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 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: 6056
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: 46323
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: 46323
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: 46323
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: 46323
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

Postby guru » Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:45 pm

Just a reminder that the government is making 10% interest on the loan amount, which AIG has to repay in 2 years.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby tandfman » Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:04 pm

AIG apparently says they have a contractual obligation to pay those bonuses, which were agreed to before the stuff hit the fan.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby guru » Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:08 pm

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.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby tandfman » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:02 pm

Not so fast, AIG. Mr. Obama is going to try to stop the bonus payments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/po ... obama.html
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby guru » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:40 pm

guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby gm » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:49 pm



What an inane thing for Grassley to say. Using his logic, with the way Congress is spending, they should all do "the honorable thing" as well.
gm
 
Posts: 4559
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Postby guru » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:37 pm

Grassley's memory apparently doesn't go back to 1999.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby tandfman » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:50 am

Here's an argument for paying the bonuses:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/busin ... orkin.html
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby gh » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:17 am

<<“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.
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:36 am

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!
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby jeremyp » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:41 am

The biggest fall out of the bonus scandal may be Obama's economic plan. While we should all be outraged at AIG, we should not shoot ourselves in the foot and put a halt to stabilizing the financial sector. If it fails, the economy fails.
Look at China, while we fiddle around slowed by the vagaries of Democracy, they create stimulus bills without opposition, and are now buying up many good deals world wide in a "fire sale." And that's with "our" dollars, not theirs.

SHANGHAI -- Chinese companies have been on a shopping spree in the past month, snapping up tens of billions of dollars' worth of key assets in Iran, Brazil, Russia, Venezuela, Australia and France in a global fire sale set off by the financial crisis.

The deals have allowed China to lock up supplies of oil, minerals, metals and other strategic natural resources it needs to continue to fuel its growth. The sheer scope of the agreements marks a shift in global finance, roiling energy markets and feeding worries about the future availability and prices of those commodities in other countries that compete for them, including the United States.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03293.html
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Postby Daisy » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:47 am

SQUACKEE wrote:To the incompetent and most likely corrupt suits who still want their bonus's that were promised....


Do we really know for sure that they were incompetent? Maybe they were just corrupt?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:52 am

Daisy wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:To the incompetent and most likely corrupt suits who still want their bonus's that were promised....


Do we really know for sure that they were incompetent? Maybe they were just corrupt?


Good point! Could be both and either or a wonderful mix of shit.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Pego » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:25 am

Daisy wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:To the incompetent and most likely corrupt suits who still want their bonus's that were promised....


Do we really know for sure that they were incompetent? Maybe they were just corrupt?


Fine with me. Incompetent ones get fired, the corrupt ones imprisoned. Neither option calls for a bonus.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby bad hammy » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:28 am

Another idea: create a special AIG Bonus Tax!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/ ... index.html
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests