AIG

[johnny storm]

Ran to the government at least FOUR (4) times crying that you needed more money AND lower rates (additional assets provided as collateral: none).

Bottom line: Benmo is a smart guy and playing the game well. Nobody wants this job, and the board can't let ANOTHER hig profile exec run away, while the government doesn't have the balls to pull the plug on this disaster they've created. Don't hate him, he's just playing the best possible strategy with the hand he's been dealt. Naked Capitalism had a pretty good analysis on this today, or maybe yesterday.

[axjoke]

Originally Posted by johnny storm

Ran to the government at least FOUR (4) times crying that you needed more money AND lower rates (additional assets provided as collateral: none).

Bottom line: Benmo is a smart guy and playing the game well. Nobody wants this job, and the board can't let ANOTHER hig profile exec run away, while the government doesn't have the balls to pull the plug on this disaster they've created. Don't hate him, he's just playing the best possible strategy with the hand he's been dealt. Naked Capitalism had a pretty good analysis on this today, or maybe yesterday.

I imagine I'll continue to hate him. Especially the BS about taking their time and the fact that the fed/treasury shouldn't have taken a stake if they didn't want to be in for the long haul. He wasn't dealt this hand, he jumped into it knowing what to expect. The board already failed, how does their reputation matter now? And why do they need a high profile executive to run this turd?

[johnny storm]

Originally Posted by axjoke

the fact that the fed/treasury shouldn't have taken a stake if they didn't want to be in for the long haul.

That part's true, especially the first part.

I mean, the guy's a dirtball, and I wouldn't have taken the job if I were in his position, but if you're running AIG, and your options are
1) to sell stuff for x, where it's obvious that x isn't enough to pay off your debts and you'll declare bk, OR
2) hold onto stuff and hope things get back on track and tell people that are encouraging you to go for option 1) that you are thinking about quitting and they should go f themselves,

which way are you going to go? I'm picking option 2).

[MathGeek92]

You really wouldn't take that job? $10 M + a year to manage a company that is sure to fail. If they fire you, you keep the $10 M. They can treat me like dirt all they want for $10 M a year. I'll them them to shove it up their a$$. If they fire me, so what. I claim they are getting screwed for their high value assets and they will never pay back the loan (to you and me btw).

Yes he is a dirt bag, but come on. $10 M is pretty good for managing a sure to fail company don't you think?

[DixieFlyer]

here's a cover letter that I saw the other day, the use of which is a sure fire way to secure a position at AIG:

Dear AIG,

I am highly qualified for the position of AIG Chief Executive given that I possess all the skills necessary to lay waste of what's left of AIG.

I have no conscience, guilt or remorse. I am able to extort money from taxpayers and Congress by convincing them I do God's work. I am very skilled at making numbers fuzzier, covering up losses and generating bonuses so large even a blank check would blush. I have no concern for leverage, torch bearing mobs, Congress or President Obama.

I'm convinced that together, we can squeeze the middle class so successfully, they would be envious of the Haitian life style. I am looking forward to discussing this personally profitable opportunity with you soon.

Sincerely

AIG Candidate

[axjoke]

Originally Posted by johnny storm

That part's true, especially the first part.

I mean, the guy's a dirtball, and I wouldn't have taken the job if I were in his position, but if you're running AIG, and your options are
1) to sell stuff for x, where it's obvious that x isn't enough to pay off your debts and you'll declare bk, OR
2) hold onto stuff and hope things get back on track and tell people that are encouraging you to go for option 1) that you are thinking about quitting and they should go f themselves,

which way are you going to go? I'm picking option 2).

I guess I don't see what is wrong with 1. It seems pretty clear that is the path they are on. Take the 8 million and unwind it.

Option 2 to seems like outright lies and fraud.

The problem I have is that RB knew from the moment he was hired that AIG is on the clock to sell assets and repay the government; his "screw the government and everyone else, we'll do what we damn well please when we damn well please" speech did nothing to endear him to those outside AIG. It's exactly that group whose help he's going to need should this grand restructuring plan fail and he or the board needs to go hat in hand asking for more help.

But hey ... maybe AIG still has only a liquidity problem and not a solvency problem, and it'll all be fine in a couple more quarters and we'll see those hugs gains on our investment.

[Bud Fox]

Originally Posted by Irish Blues

But hey ... maybe AIG still has only a liquidity problem and not a solvency problem, and it'll all be fine in a couple more quarters and we'll see those hugs gains on our investment.

I agree with the liquidity problem. There are a lot of sharks in the water willing to take the prime business units and leave the rest. I see the ongoing talent drain that started when Hank left, and has only built up speed since, as the final nail in the coffin. Shame, AIG was a great company.

[WellThen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/bu...l?ref=business

Originally Posted by Article

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York — headed at the time by Timothy F. Geithner, now Treasury secretary — paid A.I.G.’s business partners face value for securities so they would cancel insurance-like contracts A.I.G. had written and ease the firm’s liquidity crunch. But at least one of those partner banks would have canceled the contracts for less, according to a report Tuesday from Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the $700 billion financial bailout Congress approved last October.The reportsays New York Fed officials mismanaged the negotiations with other banks, removing the threat that A.I.G. would go bankrupt and bowing to a demand from French regulators that French banks holding A.I.G.’s debt insurance be paid in full.

...

“This report overlooks the central lesson learned” from the A.I.G. rescue, a Treasury spokeswoman, Meg Reilly, said in a statement. “The lesson is that the federal government needs better tools to deal with the impending failure of a large institution” in times of crisis.

It's always fun to read how the government defrauds the taxpayers and calls it a lesson learned about needing better tools.

[mr coffee]

Originally Posted by WellThen

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/bu...l?ref=business



It's always fun to read how the government defrauds the taxpayers and calls it a lesson learned about needing better tools.

Especially since we're paying her to say this.