Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Marketwatch)   In a rare display of empathy and humility, AIG pulls back from an epic troll opportunity   (marketwatch.com) divider line 78
    More: Followup, AIG, Wall Street Journal  
•       •       •

11341 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 6:31 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-10 12:07:26 AM  
Was hoping they'd go through, so that the government would file a countersuit for everything they loaned them plus some, and win.
 
2013-01-10 01:03:44 AM  
What still slays me is the way BIg Banks and AIG were given the golden glove treatment, along with "How much money do you need?" Whilst GM and Chrysler, who employ many, many more people, had to sit and beg, and get ripped a new one.
 
2013-01-10 01:23:22 AM  
Injuneer

What still slays me is the way BIg Banks and AIG were given the golden glove treatment, along with "How much money do you need?" Whilst GM and Chrysler, who employ many, many more people, had to sit and beg, and get ripped a new one.

Depends on what company it was, yes?

Immelt, of GE, was on the phone with Paulson the day before Lehman collapsed, complaining about GE Capital not being able to move even short term debt.

Paulson's account is based on his recollection of his conversations. There appears to be no documentary evidence, at least in government files, of what transpired; the Department of the Treasury told ProPublica, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, it had no records about the conversations.

In his book Paulson also explained that he helped GE Capital, the company's massive finance arm, get into a government rescue program for which it initially was ineligible. The program insured bank debts and was run by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. According to his book, Paulson went to bat for the company after Immelt told him in October 2008 that, "We need help."

GE Capital went on to become the largest user of the program, issuing more than $70 billion in commercial paper and other government-backed debt.


Link
 
2013-01-10 01:46:27 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: The AIG board needs to have its balls smashed in a Craftsman bench vise.


Quite probably true, but what do you have against chrome-plated tools?
 
2013-01-10 02:52:37 AM  
Disgusting that any of them were even considering it, but at least the asses had the sense to fear the backlash. I hope Greenberg/Starr Int.'s effort collapses.
 
2013-01-10 05:36:36 AM  
They didn't think this thing all the way through. All it would take is a vote by Congress to withdraw their Charter and declare all their assets and debts to be null and void. The Company would cease to exist.
 
2013-01-10 05:38:58 AM  

Deathfrogg: They didn't think this thing all the way through. All it would take is a vote by Congress to withdraw their Charter and declare all their assets and debts to be null and void. The Company would cease to exist.


Like that's ever going to happen. Congress is more beholden to their lobbyists than their constituents.
 
2013-01-10 06:02:30 AM  

dervish16108: Deathfrogg: They didn't think this thing all the way through. All it would take is a vote by Congress to withdraw their Charter and declare all their assets and debts to be null and void. The Company would cease to exist.

Like that's ever going to happen. Congress is more beholden to their lobbyists than their constituents.


I wonder if the possibility wasn't mentioned in one of the conversations amongst the Banking Committee. Seems to me that it is time Congress started doing it's job of making sure the Treasury was protected.
 
2013-01-10 06:13:07 AM  

Deathfrogg: dervish16108: Deathfrogg: They didn't think this thing all the way through. All it would take is a vote by Congress to withdraw their Charter and declare all their assets and debts to be null and void. The Company would cease to exist.

Like that's ever going to happen. Congress is more beholden to their lobbyists than their constituents.

I wonder if the possibility wasn't mentioned in one of the conversations amongst the Banking Committee. Seems to me that it is time Congress started doing it's job of making sure the Treasury was protected.


If it was mentioned, that conversation probably ended with howls of laughter. If democrats can't even make a decent showing of trying to protect the Treasury, what are we going to do? Vote third party? Then the republicans will probably just hand Wall Street the treasury with a bow around it and then apologize to them for being so late, and then the teabaggers will demand the republicans do more for Wall Street.

/screwed, we are
 
2013-01-10 07:00:14 AM  

Deathfrogg: They didn't think this thing all the way through. All it would take is a vote by Congress to withdraw their Charter and declare all their assets and debts to be null and void. The Company would cease to exist.


LOL. The lawsuit going on right now is based on the claim that the govt violated the shareholders constitutional rights via unlawful seizure. Given the circumstances, it wasn't unlawful seizure, according to everyone but the plaintiffs.

But what you're proposing obviously would be. So you'd need to add "all it would take is an amendment to the constitution" to your confiscatory fantasy.
 
2013-01-10 07:07:47 AM  

Injuneer: What still slays me is the way BIg Banks and AIG were given the golden glove treatment, along with "How much money do you need?" Whilst GM and Chrysler, who employ many, many more people, had to sit and beg, and get ripped a new one.


That didn't happen. AIG and the banks were given more onerous terms than the auto companies, hence the profits we made on those transactions. For AIG in particular, also there was a need for a quick deal. The markets wouldn't wait. The govt made the best deal it could in a short amount of time, and we made $22b.

There was more time to deal with the auto companies. Nevertheless, they got a sweet deal because those bailouts were structured to bailout workers and pensioners, hence our huge losses on GM and Chrysler. We left money on the table there (I.e., gave it to the unions) and it cost the taxpayers billions.

So, rest easy. Reality is pretty much the opposite of what you posted.
 
2013-01-10 09:35:58 AM  

dervish16108: In a rare display of empathy and humility

No, subby. If anything, they didn't go through with it because they knew the backlash would be far too great. Other elements of Wall Street probably leaned on them not to go through with the lawsuit for the same reason. That doesn't require empathy or humility.


Right. Which is demonstrating empathy (understanding how others feel, in this case the prospect of the righteous outrage of pretty much everyone) and humility (modest opinion of one's own importance, as opposed to the traditional "Masters of the Universe" approach common to Wall Street).

So yes, empathy and humility. Of course, those words have a bit more positive connotation than required here, but they'll serve. Particularly in contrast to Greenberg, who is an ass incapable of empathy or humility.
 
2013-01-10 10:09:09 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Deathfrogg: They didn't think this thing all the way through. All it would take is a vote by Congress to withdraw their Charter and declare all their assets and debts to be null and void. The Company would cease to exist.

LOL. The lawsuit going on right now is based on the claim that the govt violated the shareholders constitutional rights via unlawful seizure. Given the circumstances, it wasn't unlawful seizure, according to everyone but the plaintiffs.

But what you're proposing obviously would be. So you'd need to add "all it would take is an amendment to the constitution" to your confiscatory fantasy.


There is over one hundred years of precedent that says states may revoke charters of Persons for various reasons. Revoking a charter wouldn't be a federal decision, but rather a state one.

Confiscation of assets would not be possible, as the Person would then cease to exist. This was fairly common in the trust busting days.
 
2013-01-10 10:10:49 AM  

Priapetic: dervish16108: In a rare display of empathy and humility

No, subby. If anything, they didn't go through with it because they knew the backlash would be far too great. Other elements of Wall Street probably leaned on them not to go through with the lawsuit for the same reason. That doesn't require empathy or humility.

Right. Which is demonstrating empathy (understanding how others feel, in this case the prospect of the righteous outrage of pretty much everyone) and humility (modest opinion of one's own importance, as opposed to the traditional "Masters of the Universe" approach common to Wall Street).

So yes, empathy and humility. Of course, those words have a bit more positive connotation than required here, but they'll serve. Particularly in contrast to Greenberg, who is an ass incapable of empathy or humility.


If you don't do something because you are afraid of the repercussions, that is not empathy. Recognizing that actions have consequences is not generally a synonym for "empathy".
 
2013-01-10 10:22:03 AM  

Moopy Mac: Priapetic: dervish16108: In a rare display of empathy and humility

No, subby. If anything, they didn't go through with it because they knew the backlash would be far too great. Other elements of Wall Street probably leaned on them not to go through with the lawsuit for the same reason. That doesn't require empathy or humility.

Right. Which is demonstrating empathy (understanding how others feel, in this case the prospect of the righteous outrage of pretty much everyone) and humility (modest opinion of one's own importance, as opposed to the traditional "Masters of the Universe" approach common to Wall Street).

So yes, empathy and humility. Of course, those words have a bit more positive connotation than required here, but they'll serve. Particularly in contrast to Greenberg, who is an ass incapable of empathy or humility.

If you don't do something because you are afraid of the repercussions, that is not empathy. Recognizing that actions have consequences is not generally a synonym for "empathy".


Right. Even sociopaths can do that. They can even read people pretty good and anticipate their reactions. But they still lack empathy.
 
2013-01-10 10:24:05 AM  

HellRaisingHoosier: Cause Senator Warren would have handed them their dick on a silver platter. That Democrat, from Massachusetts no less, is what ever Senator should strive to be.


Yes, the senator that lied about her ancestry to get a job. Had she not claimed she was Native American, she likely wouldn't have gotten the job at Harvard and would never have been elected to the senate, but since you support her positions, the ends justify the means, Amirite? She has some populist opinions, but she is hardly the beacon of integrity that others should aspire to
 
2013-01-10 10:32:10 AM  
As usual, whenever something like this happens, I turn to Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone to explain it to me.

The general idea? This lawsuit is alleging that the Fed stuck its hand up AIG's ass and wiggled it like a puppet to "stealth" bail out every company on the Street that had done business with AIG, carving up AIG like "the helpless fat guy in the lifeboat who got eaten when the rest of the survivors ran out of food".

Of course, the reason they were shipwrecked in the first place was because Hank Greenberg, as head of AIG, had allowed his company to bet so completely wrong on the credit default swap market that they owed everybody on the street a pile of cash when a) the swaps didn't work or b) AIG's credit started slipping. So, the swaps start not working (hello, Countrywide!) and to add a cherry on top, Greenberg's own malfeasance in some shady accounting starts costing his company billions, their credit rating starts slipping, AIG is heading down the tubes and pulling all the people they owe money with them. Hence the hand-up-the-ass puppet trick.

So, while there are a few points to this lawsuit, oh my god, Hank Greenberg is not the one to be bringing it. Anyway, read Taibbi to get a better outline of what's going on. He's consistently the savviest dude on this Wall Street bullshiat.
 
2013-01-10 10:35:09 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Blaxabbath: I still think Warren should push to repeal all these tax breaks, etc (what were her words - phantom bailout or something?) that AIG is receiving. Even without them suing the US, why are they even receiving them?

This is a chance for Warren to let her true colors shine -- a big talker who is looking for symbolic victories or a true representative of the people? With AIG even considering this (stockholder suggested or not -- they shouldn't have such greedy farking ownership then, I say), Warren would have the public support to go at all the perks AIG is receiving from the government. If she considers this a fair solution (that a company who farks the American people only 98% of the time gets to continue on with business as usual) then I think that is a very bad sign for those who believe in her to really shake things up.

What are they receiving? What are the perks and special tax breaks that have you so worked up? I'd hate to think that you'd state an opinion on it without any knowledge of the details, merely harrumphing the grandstanding words of a politician of your party.


First off, not my party. If I was a (D) shrill, I would blame it on AIG making money and not paying their share (morally, not legally, since the laws are written by big corp lobbyists). Instead, I am taking my position based on the additional preferential treatment that AIG is receiving beyond TARP simply because of their political influence. Specifically, I am talking about tax breaks to the company that are used to pump up the value of the stock and pay dividends at the expense of the US tax revenue stream.

Below is a link to the original article where Warren called it a "Stealth Bailout" when the laws went into place last year -- yes, new laws for AIG as recently as 2012!

Link

These are the specific breaks she mentioned recently and they are the ones I believe need to go, lawsuit or not. I would post further details but you have enough information here to know that what I am talking about is an actual specific benefit to AIG.
 
2013-01-10 11:26:48 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Deathfrogg: They didn't think this thing all the way through. All it would take is a vote by Congress to withdraw their Charter and declare all their assets and debts to be null and void. The Company would cease to exist.

LOL. The lawsuit going on right now is based on the claim that the govt violated the shareholders constitutional rights via unlawful seizure. Given the circumstances, it wasn't unlawful seizure, according to everyone but the plaintiffs.

But what you're proposing obviously would be. So you'd need to add "all it would take is an amendment to the constitution" to your confiscatory fantasy.


There wouldn't be any confiscation. The company would cease to exist. Their Charter should be withdrawn. They abused the privilege of doing business in this country and almost brought it to its knees through fraud, malfeasance, misfeasance and perjury.
 
2013-01-10 02:57:58 PM  
The directors needed cover - they needed to float the idea of joining the lawsuit, record the vitriol from the public and politicians, elect to not join, and then be able to (correctly) argue in the inevitable shareholder suits that they fulfilled their fiduciary responsibility by weighing the options and acted appropriately in the face of overwhelming negative backlash that showed the downside risk of joining the lawsuit far outweighed any possible upside. They were never going to join, but they had to show that they were considering it, and, while they're at it, create some evidence that their decision to forgo the lawsuit is, if not correct, at least not incorrect.
 
2013-01-10 03:01:11 PM  

Deathfrogg: Debeo Summa Credo: Deathfrogg: They didn't think this thing all the way through. All it would take is a vote by Congress to withdraw their Charter and declare all their assets and debts to be null and void. The Company would cease to exist.

LOL. The lawsuit going on right now is based on the claim that the govt violated the shareholders constitutional rights via unlawful seizure. Given the circumstances, it wasn't unlawful seizure, according to everyone but the plaintiffs.

But what you're proposing obviously would be. So you'd need to add "all it would take is an amendment to the constitution" to your confiscatory fantasy.

There wouldn't be any confiscation. The company would cease to exist. Their Charter should be withdrawn. They abused the privilege of doing business in this country and almost brought it to its knees through fraud, malfeasance, misfeasance and perjury.


Um, what? If you currently hold shares in AIG, wouldn't your property be taken by what you propose without due compensation? Or are you arguing that no compensation is due?
 
2013-01-10 05:03:42 PM  
Unemployedingreenland
Um, what? If you currently hold shares in AIG, wouldn't your property be taken by what you propose without due compensation? Or are you arguing that no compensation is due?


Thats the risk one assumes when one does business. If one chooses to do business with a company that bases it's entire business model in committing crimes, one does not deserve recompense for the losses incurred by that business. Any business that defrauds investors by deliberately misrating it's own value and the value of its products and missapplying standards of legality and legitimacy deserves to be put out of business permanently and the principals imprisoned or permanently banned from ever engaging in business.

Fraud is fraud. It isn't anyones fault but your own for not picking your investments more wisely. Anyone investigating this company would have seen that, and the people who did investigate it either chose to go along with the fraud, or stayed out of it and did not invest their money. A LOT of people saw this whole thing coming as far back as 1994, and were shouted down or bought off.

Buyer beware works both ways.
 
2013-01-10 07:20:03 PM  

Deathfrogg: Fraud is fraud. It isn't anyones fault but your own for not picking your investments more wisely.


So, if I give you a brochure for a Hattaras yacht, collect the check, cash it and deliver a piece of actual dog excrement to your docking clip, my punishment is your friends get to laugh at you? I think the "it's your fault if you get screwed" mentality is precisely what keeps thieving cocksuckers in suits, three card monte dealers and most of D.C. employed.
 
2013-01-10 08:28:22 PM  

bunner: Deathfrogg: Fraud is fraud. It isn't anyones fault but your own for not picking your investments more wisely.

So, if I give you a brochure for a Hattaras yacht, collect the check, cash it and deliver a piece of actual dog excrement to your docking clip, my punishment is your friends get to laugh at you? I think the "it's your fault if you get screwed" mentality is precisely what keeps thieving cocksuckers in suits, three card monte dealers and most of D.C. employed.


Seems to me its the Grand Obese Tea Pottiers that are insisting that we must never do anything to interfere with commerce. That Government is the problem rather than the solution. And yes, if you buy a Hattaras Yacht without inspecting it or taking it on the salesman's word that it is a pristine vessel, your friends have the right and duty to laugh, both in your face and behind your back. Especially if you spent the previous 30 years making sure that it was nearly impossible to actually perform the inspection.
 
2013-01-10 08:39:53 PM  

Blaxabbath: Debeo Summa Credo: Blaxabbath: I still think Warren should push to repeal all these tax breaks, etc (what were her words - phantom bailout or something?) that AIG is receiving. Even without them suing the US, why are they even receiving them?

This is a chance for Warren to let her true colors shine -- a big talker who is looking for symbolic victories or a true representative of the people? With AIG even considering this (stockholder suggested or not -- they shouldn't have such greedy farking ownership then, I say), Warren would have the public support to go at all the perks AIG is receiving from the government. If she considers this a fair solution (that a company who farks the American people only 98% of the time gets to continue on with business as usual) then I think that is a very bad sign for those who believe in her to really shake things up.

What are they receiving? What are the perks and special tax breaks that have you so worked up? I'd hate to think that you'd state an opinion on it without any knowledge of the details, merely harrumphing the grandstanding words of a politician of your party.

First off, not my party. If I was a (D) shrill, I would blame it on AIG making money and not paying their share (morally, not legally, since the laws are written by big corp lobbyists). Instead, I am taking my position based on the additional preferential treatment that AIG is receiving beyond TARP simply because of their political influence. Specifically, I am talking about tax breaks to the company that are used to pump up the value of the stock and pay dividends at the expense of the US tax revenue stream.

Below is a link to the original article where Warren called it a "Stealth Bailout" when the laws went into place last year -- yes, new laws for AIG as recently as 2012!

Link

These are the specific breaks she mentioned recently and they are the ones I believe need to go, lawsuit or not. I would post further details but you have enough information here to know that what I am talking about is an actual specific benefit to AIG.


It wasn't a special rule or law passed, it was a ruling that the takeover of AIG wasnt a "sale" from one tax paying entity to another that would preclude the use of AIGs tax carryforwards. The rule limiting the use of such carryforwards in an anti-abuse provision inserted into the code to prevent tax-paying entities from buying recently defunct companies to merely make use of their tax loss carryforwards.

Obviously the treasury wasn't a tax paying entity that bought AIG to use the carryforwards, so the rule wouldn't apply.

Warren was completely wrong on this topic and likely grandstanding, as usual.
 
2013-01-10 08:47:50 PM  

Deathfrogg: Especially if you spent the previous 30 years making sure that it was nearly impossible to actually perform the inspection.


If I'm buying the yacht, and not selling it, why would I do that?
 
2013-01-10 08:54:32 PM  
See, I'm pretty sure that laws that address commerce, product quality regulations and fraud were set up to try and make life something other than a series of forays into a den of thieves in hopes you have covered your ass sufficiently to not get a bag of rat poison instead of a cheese whopper. I think this is a good idea. Not returning triumphantly daily with tales to tell my douchebag friends about how I narrowly avoided getting hosed.
 
2013-01-11 10:10:17 AM  

bunner: Deathfrogg: Fraud is fraud. It isn't anyones fault but your own for not picking your investments more wisely.

So, if I give you a brochure for a Hattaras yacht, collect the check, cash it and deliver a piece of actual dog excrement to your docking clip, my punishment is your friends get to laugh at you? I think the "it's your fault if you get screwed" mentality is precisely what keeps thieving cocksuckers in suits, three card monte dealers and most of D.C. employed.


No point in discussing nuance with someone unable to see nuance.
 
Displayed 28 of 78 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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