meanwhile, AIG still knows how to spend money


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Postby guru » Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:45 am

Man, I hate it when I'm right.

AIG shows $1.8 billion profit in latest quarter(first black numbers since '07), stock up 65% on the year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32328138/ns ... -earnings/
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby guru » Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:46 pm

eldrick wrote:
guru wrote:I really couldn't care less. The Fed makes Libor plus 850(currently around 10%), and if AIG cant pay the loans back by 2010, or they go into default, then their divisions get broken up and sold off, making a tidy profit for the government.


i don't see how on earth you can keep waffling on with this drivel

it doesn't make a shitload of difference whether fed asks for libor + 10,000, they ain't getting a red cent back !




Fed made $45 Billion in 2009.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... %3Dtopnews
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby cullman » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:27 am

There is potentially more trouble ahead. From the same article:

'While that resulted in higher earnings in 2009, it exposes the Fed to more risks down the road. "They've moved up the risk-return curve, as they have more long-term assets and more things that involve credit risk," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial.'

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby gh » Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:48 pm

column in my paper this morning says Goldman Sachs is about to hand out c43% of its '09 revenues of $44B in bonuses (average of $595,000 per employee).
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby guru » Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:12 pm

gh wrote:column in my paper this morning says Goldman Sachs is about to hand out c43% of its '09 revenues of $44B in bonuses (average of $595,000 per employee).



For the record, Goldman Sachs repaid it's TARP loan of $10 Billion in June, netting the Fed $1.42 Billion in interest.

http://bailout.propublica.org/entities/ ... dman-sachs
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby gh » Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:26 am

Meaning that they've successfully bought their way out of any corporate responsibility and they and their cronies are now free to lead the economy down the garden path again?
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby guru » Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:33 am

gh wrote:Meaning that they've successfully bought their way out of any corporate responsibility and they and their cronies are now free to lead the economy down the garden path again?



They personally paid you and me $1,418,055,555, and they and their cronies together have paid you and me $45 billion last year alone, for their trouble.

If they're that stupid again I'm happy to take more of their money.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:29 am

gh wrote:Meaning that they've successfully bought their way out of any corporate responsibility and they and their cronies are now free to lead the economy down the garden path again?


Hey, it is not over yet. Commercial real estate is the next zombie.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... struction/

Our banker friends still have a lot of explaining to do.

"Could you explain how Goldman bet against these C.D.O.’s while simultaneously trying to persuade ratings agencies and investors that they were good investments? Were they designed from the outset to be shorted by Goldman and possibly select clients? And were those clients involved in helping design these transactions? What explicit disclosures did you make to Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s about your plans to short these instruments? And should we continue to allow transactions in which you’re betting against what you’re also selling?"



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/busin ... n.html?dbk
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Postby gh » Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:34 am

If you want more Sorkin (and "no rules of accountability"), go here for a 7-minute clip of him with Jon Stewart (in generally serious mode, which he can do very well)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-d ... oss-sorkin
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby 7-sided » Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:41 am

guru wrote:
gh wrote:Meaning that they've successfully bought their way out of any corporate responsibility and they and their cronies are now free to lead the economy down the garden path again?



They personally paid you and me $1,418,055,555, and they and their cronies together have paid you and me $45 billion last year alone, for their trouble.

If they're that stupid again I'm happy to take more of their money.

With the taxpayer as a guarantee backstop on their bad bets that still exist; they've paid it back, but the losses have been socialized.
7-sided
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:02 am

Postby cullman » Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:53 pm

...and in the other corner is China's real estate bubble which could have catastrophic consequences when it bursts.

Now, I'm just a poor young retired schlep who has a few beers with a financial mathematician and a senior trader or two. These guys have been a lot of fun to drink with for the last ten years because they have great stories and a detached, almost perverse view of the money markets.

A couple of hot topics over the holidays were Non Farm Payroll numbers. They are being noticed by Wall Street this month for the first time since the "happy capitalists" took over the market. Whoodathunk that actual numbers of jobs are now back down to 2000 levels while the population has increased. We've had a steady increase in jobs during some pretty stinky economic times but I believe this is the first decade since before WWII where actual jobs haven't increased in America. Jobless recovery? Is that an oxymoron?

My buddies also mention that the same environment that created this last meltdown still exist in exactly the same form. Wall Street investment banking is still heavily leveraged and unregulated which means they continue to make a bushel basket full of money on those 20 lb bags of banker manure (the worst kind...it's toxic!) that are somehow quasi legally converted into AAA rated investments. Who is buying this stuff? Doesn't matter...Goldman Sachs et al are making massive amounts on transaction fees...but I digress.

cman :)
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Re: meanwhile, AIG still knows how to spend money

Postby guru » Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:47 am

gh wrote:These corporate hacks just don't get it, do they? Citigroup talking about a $10M office remodel?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... LGVE_YzvUU




Fed preparing to sell stake in Citigroup. Profit to you and me at today's stock price - $8 Billion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36062775/ns ... gton_post/
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: meanwhile, AIG still knows how to spend money

Postby gh » Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:28 pm

Not clear on what "our" making money has to do with the fact that they're terminally stone deaf. Meanwhile, this I found today:

<<Well into the crisis period, when banks such as Citigroup were operating on federal investment and when Citi's stock was in single digits, Vikram Pandit, the CEO, was observed with a lunch guest at Le Bernardin, one of the top-rated restaurants in New York.

Pandit looked discerningly at the wine list, saw nothing by the glass that appealed, and ordered a $350 bottle so that, as he explained, he could savor "a glass of wine worth drinking."

Pandit drank just one glass; his friend had none.

-- Excerpted from 'The End of Wall Street'>>
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: meanwhile, AIG still knows how to spend money

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Apr 16, 2010 8:30 am

Nice to see one of the instigators of the economic meltdown getting their rightful blame.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/busin ... an.html?hp
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re:

Postby Gebrucilassie » Sun May 16, 2010 1:43 pm

malmo wrote:
Marlow wrote:
the absolute worst thing that could have happened" would have been for employees and underwriters in its life insurance subsidiary to flee the company.

Who said anything about fleeing the company? All the CEO had to do was send out a message to everyone saying that this retreat comes at a bad time for the public's perception (credibility being everything in business), so it will be postponed until such time as the company is on firmer ground. In the meantime he goes about an extensive internal Damage Control program. This is just common sense, and to say otherwise is to buy into their rationalizations. The very fact that AIG is being seen in such a poor light is proof that it was a bad idea - if ONLY for the perception generated! All the points tandfman made were valid . . . but not prudent at this time.


Obviously, you don't work in the private sector, nor are you displaying any common sense at all. Any CEO who would make a dumbass statement like that would be telegraphing to his most productive people the ship had suck and they'd better flee. The insurance business is a relationship business. top producers can and will take their clients elsewhere.



I often hear this argument. That the salesman, CEO, fill in the blank position, will leave if they don't get a bonus they feel they deserve. Often this is despite the fact that the government has had to bail them out because of poor choices and lack of good management. The question that always comes to mind is- where are they going to leave to? Are there that many companies hiring for these positions. Perhaps the government shouldn't reward these companies for doing such a poor job.
Gebrucilassie
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:57 pm

Re: Re:

Postby lonewolf » Sun May 16, 2010 3:01 pm

Gebrucilassie wrote:[ the government shouldn't reward these companies for doing such a poor job.

Amen!! .. where are the losers going and what is the loss if they do?
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: meanwhile, AIG still knows how to spend money

Postby guru » Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:17 am

Fed sells stake in Citigroup, realizing $12 billion profit.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10939787 ... ition.html
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re:

Postby Daisy » Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:31 pm

guru wrote:I've said this before - the US government is makiing a killing on the AIG "bailout" - 10% interest on the loan amount, fully repayable in 3 years. In no way, shape, or form are they receiving a gift. Should AIG fail, which is highly unlikely considering their diversification, the government will easily make a profit by breaking it up and selling off the high-performing divisions.

$15.1 billion, so far.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/ ... -stock/?hp
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: meanwhile, AIG still knows how to spend money

Postby Daisy » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:28 pm

Wow, who saw this coming?

The board of A.I.G. will meet on Wednesday to consider joining a $25 billion shareholder lawsuit against the government, court records show. The lawsuit does not argue that government help was not needed. It contends that the onerous nature of the rescue — the taking of what became a 92 percent stake in the company, the deal’s high interest rates and the funneling of billions to the insurer’s Wall Street clients — deprived shareholders of tens of billions of dollars and violated the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for “public use, without just compensation.”

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/ ... its-savior
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: meanwhile, AIG still knows how to spend money

Postby gh » Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:48 pm

<<JANUARY 8, 2013
A LETTER FROM A.I.G.
POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ


NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – Today, American International Group (A.I.G.) issued the following letter to American taxpayers.

Dear American Taxpayers:

In 2008, you paid for a bailout of A.I.G. totalling $182 billion. Today, we are writing to tell you that we’re thinking of suing you.

When we made this decision, we knew we were in for some rough treatment from the media. We’ve been called everything from soulless bloodsuckers to Satan’s scabrous handmaidens, and worse. At A.I.G., though, we have a different name for ourselves: true American heroes....>>



Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b ... z2HQXLfn2D
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: meanwhile, AIG still knows how to spend money

Postby Master Po » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:20 pm

gh wrote:<<JANUARY 8, 2013
A LETTER FROM A.I.G.
POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ


NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – Today, American International Group (A.I.G.) issued the following letter to American taxpayers.

Dear American Taxpayers:

In 2008, you paid for a bailout of A.I.G. totalling $182 billion. Today, we are writing to tell you that we’re thinking of suing you.

When we made this decision, we knew we were in for some rough treatment from the media. We’ve been called everything from soulless bloodsuckers to Satan’s scabrous handmaidens, and worse. At A.I.G., though, we have a different name for ourselves: true American heroes....>>



Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b ... z2HQXLfn2D


Indeed. I believe I've seen several times in the past couple of weeks an AIG commercial on the teevee, wherein the narrator/spokesperson recounts AIG's awesome record in recent years, all punctuated by a series of people saying, "Thank you, America" or something like that. But perhaps I wasn't watching closely enough...perhaps they were saying, "F**k you, America." Oh well, it's just another instance in which I am, somehow, at once (a) not surprised at all, and (b) appalled.
Master Po
 
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re: meanwhile, AIG still knows how to spend money

Postby gh » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:55 am

on Wednesday night, Jon Stewart had two awesome (IMHO) 4-minute bits.

First is one on HSBC ("to big to prosecute")

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-j ... ers---hsbc

that segues into his AIG bit

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-j ... erds---aig
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: meanwhile, AIG still knows how to spend money

Postby Daisy » Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:38 pm

After the U.S. government took a majority ownership in AIG, everyone expected it to stay that way, possibly forever. But in August, the company paid back the money it received from the Federal Reserve. And while we are sitting in Benmosche’s villa in Croatia, the Treasury is making plans to sell off the majority of its stake, reducing it to 16 percent. By next year, the government estimates it will have earned a $20 billion profit on its “investment” and will be entirely rid of its AIG problem. Or, as Benmosche might put it, AIG will be rid of its government problem. The entire reason I’ve been invited to Croatia for four days is to hear about how this free lunch did work.

“But it wasn’t a free lunch,” Benmosche insists. It’s a point of view that I am apparently not the first to fail to appreciate. “Everybody said it’s just not going to happen, they’ll never pay it off,” he goes on. “SIGTARP, Elizabeth Warren, Gretchen Whatshername in the New York Times. The fact is we now have succeeded in getting the Fed back all of their money, and we’re just close to getting the Treasury paid back. And do you know,” he adds, an indignant note creeping into his voice, “neither of them have ever said ‘Thank you’? We have done all the right things. Somebody should say, ‘By golly, those AIG people made a promise and they are living up to a promise!’

http://nymag.com/news/features/bob-benm ... g-2012-10/


And I think he is being serious. :roll:
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests