If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Former AIG Chairman and major investor in AIG feels "it's in our national interest that AIG survive."   (biz.yahoo.com) divider line 146
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

498 clicks; posted to Business » on 16 Sep 2008 at 4:08 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



146 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-09-16 01:53:27 PM  
So these corporate socialist whores now want to suckle on the public's teat? They're all for privatizing the profit and nationalizing their risk. I say fark them. I'd rather let the system burn for a while than make "moral hazard" relevant to individuals only.

Or, if they want to be saved, follow George Will's advice: make them all Federal employees and pay them on a scale commensurate with any government functionary. I think having this douche earn $100K per annum for the rest of his life (and then retire on a public pension as well) would be fair.
 
2008-09-16 01:59:18 PM  
I'll bet we'll all be in the land of sunshine and rainbows when all the investors decide that buying into U.S. assets probably isn't such a smart move after all.
 
2008-09-16 01:59:42 PM  
uh, "this douche" doesn't earn anything from aig anymore - he stepped down in 2005. aig doesn't need a bailout they need a bridge loan to stay liquid. given aig's size and importance in the insurance industry (as well as in opening new markets abroad for american interests) this is one of the few times that i think the government should step in to help.
 
2008-09-16 02:01:21 PM  
Put me in the "fark 'em" camp...
 
2008-09-16 02:04:17 PM  
Free-market Capitalism, as we know it, has already died. The question is whether AIG will rally today to give us zombie capitalism or if it will just be left to rot.
 
2008-09-16 02:05:36 PM  
I just came in here to say it's in the national interest that you all send me a check for $1000. Right now.
 
2008-09-16 02:09:39 PM  
 
2008-09-16 02:09:43 PM  
boortz.com
 
2008-09-16 02:11:08 PM  
AIG is more like Bernie Mac than Freddie Mac

/it's gonna die.
 
2008-09-16 02:11:51 PM  
thomps: the op ed from former ceo, hank greenberg (new window)

A loan is okay, gov't takeover is not.
 
2008-09-16 02:11:55 PM  
Bukharin: AIG is more like Bernie Mac than Freddie Mac

/it's gonna die.


Oh. No. You. Didn't.
 
2008-09-16 02:14:16 PM  
make me some tea: A loan is okay, gov't takeover is not.

that's where i'm standing on the issue as well. aig, as a long term entity, is just fine. it's having a severe cash flow issue due to being the largest insurer of mortgage insurance. say "boo hoo, take your medicine, you filthy capitalist" all you want, but there is a net gain for everyone involved if a government backed loan is extended.
 
2008-09-16 02:17:36 PM  
Sir Roderick Glossop: Oh. No. You. Didn't.

Sho 'nuff.
 
2008-09-16 02:18:47 PM  
Bukharin: AIG is more like Bernie Mac than Freddie Mac

/it's gonna die.


I thought you were gonna say something about the "I" looking funny.
 
2008-09-16 02:40:56 PM  
From the redlit article a few up:

AIG needs a bridge loan, not a bail-out. The company faces a liquidity crisis, not a solvency problem. Its core insurance operations, both in the US and abroad, are financially sound, and it can raise more than $20bn though orderly asset sales.
...
But all that is not why it should be saved. AIG has a trillion dollars in assets. It can (and always has) serviced its debt. With the right leadership, it will continue to do so.

If AIG does, in fact, have trillions of dollars of assets, it shouldn't be hard to come up with a loan for 20 billion.

Hell, if you've got assets near a trillion dollars, how the hell can you not come up with 20 bil? I know, it's complicated, and I don't understand the world of high finance.

Also quoted from that article:

How did AIG get to this point? Clearly, risk management controls disappeared or were weakened. In recent years, AIG grew for the sake of growth, without regard for profitability, and its financial products businesses spun out of control.

Well, gee, couldn't see that coming eh?

/fark all of them
//if you can't control your own growth, die.
 
2008-09-16 02:41:25 PM  
Sir Roderick Glossop: So these corporate socialist whores now want to suckle on the public's teat? They're all for privatizing the profit and nationalizing their risk. I say fark them. I'd rather let the system burn for a while than make "moral hazard" relevant to individuals only.

Well, unless they're capitalism idealists, it's not a bad idea from their point of view. Why, from a self-interested point of view, wouldn't you want to privatize profit and nationalize risk? The nation can take a fairly hefty beating and still stay strong.
 
2008-09-16 02:47:58 PM  
palelizard: The nation can take a fairly hefty beating and still stay strong.

What direct reward would the average taxpayer get out of it though?

It's dangerous to allow a corporation to get so big that it's collapse (due to greed, poor management, whatever) is directly tied to the solvency of the banking system.
 
2008-09-16 02:47:58 PM  
Fark 'em.
 
2008-09-16 02:48:07 PM  
benlonghair: If AIG does, in fact, have trillions of dollars of assets, it shouldn't be hard to come up with a loan for 20 billion.

Hell, if you've got assets near a trillion dollars, how the hell can you not come up with 20 bil? I know, it's complicated, and I don't understand the world of high finance.


most of the assets are subject to strict regulation regarding its use as collateral, plus most firms are very queasy about loaning billions of dollars to a company that is being targeted by hedge funds and analysts for bankruptcy. also, a large majority of insurance assets are highly illiquid and hard to value, let alone sell in the event of bankruptcy. a government guarantee would go a long way to solve these problems.
 
2008-09-16 02:54:56 PM  
fark em
 
2008-09-16 03:00:11 PM  
Aaaaand AIG starts to plummet again.
 
2008-09-16 03:06:03 PM  
palelizard: Well, unless they're capitalism idealists, it's not a bad idea from their point of view. Why, from a self-interested point of view, wouldn't you want to privatize profit and nationalize risk? The nation can take a fairly hefty beating and still stay strong.

this is why i'm happy in most cases with letting companies fail. lehman basically doubled down on its mortgage bets earlier this year on the expectation that the downturn wouldn't be that bad. well, they bet wrong and should have to deal with the consequences.
aig is not asking for a huge bailout from the government. they want a short term bridge loan to make it through a giant spike in what are usually pretty consistent cash flows. hubris on wall street needs to be punished, but this is not such a case. "fark em" is not the right answer.
 
2008-09-16 03:07:14 PM  
Clean up our mess so we can start acting like greedy greedy fark piggies again!
 
2008-09-16 03:07:42 PM  
How about you start with trading your current, over-inflated compensation package for one that matches what the rest of the country is getting.
 
2008-09-16 03:10:01 PM  
US STOCKS-Market turns higher on AIG report^

NEW YORK, Sept 16 (Reuters) -U.S. stocks turned higher on Tuesday, with the S&P 500 up 1 percent, after Bloomberg reported, citing a person familiar with negotiations, that the Treasury is mulling a loan package to AIG.
 
2008-09-16 03:19:10 PM  
benlonghair: What direct reward would the average taxpayer get out of it though?

It's dangerous to allow a corporation to get so big that it's collapse (due to greed, poor management, whatever) is directly tied to the solvency of the banking system.


The tax-payer doesn't, mostly likely. I meant it was a good move in the interest of the "corporate socialist whores".

thomps: this is why i'm happy in most cases with letting companies fail. lehman basically doubled down on its mortgage bets earlier this year on the expectation that the downturn wouldn't be that bad. well, they bet wrong and should have to deal with the consequences.
aig is not asking for a huge bailout from the government. they want a short term bridge loan to make it through a giant spike in what are usually pretty consistent cash flows. hubris on wall street needs to be punished, but this is not such a case. "fark em" is not the right answer.


I'm in agreement in principle, but how temporary is the spike going to be? Yes, "fark em" isn't the right answer, but I can see some legitimate concerns about the long term implications, especially after last year. It's unfortunate that AIG might be the ones to suffer, when they've behaved fairly ethically.
 
2008-09-16 03:24:26 PM  
palelizard: I'm in agreement in principle, but how temporary is the spike going to be? Yes, "fark em" isn't the right answer, but I can see some legitimate concerns about the long term implications, especially after last year. It's unfortunate that AIG might be the ones to suffer, when they've behaved fairly ethically.

They've paid out over 18B in subprime claims. I don't think they're poised to pay out that much more (relatively speaking) due to the mortgage collapse. But they are a huge insurer and liquidity is a major problem right now. I'm inclined to believe they are not bullshiatting on this one. Their survival is integral to fend of total collapse of the US economy.

Those saying "fark 'em" clearly don't understand the difference between AIG and irresponsible lenders. But, they probably have a cynical view of every large corporation because they're told to.
 
2008-09-16 03:25:01 PM  
palelizard: Well, unless they're capitalism idealists, it's not a bad idea from their point of view. Why, from a self-interested point of view, wouldn't you want to privatize profit and nationalize risk?

Fair enough. I just wish the other 99.999% of us got a say in how we felt about our tax dollars being spent on essentially subsidizing these arseholes.
 
2008-09-16 03:26:57 PM  
thomps: "fark em" is not the right answer.

Why? Because they chose to insure people who were high risk and they're being called on it now?

Read the last quote in my Boobies.
 
2008-09-16 03:28:57 PM  
Sir Roderick Glossop: Fair enough. I just wish the other 99.999% of us got a say in how we felt about our tax dollars being spent on essentially subsidizing these arseholes.

You do! It's called voting. There's a fairly big election coming up in the beginning of November too! You might even get to vote for 2 or 3 really important positions, depending on where you live.

I'm all for responsible spending by the gov't, etc. But at a certain point, the subsidy is necessary. You want to take out the largest mortgage insurer because you're mad at corporations and you think the irresponsible lenders (not AIG) should be punished? Fine. Let's implement your plan. See you at the back of the bread line, comrade.
 
2008-09-16 03:30:15 PM  
benlonghair: Read the last quote in my Boobies.

My original posting, that is.

WaltzingMathilda: Their survival is integral to fend of total collapse of the US economy.

The citizens of the United States would survive this. The government wouldn't. That's OK by me. And yes, it would suck, but people would pull themselves up by the bootstraps and fix it, and we'd come out stronger in the end.
 
2008-09-16 03:32:06 PM  
benlonghair: benlonghair: Read the last quote in my Boobies.

My original posting, that is.

WaltzingMathilda: Their survival is integral to fend of total collapse of the US economy.

The citizens of the United States would survive this. The government wouldn't. That's OK by me. And yes, it would suck, but people would pull themselves up by the bootstraps and fix it, and we'd come out stronger in the end.


Well, good thing more than a majority of Americans are A-OK with the survival of the USA. I didn't realize I was talking to a revolutionary.
 
2008-09-16 03:35:00 PM  
WaltzingMathilda: You want to take out the largest mortgage insurer because you're mad at corporations and you think the irresponsible lenders (not AIG) should be punished? Fine.

If I've got a house that's in a major floodplain, I can't get insurance (unless I pay a BIG premium). Same goes for living in the wildfire-prone CA foothills.

That's an insurer's job. They asess risk and charge accordingly. I'd say they assessed it way low on these subprime lenders. THEY were supposed to be the check to the subprime's balance. They failed at doing that.

So fark them.
 
2008-09-16 03:44:03 PM  
WaltzingMathilda:
I'm all for responsible spending by the gov't, etc. But at a certain point, the subsidy is necessary. You want to take out the largest mortgage insurer because you're mad at corporations and you think the irresponsible lenders (not AIG) should be punished? Fine. Let's implement your plan. See you at the back of the bread line, comrade.


The whole financial system pounced on this mortgage tulip craze. Whether obtaining a BS mortgage, selling BS mortgages, bundling them and selling them as mortgage backed securities, trading said securities, or insuring BS mortgages, there's plenty of blood to spill.

As someone who works his ass off and rented because he couldn't responsibly buy property while property values spiraled well out of my reach (and will remain so until the market "corrects"), I have absolutely no farking sympathy whatsoever for anyone involved, from the retard who took out the NINA loan to the jackoff who bought a security backed by a pack of such loans.

Like I said- let it burn. Omelettes, eggs, reaping what one sows, etc. And I do vote and will continue to do so. I'd just feel better about it if the party that is supposed to champion capitalist ideals would actually do so.
 
2008-09-16 03:50:20 PM  
WaltzingMathilda: I didn't realize I was talking to a revolutionary.

I suppose I am a revolutionary. Never thought of it that way. But do you really believe that the major, systemic issues with the way this country is run can be fixed through government intervention?

I would argue that the only way they can be resolved is through citizen intervention with the hugly top-heavy government that's put itself in place over the past 80-100 years.
 
2008-09-16 03:55:49 PM  
WaltzingMathilda: You do! It's called voting. There's a fairly big election coming up in the beginning of November too! You might even get to vote for 2 or 3 really important positions, depending on where you live.

You seem to think voting changes things.

benlonghair: That's an insurer's job. They asess risk and charge accordingly. I'd say they assessed it way low on these subprime lenders. THEY were supposed to be the check to the subprime's balance. They failed at doing that.

From an actuarial point of view, they may have known about the risks involved--and felt it unlikely so much would happen at once. They've got stable income, it's a matter of current liquidity. They are paying out, they just need a little help.

So I think we should extend a payday loan to them, under very similar terms (scaled, of course, for the amount).
 
2008-09-16 04:01:22 PM  
benlonghair: I suppose I am a revolutionary. Never thought of it that way. But do you really believe that the major, systemic issues with the way this country is run can be fixed through government intervention?

I think the only way to fix the systemic issues through government intervention would involve violent use (or believable threat of violent use) of force. That won't fix things while preserving our ideals.

I think the collapse you're talking about won't let us preserve a national ideal either--we'd likely splinter into isolationish smaller states, as most folks have more in common with their neighbor than with someone on the other side of the country. And I think, while that may not be bad in and of itself, a lot of people would get hurt in the process, and a lot of rights I feel are intrinsic to humanity would be violated.
 
2008-09-16 04:03:16 PM  
benlonghair: If I've got a house that's in a major floodplain, I can't get insurance (unless I pay a BIG premium). Same goes for living in the wildfire-prone CA foothills.

At a certain point, the risk is uninsurable. Don't build a house in an area that frequently catches on fire or gets filled with water and expect insurers to say "hey, let's give this guy an insurance policy that we're sure to pay out on more than we take in for premiums."

In hindsight, they were poor underwriters with the subprime lending ... these were the best in the industry. You wouldn't have done it better. They honored the claims, and they got killed for it. But they need to exist.
 
2008-09-16 04:05:15 PM  
palelizard: WaltzingMathilda: You seem to think voting changes things.

You're damn right I do.
 
2008-09-16 04:07:25 PM  
as was said above, the problem isn't that they took on such risky investments, the problem was that all of the policies were exercised at the same time. this is not an issue of gross irresponsibility, or solvency, it is an issue of short term cash flows.
 
2008-09-16 04:09:39 PM  
WaltzingMathilda: They honored the claims, and they got killed for it. But they need to exist.

The function (insuring mortgages) needs to exist. These guys may well have blown their chance to be the ones who fulfill that function. When you prove you suck at something, sometimes you have to fold your tents and look for another gig.
 
2008-09-16 04:15:53 PM  
This is funny. This guy is the biggest crook of all of them.
 
2008-09-16 04:16:17 PM  
Sir Roderick Glossop: WaltzingMathilda: They honored the claims, and they got killed for it. But they need to exist.

The function (insuring mortgages) needs to exist. These guys may well have blown their chance to be the ones who fulfill that function. When you prove you suck at something, sometimes you have to fold your tents and look for another gig.


Who's better? AFLAC? Do you know who AIG is?

Are you saying that if I were the leading Fire Insurance salesman, but then all of a sudden the entire country caught fire at the exact same time, and I was having a liquidity problem because I was honoring my policies and paying out (but had plenty of assets), that I am a poor underwriter? Please.

Try to keep up. These guys have tons of assets that they're NOT allowed to borrow against because of extremely heavy insurance regulation ... which is a good thing. They are the best in the business.

More than the function needs to exist. AIG needs to survive, especially right now. Unless you want to see the worst days in US history.

It amazes me how many Farkers would choose living in hell to spite corporate interests. "I'm sleeping in my own shiat and eating sawdust for sustinence but I farking showed Big Insurance what's what!"
 
2008-09-16 04:16:52 PM  
Sir Roderick Glossop: The function (insuring mortgages) needs to exist. These guys may well have blown their chance to be the ones who fulfill that function. When you prove you suck at something, sometimes you have to fold your tents and look for another gig.

sometimes your tent covers 115,000 employees and over $1 trillion in assets. sometimes that tent should be let down slowly and carefully instead of in a crashing boom.
also sometimes it's more complicated than "proving you suck at something." i'm not going to repeat the differentiations between AIG's situation and most other firms being sucked down right now because clearly you don't care.
 
2008-09-16 04:17:44 PM  
BalugaJoe: This is funny. This guy is the biggest crook of all of them.

greenberg is no saint, but please explain to me how he is the biggest crook of them all. (there are some pretty huge crooks out there).
 
2008-09-16 04:18:12 PM  
wait - so they fark up, and the taxpayers have to pay for it? If that happens, someone better go to farking jail over it. Oh, and any elected offical who votes in favor of a bailout can kiss their career goodbye.
 
2008-09-16 04:20:10 PM  
WaltzingMathilda: AIG needs to survive, especially right now.

Then they need to survive ON THEIR OWN - without government help. Because the fed *cannot* take on any more debt.
 
2008-09-16 04:21:07 PM  
Weaver95: wait - so they fark up, and the taxpayers have to pay for it? If that happens, someone better go to farking jail over it. Oh, and any elected offical who votes in favor of a bailout can kiss their career goodbye.

please read up thread, or tfa. it's not a traditional bailout, it's not even a long term loan.
 
2008-09-16 04:21:16 PM  
Damn! If AIG goes under, who'll take care of their private golf courses?!?

Link (new window)
 
2008-09-16 04:21:35 PM  
Weaver95: wait - so they fark up, and the taxpayers have to pay for it? If that happens, someone better go to farking jail over it. Oh, and any elected offical who votes in favor of a bailout can kiss their career goodbye.

Wow, I have read some very insightful and interesting posts from you over the year and a half or so that I've been on Fark, so I'm a bit surprised to see this one.
 
Displayed 50 of 146 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report