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 malmo » Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:19 pm

gh wrote:One more politically charged comment and you're gone for good. Got it?


Wait a minute, you're the one who injected the Oakland mayors junket into a non-political thread. I just put the mayors trip in perspective, and in the same theme as your post. You are also the one who starts a lions share of the political threads. How could one possibly ascertain where the land-mines are here? The best way to avoid confusion is to ban political threads, including yours, altogether.

Banning those who are merely following your lead is confusing.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:37 pm

tandfman wrote:I seem to be outnumbered here, but that's the way I see it.

AIG is lucky to be in business. They are only still in business because the government made a fairly unprecedented move on the public dime. If you and the AIG folks cannot see why allowing a $400k boondoggle, including $23k of avocado scrubbs, weeks after the bailout, we are obviously inhabiting different universes. And the fact that malmo is backing you does not enhance your argument.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:51 pm

bad hammy wrote:. And the fact that malmo is backing you does not enhance your argument.


The children have spoken.

The holding company received the loan from the Feds, not the insurance company.
Last edited by malmo on Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:51 pm

Oh, and AIG now looking for an additional $37.8 billion. Nice!

(Assholes . . .)

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/08/news/co ... tm?cnn=yes
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:58 pm

bad hammy wrote:(Assholes . . .)



How so? That's more for the Fed to collect 10% interest on.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby bad hammy » Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:00 pm

guru wrote:
bad hammy wrote:(Assholes . . .)

How so? That's more for the Fed to collect 10% interest on.

For taking more of my money while hanging out at spas . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:02 pm

bad hammy wrote:
guru wrote:
bad hammy wrote:(Assholes . . .)

How so? That's more for the Fed to collect 10% interest on.

For taking more of my money while hanging out at spas . . .


They haven't taken any of your money. They are spending THEIR money on that retreat, actually they are spending the money that was made by those who were on that retreat. What is it you aren't understanding about that?
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:08 pm

You're hopeless . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:25 pm

Wrong...
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:05 pm

I always like Howie's take on things but this is priceless (no pun intended)


http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinio ... id=1123480
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby gh » Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:33 am

Chapter 2, in which AIG goes on an English hunting trip:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 01&sc=1000
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby malmo » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:01 am

gh wrote:Chapter 2, in which AIG goes on an English hunting trip:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 01&sc=1000


"Lawmakers investigating AIG's meltdown said they were enraged that executives of AIG's main U.S. life insurance subsidiary spent a lavish amount on the retreat, complete with spa treatments, banquets and golf outings."

BURN THE WITCHES. Would it be too much to ask of your favorite newspaper to report the facts? The Golf trip wasn't for executives it was for independent insurance agents, which happen to be the big rainmakers for the Insurance company, and none of their activities have anything to do with AIG's demise.

Lynch-mob mentality at its worst.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:15 am

As I've indicated before, I agree with malmo's take on the US sales conference. I'm not quite as sure the UK hunting trip is in the same category.

"This was an annual event for customers of the AIG property casualty insurance companies in the U.K. and Europe, and planned months before the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's loan to AIG,"

I suppose if the AIG's big commercial customers have come to expect this kind of event, the company could have reasonably considered it essential for the retention of those customers. And their competitors probably sponsor similar events, so if it's the sort of thing that makes a difference to a given customer, it really is something AIG has to do if it's going to stay alive.

On the other hand, it's unfortunate when the business mores allow goodies like that to affect purchasing decisions. It's even more unfortunate when the tax laws encourage that kind of environment by allowing the cost of events like that to be deducted, which I suspect is the case in some places.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby gh » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:22 am

malmo wrote:....
BURN THE WITCHES. Would it be too much to ask of your favorite newspaper to report the facts? ...


That was an Associated Press story.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby malmo » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:28 am

tandfman wrote:As I've indicated before, I agree with malmo's take on the US sales conference. I'm not quite as sure the UK hunting trip is in the same category.
.


I believe it does: "This was an annual event for customers of the AIG property casualty insurance companies in the U.K. and Europe, and planned months before the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's loan to AIG"

Again, the Insurance company has nothing to do with AIG holding company's woes. If AIG fails, the insurance company will be spun off and they'll still have their hunting and golf trips next year, and the year after, and the year ..... as they should.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:58 am

And while Rome burned, Nero fiddled, because, ya know, he already had it scheduled, and he didn't want to disappoint his audience, and I mean, after all, he was not a firefighter, so what could HE to to stop the fires, and . . . :roll:

Let them eat cake!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby dukehjsteve » Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:06 am

Stop knocking AIG. The missus and I went on a VERY nice junket to Hawaii at their expense about 20 years ago !
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby Marlow » Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:23 am

dukehjsteve wrote:Stop knocking AIG. The missus and I went on a VERY nice junket to Hawaii at their expense about 20 years ago !

The United States Navy sent me on several nice little junkets to Hawaii (and various other exotic locales), but that doesn't mean they can do no wrong!!!!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby tandfman » Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:24 am

malmo wrote:
tandfman wrote:As I've indicated before, I agree with malmo's take on the US sales conference. I'm not quite as sure the UK hunting trip is in the same category.
.

I believe it does: "This was an annual event for customers of the AIG property casualty insurance companies in the U.K. and Europe, and planned months before the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's loan to AIG"

Again, the Insurance company has nothing to do with AIG holding company's woes. If AIG fails, the insurance company will be spun off and they'll still have their hunting and golf trips next year, and the year after, and the year ..... as they should.

There's a question I don't really know the answer to. The investments that got AIG in trouble--were they made at the holding company level or at the insurance company level? If the latter, the insurance companies have to take some of the responsibility. That does not necessarily mean, however, that it was wrong for them to try to keep the operations (non-investment) side of the business bringing in revenue treating their producers and customers as they always have. Let's not forget that the reason they got so big (and got all that money to invest) to begin with was that they were successful in their core insurance business.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby malmo » Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:36 pm

gh wrote:What can I say? You must work for a life insurance company and are thus in the "just don't get it" category)


It doesn't matter who you work for, you just don't get it anyway. The insurance company isn't spending the holding companies money, they are spending their own -- all earned from a thriving and profitable business.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:40 pm

Again, I'm not sure which company's money was being invested unwisely, but if it was the life insurance company's money, it must be noted that even if the insurance company's core business (the marketing and underwriting of insurance) was thriving, the company itself was not. As I understand it, an important part of any insurance company's bottom line, and particularly that of a life insurance company, is based on investment returns.

But even so, I don't disagree with your premise. If the investment part of your insurance business is broken, fix it. Don't break the part that isn't broken (marketing, sales, and customer relations) just because you've screwed up on the investment side. If you do that, you risk sinking a ship that may otherwise be able to stay afloat.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bad hammy » Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Two words: tone deaf . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:41 am

Former AIG head bitching about the take it or take it deal the government offered.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27204989/


I've said it before - make no mistake, the government is going to make a killing on these "bailouts".
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby Daisy » Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:59 am

guru wrote:Former AIG head bitching about the take it or take it deal the government offered.


Maybe that is why they let Lehman Brothers fail. A shot across the bow for the others?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:07 am

Daisy wrote:
guru wrote:Former AIG head bitching about the take it or take it deal the government offered.


Maybe that is why they let Lehman Brothers fail. A shot across the bow for the others?


Lehman didnt have the diversification AIG does. Almost zero chance of getting a return.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby sprintblox » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:20 am

tandfman wrote:There's a question I don't really know the answer to. The investments that got AIG in trouble--were they made at the holding company level or at the insurance company level?

Most probably the risky investments were not at the insurance company level. All reports indicate the insurance part is doing fine. And insurance companies are tightly regulated ... it's not likely they would have been allowed to invest any big money into those crazy mortgage securities.
sprintblox
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:43 am

Postby bad hammy » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:19 am

guru wrote:Former AIG head bitching about the take it or take it deal the government offered.

Man I feel bad for those guys . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:55 am

It appears that they're getting a bit of a comeuppance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/business/23aig.html
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby rasb » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:57 am

bad hammy wrote:
guru wrote:Former AIG head bitching about the take it or take it deal the government offered.

Man I feel bad for those guys . . .


Where is your sense of humanity? Some of these folks are going to have to give up their 4th vacation home, or their 7th Mercedes, or their 3rd yacht?
Have you no feelings?
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby gh » Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:06 pm

go Cuomo for being somebody who gets it

<<...“Once a company accepts tax dollars, there are different rules,” Mr. Cuomo said. “These are taxpayers who did not voluntarily make an investment in these companies. In many ways it was a forced investment.”...>>
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby malmo » Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:53 pm

gh wrote:go Cuomo for being somebody who gets it

<<...“Once a company accepts tax dollars, there are different rules,” Mr. Cuomo said. “These are taxpayers who did not voluntarily make an investment in these companies. In many ways it was a forced investment.”...>>


No he doesn't. I wish he had as much zeal for cracking down waste and fraud at the government trough ( forced "investments I mean to say) as he does for grandstanding over a non-issue. The State of New York will be hurting bad over Wall Streets woes. The good news is, they already magically found way to cut unnecessary spending. With each passing month, they'll find more ways.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:57 pm

sprintblox wrote:
tandfman wrote:There's a question I don't really know the answer to. The investments that got AIG in trouble--were they made at the holding company level or at the insurance company level?

Most probably the risky investments were not at the insurance company level. All reports indicate the insurance part is doing fine. And insurance companies are tightly regulated ... it's not likely they would have been allowed to invest any big money into those crazy mortgage securities.


Unfortunately, it was an activist government that created those crazy CMO (Crazy Mortgage Obligations). Who would imagined that if you lent money to people who can't pay their bills, they wouldn't pay their bills?
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:22 pm

malmo wrote:Who would imagined that if you lent money to people who can't pay their bills, they wouldn't pay their bills?

but, but, but, they told me, "Greed is good."
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby lonewolf » Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:45 pm

Unfortunately, it is not the greedy and their facilitators who are suffering. Congress got their payoff in pandering for votes. The initial lending executives took theirs off the top as they bundled and passed down the bad mortagages and then escaped with golden parachutes when the house of (bad) paper collapsed...
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby gh » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:35 pm

malmo wrote:
sprintblox wrote:
tandfman wrote:There's a question I don't really know the answer to. The investments that got AIG in trouble--were they made at the holding company level or at the insurance company level?

Most probably the risky investments were not at the insurance company level. All reports indicate the insurance part is doing fine. And insurance companies are tightly regulated ... it's not likely they would have been allowed to invest any big money into those crazy mortgage securities.


Unfortunately, it was an activist government that created those crazy CMO (Crazy Mortgage Obligations). Who would imagined that if you lent money to people who can't pay their bills, they wouldn't pay their bills?


Malmo, you can sprout the Wall Street company line all you want; meanwhile, us little guys are getting terminal hardons as the AIG people get smacked around.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby gh » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:00 am

Another take on "corporate recognition" boondoggles:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 006&sc=583
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby gh » Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:47 am

$165M in bonuses for AIG execs? Sure, why not?!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/busin ... ml?_r=1&hp
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby bad hammy » Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:14 am

gh wrote:$165M in bonuses for AIG execs? Sure, why not?!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/busin ... ml?_r=1&hp

Fuckers . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby BisonHurdler » Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:36 am

BisonHurdler
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Bodymore, Murderland

Postby jeremyp » Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:56 am

gh wrote:$165M in bonuses for AIG execs? Sure, why not?!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/busin ... ml?_r=1&hp


Hey if you can scam the govt into giving you billions you deserve a bonus. :D
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests