EZC-Boston Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/aig...uses/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 "The company insists the payouts are needed to keep talented executives on the payroll, but public anger over the moves has prompted Congress and the Obama administration to seek some ways to reclaim the money". Um if they're so good then why the bailout in the 1st place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 The problem for most of us is we really don't know what would have happened if we did not bail out AIG. I know nothing of finance but from what I have heard and read it is indeed possible that the world monetary system could have collapsed. On the other hand, it seems insane that government, starting with Bush, would hand over hundreds of billions with no oversight or strings. The whole mess defies logic. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 it is kind of a weird dynamic, circuit city just went through this even after the closure was announced...there is still work that needs to be done, so they had to petition the court to allow $4M in bonus money to retain those that were necessary to the wind down process...I get it, not too happy about it, but I certainly get it...btw...i was not part of that bonus package.... "The company insists the payouts are needed to keep talented executives on the payroll, but public anger over the moves has prompted Congress and the Obama administration to seek some ways to reclaim the money". Um if they're so good then why the bailout in the 1st place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 "The company insists the payouts are needed to keep talented executives on the payroll, but public anger over the moves has prompted Congress and the Obama administration to seek some ways to reclaim the money". Um if they're so good then why the bailout in the 1st place. So after saying there was nothing they could legally do in the recent past, now Obama & Co. once again reverse course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 it is kind of a weird dynamic, circuit city just went through this even after the closure was announced...there is still work that needs to be done, so they had to petition the court to allow $4M in bonus money to retain those that were necessary to the wind down process...I get it, not too happy about it, but I certainly get it...btw...i was not part of that bonus package.... ....as an aside A customer of mine just got the 3.3 billion dollar liquidation contract for CC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 just got it? the liquidation is over....or is there more? ....as an asideA customer of mine just got the 3.3 billion dollar liquidation contract for CC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 How stupid and negligent do you have to be to give billions of dollars of taxpayer money without asking how it would be used. AIG needed money because they screwed up and now the President is shocked that they are not putting the bailout money to good use?! Spare me the fake outrage and let them fail. Why would you show a profit if you ran GM, AIG, CITI, etc. The free money stops when you get out of the red. Incentivizing failure is sure to fix everything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 So after saying there was nothing they could legally do in the recent past, now Obama & Co. once again reverse course... Oh man now we're getting into PPP territory and that makes me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 just got it? the liquidation is over....or is there more? From what he told me, yes. Though that also includes all assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 "I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little better toward them [AIG executives] is if they follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, 'I am sorry,' and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide," he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I have a suggestion that I think is completely non-partisan and free of controversy. I say we institute a brand new national holiday. From now on, March 20 (in addition to being the 1st day of spring) is Kick A Banker In The Balls Day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 good for him...sad for me, good for him From what he told me, yes. Though that also includes all assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 good for him...sad for me, good for him Best of luck to you, Pooj. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 moochoes grassy ass Best of luck to you, Pooj. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 I have a suggestion that I think is completely non-partisan and free of controversy. I say we institute a brand new national holiday. From now on, March 20 (in addition to being the 1st day of spring) is Kick A Banker In The Balls Day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Point of fact: the government didn't "give" AIG money. They bought a stake in the company. Currently, the government owns an 80% equity stake in AIG. It's not a "here, here's $100B, no strings" kind of deal. And you would think that, as the 80% owner of the company, the government could sh---can the board, fire the executives, and renegotiate all the contracts. They probably can't, because I'll bet (I don't know, but it would be pretty typical) the government's equity is some sort of senior preferred non-voting stake. So who the hell buys 80% of a company (and overpays, I may add) in such a way that they can exert NO control over it? As it stands, the government can basically shut up, bend over, and let the workers get their bonuses; or say "We're the government, we can disallow agreements between private parties whenever we feel like it...because we're the government, dammit!..." And people think the latter option is the better one here? Third...can anyone tell me exactly how AIG's executive leadership failed? I know, in part...I'm just curious if any of you "AIG sucks!" reactionaries have any idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Point of fact: the government didn't "give" AIG money. They bought a stake in the company. Currently, the government owns an 80% equity stake in AIG. It's not a "here, here's $100B, no strings" kind of deal. And you would think that, as the 80% owner of the company, the government could sh---can the board, fire the executives, and renegotiate all the contracts. They probably can't, because I'll bet (I don't know, but it would be pretty typical) the government's equity is some sort of senior preferred non-voting stake. So who the hell buys 80% of a company (and overpays, I may add) in such a way that they can exert NO control over it? As it stands, the government can basically shut up, bend over, and let the workers get their bonuses; or say "We're the government, we can disallow agreements between private parties whenever we feel like it...because we're the government, dammit!..." And people think the latter option is the better one here? Third...can anyone tell me exactly how AIG's executive leadership failed? I know, in part...I'm just curious if any of you "AIG sucks!" reactionaries have any idea. Not me DC I was just being a smarta$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZC-Boston Posted March 17, 2009 Author Share Posted March 17, 2009 Point of fact: the government didn't "give" AIG money. They bought a stake in the company. Currently, the government owns an 80% equity stake in AIG. It's not a "here, here's $100B, no strings" kind of deal. And you would think that, as the 80% owner of the company, the government could sh---can the board, fire the executives, and renegotiate all the contracts. They probably can't, because I'll bet (I don't know, but it would be pretty typical) the government's equity is some sort of senior preferred non-voting stake. So who the hell buys 80% of a company (and overpays, I may add) in such a way that they can exert NO control over it? As it stands, the government can basically shut up, bend over, and let the workers get their bonuses; or say "We're the government, we can disallow agreements between private parties whenever we feel like it...because we're the government, dammit!..." And people think the latter option is the better one here? Third...can anyone tell me exactly how AIG's executive leadership failed? I know, in part...I'm just curious if any of you "AIG sucks!" reactionaries have any idea. Never said "AIG sucks" that's my point. The gov't is clueless, but that isn't really news is it? PS - I'm not going to pick sides either. I think the dems and repubs are both letting us down right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Point of fact: the government didn't "give" AIG money. They bought a stake in the company. Currently, the government owns an 80% equity stake in AIG. It's not a "here, here's $100B, no strings" kind of deal. And you would think that, as the 80% owner of the company, the government could sh---can the board, fire the executives, and renegotiate all the contracts. They probably can't, because I'll bet (I don't know, but it would be pretty typical) the government's equity is some sort of senior preferred non-voting stake. So who the hell buys 80% of a company (and overpays, I may add) in such a way that they can exert NO control over it? As it stands, the government can basically shut up, bend over, and let the workers get their bonuses; or say "We're the government, we can disallow agreements between private parties whenever we feel like it...because we're the government, dammit!..." And people think the latter option is the better one here? Third...can anyone tell me exactly how AIG's executive leadership failed? I know, in part...I'm just curious if any of you "AIG sucks!" reactionaries have any idea. DC, I am not an expert here either, but I believe that AIG , in one business,in essence sold insurance to folks who sold mortgage insurance. So, for instance, Genworth sold PMI to someone, AIG would sell genworh insurance incase the PMI had to be used, kinda like a re-insurer. Then they would take that money and invest it in all kind of derivitives and CDO's and the like. When the poop started hitting the fan last fall and foreclosures were going thru the roof, they didn't have the cash to pay the folks who had bought the insurance from them. So if they go under, all the folks who sold the original PMI can no longer pay, they go under, which in turns means the firms who wrote theoriginal mortgage go under as well as they counted on the PMI. That is the "systemic risk" you hear so much about today, when if one firm gets unraveled puts the whole system at risk, and that is what AIG presented. Now onto the bonuses. I have a really good friend is in a very SR level position at a company that is in negotiations to buu pieces of AIG. These bonuses are going to the only asset AIG really has left, its talent. Yes, one can say those scums lost all this money, how "talented" can they be? The reality is no one saw this coming, and they are really bright and smart people. If they leave, and believe me, the senior folks at AIG are wanted, the place goes to the pooper. They are the only hope in getting this thing turned around. Also, If these folks are not there, the value of the assets goes down dramaticaaly. Acquiring companies right now are looking just as hard on the talent on board as they are at the liabilities and assets. If you do not believe this, look at what is happening at Freddie Mac right now. New CEO, who was highly respected, resigned after 6 short months cause he was essentially reporting to the Government and he could not make decisions SR Leadership needs to make. He has said essentially that you cannot run a private enterprise like you run a gov agency, and it is doomed to fail. Either make it an agency, or give the latitude to run the business, but you cannot have it both ways, which is what people want now on this AIG mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts