paying the govt back our money because they are having a garage sale. It sounds similar to paying off your credit card because you sold your boat, not because you got a raise at work. That makes it a little less impressive to me.

I'll bold my favorite parts.:D

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/aigs-fed-credit-line-to-b_n_690849.html



In its single biggest repayment of bailout loans so far, American International Group Inc. said Monday it is paying back nearly $4 billion in taxpayer aid with proceeds from a recent debt sale.

The insurer's aircraft leasing company, International Lease Finance Corp., completed the sale of $4.4 billion in debt. AIG will use more than $3.9 billion of the proceeds to repay the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, trimming the balance on its credit line with the Fed to about $15 billion. Adding interest, the total is about $21 billion.

The emergency credit line was part of a $182 billion federal bailout package that New York-based AIG received during the financial crisis to avoid collapse. AIG has been selling off assets to pay back the aid.

"This is continuing tangible evidence of AIG's progress in repaying the American taxpayers," said Robert Benmosche, AIG President and CEO. "AIG is getting stronger every day. We still have more work to do, but we will finish the job and make sure we repay the American taxpayers."Just as I thought when I asked you where they got the money. It was from US, the american taxpayers.

As of June 30, excluding the new payment, AIG said its outstanding balance owed to the government stood at about $101 billion. The total includes debt as well as preferred shares of stock in AIG held by the Treasury Department.

Los Angeles-based ILFC leases one of the world's biggest commercial jet fleets. It struggled earlier this year to pay off its loans, and had to draw the $3.9 billion from AIG to pay back some of its debt. AIG had tried to find a buyer for the unit, but any sale seems off the table for now as ILFC has found healthy demand for recent bond offerings which will help it meet some deadlines for paying back loans.

The repayment will release about $10 billion of collateral that ILFC had pledged to the Fed under the credit agreement. With the recent debt sales and other notes issues, the aircraft unit has boosted its total liquidity assets that can quickly be converted to cash to more than $12.5 billion over the last five months.

The offerings "are a direct reflection of our company's viability and future prospects as a leader in leasing aircraft to the world's airlines," said Henri Courpron, ILFC's CEO. He noted that the company has more than $13 billion in aircraft orders.

Separately, AIG said it will book a pretax charge of about $650 million against its earnings due to the repayment.

AIG shares dipped 13 cents to $35.04. The stock has traded in a 52-week range of $21.54 to $55.90.

In June, the Congressional Oversight Panel said in a report that it was still unclear whether U.S. taxpayers will ever fully recoup the full $182 billion they plowed into AIG.

Regulators feared AIG's collapse would pose a threat to the whole U.S. financial system, in part because of AIG's dealings in financial contracts called credit default swaps. The swaps that AIG sold were insurance-like guarantees on mortgage securities that wound up forcing AIG to pay out billions of dollars after the housing market went bust.

Earlier this month, AIG reported a $538 million second-quarter loss due to charges related to selling assets to repay the bailout money. Among the charges were $3.42 billion related to the sales of AIG's American Life Insurance Co. unit, or Alico, and its Nan Shan Life Insurance Co.

menmon
10-01-2010, 12:42 PM
I really have to stop taking yalls word for things and do some digging on my own...:) This doesn't sound as peachy as you have made it out to sound, sambo.

If I am reading this article correctly, they aren't paying anything back because they are doing so well, but they are paying the govt back our money because they are having a garage sale. It sounds similar to paying off your credit card because you sold your boat, not because you got a raise at work. That makes it a little less impressive to me.

I'll bold my favorite parts.:D

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/aigs-fed-credit-line-to-b_n_690849.html

This is not June this is Oct. Things Change. They will do a road show as for any public offering and raise cash in the market. The analyst that follow this and have a handle on the valuation of the company as is today, believe that they will sell the governments ownership and the government will realize a profit. What you are doing is called "weak form" efficency, as Fama proved is not reliable because you are looking backwards. Valuation is based on what the company will do going forward.

But having said all this, our government has a history of passing out money and never getting any of it back. Think about our 2 wars. Is any of that money coming back? So even if we don't recoup everything, this is administration has made a real effort at getting your money back and paying for what they have implemented. You may not like the taxes, but at least they are paying their way, unlike the right that spends and cuts taxes and them blames the democrats for raising your taxes.

Franco
10-01-2010, 01:53 PM
This is not June this is Oct. Things Change. They will do a road show as for any public offering and raise cash in the market. The analyst that follow this and have a handle on the valuation of the company as is today, believe that they will sell the governments ownership and the government will realize a profit. What you are doing is called "weak form" efficency, as Fama proved is not reliable because you are looking backwards. Valuation is based on what the company will do going forward.

But having said all this, our government has a history of passing out money and never getting any of it back. Think about our 2 wars. Is any of that money coming back? So even if we don't recoup everything, this is administration has made a real effort at getting your money back and paying for what they have implemented. You may not like the taxes, but at least they are paying their way, unlike the right that spends and cuts taxes and them blames the democrats for raising your taxes.

Sambo, those analyst have a financial interest in selling AIG stock, so they will position it as a good buy.

I'm sure the government will try and dump thier 92% ownership in AIG over a period of time and not all at once. However, with that much of the company available and with thier history, only the fools that believe that analyst have thier best interest at heart will be taken for a ride. The only interest analyst have is in seeing stocks traded because that is how they make thier money. The large majority of them could care less if one loses just as long as they make thier commissions on the sale of the stock.

And , you can't compare the money we spend as a nation on war! But, if you have to go there, I would say our ROI for WW2 was more than an awesome return!

menmon
10-01-2010, 02:29 PM
Sambo, those analyst have a financial interest in selling AIG stock, so they will position it as a good buy.

I'm sure the government will try and dump thier 92% ownership in AIG over a period of time and not all at once. However, with that much of the company available and with thier history, only the fools that believe that analyst have thier best interest at heart will be taken for a ride. The only interest analyst have is in seeing stocks traded because that is how they make thier money. The large majority of them could care less if one loses just as long as they make thier commissions on the sale of the stock.

And , you can't compare the money we spend as a nation on war! But, if you have to go there, I would say our ROI for WW2 was more than an awesome return!

As a retired investment banker for ML, I know how the game is played. I assure you they will not float the stock at once as you said. However, it does not mean they will not sell it over the next year or so.

Question: Why do you want them to fail at this so bad? So far their batting average with this is good. Why do you want them to lose? Do you want the country to lose? Do you want them to lose so we can elect another idiot that says they are going to fix things?

ducknwork
10-01-2010, 03:18 PM
This is not June this is Oct. Things Change.

The article was from late August, just barely a month ago. I did not notice that before you mentioned it. All I did was google "fed loans aig money" and clicked the second result. The first was AIG's website and I was looking for a news site.

Please post a link to what you are referring to in the opening post of this thread, as I would be interested in reading more up to date info.

ducknwork
10-01-2010, 03:23 PM
But having said all this, our government has a history of passing out money and never getting any of it back. Think about our 2 wars. Is any of that money coming back? So even if we don't recoup everything, this is administration has made a real effort at getting your money back and paying for what they have implemented. You may not like the taxes, but at least they are paying their way, unlike the right that spends and cuts taxes and them blames the democrats for raising your taxes.

We don't get much, if anything, back from a lot of the 'lefties' favorite causes either. I don't want to hijack the thread as you attempted to with you last paragraph unnecessary attack, so I won't compile a list here as it would be quite extensive.

Now that you admit that the used my money and may possibly make a profit, why aren't we receiving dividend checks? If the govt owns stock in the company (which they do, in addition to the loan) and the stock makes profit, why don't the people who provided the govt with money to loan get any of the profit? What is going to happen to that money?

Oh, and don't forget-there were a lot of people in congress from your side of the aisle that voted to go to war also, so don't make it a Bush vs. Obama thing, as it certainly is not.

Buzz
10-01-2010, 03:34 PM
Now that you admit that the used my money and may possibly make a profit, why aren't we receiving dividend checks? If the govt owns stock in the company (which they do, in addition to the loan) and the stock makes profit, why don't the people who provided the govt with money to loan get any of the profit? What is going to happen to that money?



I can't quite figure out where you're coming from on this. Do you think it's going into someone's pocket? The government, as they have been for a long time, is borrowing money to fund a large fraction of it's spending. Would you prefer that they send us each our share of the profit, then go out and borrow money to make up for it?

Franco
10-01-2010, 03:55 PM
Question: Why do you want them to fail at this so bad? So far their batting average with this is good. Why do you want them to lose? Do you want the country to lose? Do you want them to lose so we can elect another idiot that says they are going to fix things?



As a tax payer, I want my money back! The government had no business bailing them out. It is a big "if" whether we get our money back but above that, it was plain anti-American to do it. Rewarding failure is not what this country should stand for all the while the crooks that sold them the toxic securities got away as well as the morons at AIG that invested in the crap from Goldman Sachs.

Same for Gooberment Motors. Between labor and mangement, they didn't deserve to get a bailout and we may never see our money back! All the while Ford has to compete against the government.

Yes I agree, the idiot we have now is making the financial situation worse.

ducknwork
10-01-2010, 04:29 PM
I can't quite figure out where you're coming from on this. Do you think it's going into someone's pocket? The government, as they have been for a long time, is borrowing money to fund a large fraction of it's spending. Would you prefer that they send us each our share of the profit, then go out and borrow money to make up for it?

If I asked you to borrow $100 from you to go to the casino to fund my gambling habit, would you let me borrow it? Probably not.

Let's say you didn't have a choice. I borrowed $100 from you without asking, went to Harrah's, came out with $1000 in my pocket and paid you back your original $100. Don't you think that you should get a little more than your original investment back since I made so much profit off of your money without asking? Maybe I should at least buy you lunch for you kindness!:D

road kill
10-01-2010, 04:32 PM
As a retired investment banker for ML, I know how the game is played. I assure you they will not float the stock at once as you said. However, it does not mean they will not sell it over the next year or so.

Question: Why do you want them to fail at this so bad? So far their batting average with this is good. Why do you want them to lose? Do you want the country to lose? Do you want them to lose so we can elect another idiot that says they are going to fix things?


You lament the seperation of church and state.

I beleive in the seperation of business and state.


RK

menmon
10-01-2010, 05:23 PM
You lament the seperation of church and state.

I beleive in the seperation of business and state.


RK

I don't like it either. But I like it better than had they not bailed them out. I assure you the government did not go looking for this, and I assure you they don't like rewarding these crooks. They did this to keep it from hurting americans. It's real easy to armchair quarterback this, now that we are not all in a soup line.

Sam is back to the 2nd at MO River

Buzz
10-01-2010, 05:35 PM
Sam is back to the 2nd at MO River


Raven didn't pick up all the birds in the 1st at Lincoln. :(

menmon
10-01-2010, 05:40 PM
Raven didn't pick up all the birds in the 1st at Lincoln. :(

Sam finally got his head out of his ass and has been making some good decisions these last few trials. Patience Raven is a good dog. He is just young like Sam.

Franco
10-01-2010, 06:20 PM
I don't like it either. But I like it better than had they not bailed them out. I assure you the government did not go looking for this, and I assure you they don't like rewarding these crooks. They did this to keep it from hurting americans. It's real easy to armchair quarterback this, now that we are not all in a soup line.

Sam is back to the 2nd at MO River

I was against ALL the bailouts from the get-go!

Hurting Americans was the excuse they used to bailout their political contributors. What about the massive debt that was created? That will hurt ALL of America much more. I doubt tax payers will ever see all thier money back much less at a profit to the government from either GM or AIG.

The more we move away from the Free Enetrprise system, the more our Standard Of Living will fall!

As investors or savers we take risk and there should be no guarantees. If you don't want to take the risk, then do what I do and put your $ in a Money Market account earning next to nothing until you can invest it wisely. If earning less than 1% is not to one's liking, then take the risk. But, when that risk fails, shame on the Feds for bailing folks out.

menmon
10-04-2010, 10:01 AM
I was against ALL the bailouts from the get-go!

Hurting Americans was the excuse they used to bailout their political contributors. What about the massive debt that was created? That will hurt ALL of America much more. I doubt tax payers will ever see all thier money back much less at a profit to the government from either GM or AIG.

The more we move away from the Free Enetrprise system, the more our Standard Of Living will fall!

As investors or savers we take risk and there should be no guarantees. If you don't want to take the risk, then do what I do and put your $ in a Money Market account earning next to nothing until you can invest it wisely. If earning less than 1% is not to one's liking, then take the risk. But, when that risk fails, shame on the Feds for bailing folks out.

The government did not lose on TARP so it is not responsible for hurting americans. All the debt is a collection of entitlements, wars, etc that you can only blame the current leadership for a little of.

Trust me on this one. If the majority changes to the right, they will spend too and as much or more. So please don't buy into their conservative rhetoric. Also the Tea party is not going to change them either. They are just using them for the block vote they get with them.

david gibson
10-04-2010, 10:16 AM
The government did not lose on TARP so it is not responsible for hurting americans. All the debt is a collection of entitlements, wars, etc that you can only blame the current leadership for a little of.

Trust me on this one. If the majority changes to the right, they will spend too and as much or more. So please don't buy into their conservative rhetoric. Also the Tea party is not going to change them either. They are just using them for the block vote they get with them.

ahhhhh..so we should all vote to keep the democrats in control just like they are now?

thanks for clearing that up! i didnt realize we were just being lied to by the conservatives all along. i am starting to agree that we should keep things just as they are.

menmon
10-04-2010, 10:42 AM
ahhhhh..so we should all vote to keep the democrats in control just like they are now?

thanks for clearing that up! i didnt realize we were just being lied to by the conservatives all along. i am starting to agree that we should keep things just as they are.

The decision is not how much they spend....it is what they spend it on. I would look hard at what trinkles down to you and vote your conscience. I have found personnally that the dems work best for me, however, you may be richer than me. I'm just a poor country boy.

BrianW
10-05-2010, 09:46 AM
Curious, AIG sells assets at a known value that could be used to pay back a fixed amount "loan", but instead "pays" the govt back with a theoretical value instrument that in effect leaves the taxpayers more on the hook as majority owners of the company. Everything in this deal is dependent on image & "if" scenarios; if AIG raises "x" amount of capital then they can claim "y" amount of equity. Then if "y" is present, and if it can maintain a "A" credit rating, if the govt holds onto those shares for a certain amount of time to convince investors blah, blah, blah.

Sorry this waaay too much like the crap that got us into this mess in the first place for me. Projected earning based on analyst estimates of asset values based on current market trends...

Nope, sell the boat (and not at a loss so you can claim a write-off as a theoretical asset) and give me that cash. If AIG really learned it's lesson in the business world and are such a candidate to be the world's largest insurance company, then private investors will flock to your "product" and your company will survive and maybe flourish in the real world. Which is the way it should be.
I know that's not how you big high roller mucky-mucks "play the game" but I'm tired of playing and want out.

menmon
10-05-2010, 02:49 PM
Curious, AIG sells assets at a known value that could be used to pay back a fixed amount "loan", but instead "pays" the govt back with a theoretical value instrument that in effect leaves the taxpayers more on the hook as majority owners of the company. Everything in this deal is dependent on image & "if" scenarios; if AIG raises "x" amount of capital then they can claim "y" amount of equity. Then if "y" is present, and if it can maintain a "A" credit rating, if the govt holds onto those shares for a certain amount of time to convince investors blah, blah, blah.

Sorry this waaay too much like the crap that got us into this mess in the first place for me. Projected earning based on analyst estimates of asset values based on current market trends...

Nope, sell the boat (and not at a loss so you can claim a write-off as a theoretical asset) and give me that cash. If AIG really learned it's lesson in the business world and are such a candidate to be the world's largest insurance company, then private investors will flock to your "product" and your company will survive and maybe flourish in the real world. Which is the way it should be.
I know that's not how you big high roller mucky-mucks "play the game" but I'm tired of playing and want out.

I assure you we are better off owning the stock. Since you brought up debt rating, converting the debt to stock improved the debt rating. Just write your congress person and tell them you want to forgive the debt, but if you are willing to wait, the obligation will be met.

I'm sorry you have a simple mind, but the financial world is not simple and has not been for a long time. Thank God, better minds are worrying about this for you.

Franco
10-05-2010, 03:16 PM
I assure you we are better off owning the stock. Since you brought up debt rating, converting the debt to stock improved the debt rating. Just write your congress person and tell them you want to forgive the debt, but if you are willing to wait, the obligation will be met.

I'm sorry you have a simple mind, but the financial world is not simple and has not been for a long time. Thank God, better minds are worrying about this for you.

I'm calling major BS on this!

First of all, tax payers will still be out of 30 billion dollars if TARP and AIG payoff and that's a big "if". Breaking it down to terms you may understand, that's 30,000 million!

The reprecussions had we not baileed them out will never be known but one thing is for sure, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as the know-nothing politicians would try and make us believe.

If you can't see that that the bailouts were political payback then there is no help for you Sambo. Wall Steet made the rules, they continue to make the rules, and they have a license to steal. The recent reform is a joke only setting up the next meltdown. Timothey Geitner is a fool and if you believe his figures, escpically during a campaign year, then you really are very gullible.

They should have been allowed to fail. But, the current administration is notorious for rewarding failure. Had they been allowed to take thier natural course, we wouldn't be in the debt we are in today and investors, tax payers and this country would be better off for it!

depittydawg
10-05-2010, 07:47 PM
I agree 100% but lets don't forget how the current administration likes to reward failure.

Contrary to what Sambo posted, the failure of AIG would not have wrecked out financial system as it was already wrecked by the investment banking firms. All of whom have escaped prosecution because of thier ties to the White House.

Sambo also states that "the experts agree". Which experts? The ones on the White House payroll.

What "current" administration? Did you forget the bailout was designed and blueprinted by Henry Paulsen?

Franco
10-06-2010, 07:48 AM
What "current" administration? Did you forget the bailout was designed and blueprinted by Henry Paulsen?

The AIG bailout is Geithner's folly...

On the frenzied day in September 2008 when the federal government bailed out insurance giant American International Group (http://financial.washingtonpost.com/custom/wpost/html-qcn.asp?dispnav=business&mwpage=qcn&symb=AIG&nav=el), Timothy F. Geithner logged dozens of calls with top Wall Street executives, Washington regulators, political leaders and even investor Warren Buffett.
At the time, the Treasury secretary was head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (http://financial.washingtonpost.com/custom/wpost/html-qcn.asp?dispnav=business&mwpage=qcn&symb=BK&nav=el), which played a lead role in organizing AIG's rescue. His call logs, obtained by The Washington Post, are among 250,000 pages of documents the New York Fed recently turned over in response to a subpoena from the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Records show that Geithner participated in nearly 70 calls between 7:45 a.m. and 10 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 16, as officials worked to stabilize AIG -- first through private loans and finally through public assistance. They feared the company's collapse might trigger other failures and endanger the financial system.
Geithner spoke most often to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., as well as with AIG chief executive Robert Willumstad. He also shared numerous calls with top financial executives, including Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs (http://financial.washingtonpost.com/custom/wpost/html-qcn.asp?dispnav=business&mwpage=qcn&symb=GS&nav=el), Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase (http://financial.washingtonpost.com/custom/wpost/html-qcn.asp?dispnav=business&mwpage=qcn&symb=JPM&nav=el) and Vikram Pandit of Citigroup (http://financial.washingtonpost.com/custom/wpost/html-qcn.asp?dispnav=business&mwpage=qcn&symb=C&nav=el).


Bought and Paid For - The Unholy Allience between Wall St and Obama
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/10/04/book-review-bought-and-paid-for-%E2%80%93-the-unholy-alliance-between-barack-obama-and-wall-street/

menmon
10-06-2010, 04:12 PM
The AIG bailout is Geithner's folly...

On the frenzied day in September 2008 when the federal government bailed out insurance giant American International Group (http://financial.washingtonpost.com/custom/wpost/html-qcn.asp?dispnav=business&mwpage=qcn&symb=AIG&nav=el), Timothy F. Geithner logged dozens of calls with top Wall Street executives, Washington regulators, political leaders and even investor Warren Buffett.
At the time, the Treasury secretary was head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (http://financial.washingtonpost.com/custom/wpost/html-qcn.asp?dispnav=business&mwpage=qcn&symb=BK&nav=el), which played a lead role in organizing AIG's rescue. His call logs, obtained by The Washington Post, are among 250,000 pages of documents the New York Fed recently turned over in response to a subpoena from the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Records show that Geithner participated in nearly 70 calls between 7:45 a.m. and 10 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 16, as officials worked to stabilize AIG -- first through private loans and finally through public assistance. They feared the company's collapse might trigger other failures and endanger the financial system.
Geithner spoke most often to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., as well as with AIG chief executive Robert Willumstad. He also shared numerous calls with top financial executives, including Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs (http://financial.washingtonpost.com/custom/wpost/html-qcn.asp?dispnav=business&mwpage=qcn&symb=GS&nav=el), Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase (http://financial.washingtonpost.com/custom/wpost/html-qcn.asp?dispnav=business&mwpage=qcn&symb=JPM&nav=el) and Vikram Pandit of Citigroup (http://financial.washingtonpost.com/custom/wpost/html-qcn.asp?dispnav=business&mwpage=qcn&symb=C&nav=el).


Bought and Paid For - The Unholy Allience between Wall St and Obama
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/10/04/book-review-bought-and-paid-for-%E2%80%93-the-unholy-alliance-between-barack-obama-and-wall-street/

Let me give you a little history lesson. In 1998, Long Term Capital was failing and the fed ask a group of bank to recapitalize them and I think it was $30B. I was good friends with the guy in charge of this at ML. He told me a couple years later that it turned out to be a good investment for ML, but at the time, we had just lost a $1.5B and really didn't want to do it but knew it we had too and not because the fed was telling us to. But what it prevented was a fire sale that would have hurt us all.

Make up your mind on where you republicans stand on wall st. too. I'm getting dizzy.

Wall Street makes a lot of jobs by getting capital where it is needed. The nature of it creates booms and bust. However, I assure you; you want them aggressive.

DL
10-07-2010, 08:19 PM
I bought AIG at 19. It went down to 13 and I felt like a dufus. Then it went up to 54 and I sold. The last time I checked it was around 36. It was quite sweet in the end.

troy schwab
10-08-2010, 12:33 PM
I bought AIG at 19. It went down to 13 and I felt like a dufus. Then it went up to 54 and I sold. The last time I checked it was around 36. It was quite sweet in the end.

You and half of congress...... if you want some interesting reading, take a look at some of the holdings our congress people keep. They are/were heavily invested in AIG. Makes you wonder........hmmmmm.