A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
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 . . .
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!!!!
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
<<...“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.”...>>
<<...“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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
<<“We cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff” the company “if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury,” he said.>>
To quote Jon Stewart's closing in his rants against CNBC: "Fuck you!"
In the kleptocracy that is Wall Street it was the "best and brightest" who led the country down the primrose path. I'd sure hate to see what trouble we'd be in if they had hired people with scruples.
It felt so good to read that expletive i have to join in. To the incompetent and most likely corrupt suits who still want their bonus's that were promised.......FUCK YOU!
