Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money!!!

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

Just like some skit right off of "In Living Color"...only instead of 2 streetwise enterprising thugs we have the shakedown artists on Wall Street.

AIG has every right & responsibility to sue the US for excessive interest payments on it's bailout!

That's right, I said it!!!

Maurice Greenberg, the ousted CEO, Chairman, and founder of AIG who remains a major investor in the company, filed suit in 2011 on behalf of fellow shareholders against the government. He has urged A.I.G. to enjoin which should pressure the government into settlement talks - that is if the powers that be don't start distending the law.NY Times Dealbooklooks at it this way:

Should Mr. Greenberg snare a major settlement without A.I.G., the company could face additional lawsuits from other shareholders. Suing the government would not only placate the 87-year-old former chief, but would put A.I.G. in line for a potential payout.

Yet such a move would almost certainly be widely seen as an audacious display of ingratitude. The action would also threaten to inflame tensions in Washington, where the company has become a byword for excessive risk-taking on Wall Street.

Some government officials are already upset with the company for even seriously entertaining the lawsuit, people briefed on the matter said. The people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, noted that without the bailout, A.I.G. shareholders would have fared far worse in bankruptcy.

“On the one hand, from a corporate governance perspective, it appears they’re being extra cautious and careful,” said Frank Partnoy, a former banker who is now a professor of law and finance at the University of San Diego School of Law. “On the other hand, it’s a slap in the face to the taxpayer and the government.”

AIG has every right and responsibility to sue the US for excessive interest payments on it's bailout! Yes, the company failed in execution. Yes, the company would have went bust if the government didn't rescue it. But that is besides the point. If the government wanted market forces to reign supreme they would have let AIG collapse. The fact is they didn't. The reason is because the government was bailing out the banks, namely the most politically connected publicly traded entity in the entire world. The Vampire Squid! Goldman Sachs! As excerpted from theNY Times:

At the end of the American International Group’s annual meeting last month, a shareholder approached the microphone with a question for Robert Benmosche, the insurer’s chief executive. “I’d like to know, what does A.I.G. plan to do with Goldman Sachs?” he asked. “Are you going to get — recoup — some of our money that was given to them?

As a condition of AIG's bailout, the government "insisted" on paying Goldman et. al. 100 cents on the dollar of its CDS written with AIG, something that wouldn't have been necessary if Goldman had prudently underwritten counterparty and credit risks that it was taking. Apparently, the US government believes that it didn't. In addition, it's somethng that wouldn't have been possible if the government didn't intervene on behalf of the banks, forcing the AIG shareholders to take a hit, but shielding the Goldman, et. al. shareholders. As my grandma used to tell me, what's good for the goose is good for the gander! It's not as if these credit/counterparty risks were invisible, I saw them as far back as early 2008 - referenceI won't say I told you so, again. This page also happened to of shown the credit risk concentration of every bank granted a reprieve by the government after the fact. As a matter of fact, there's still more than a modicum of risk present, as clearly illustrated in...

Hunting the Squid, Part2: Since When Is Enough Derivative Exposure To Blow Up The World Something To Be Ignored?
Welcome to part two of my series on Hunting the Squid, the overvaluation and under-appreciation of the risks that is Goldman Sachs. Since this highly analytical, but poignant diatribe covers a lot of material, it's imperative that those who have not done so review part 1 of this series, I'm Hunting Big Game Today:The Squid On The Spear Tip, Part...

Hunting the Squid, part 4: So, What Else Can Go Wrong With Goldman Sachs? Plenty!
Yes, this more of the hardest hitting investment banking research available focusing on Goldman Sachs (the Squid), but before you go on, be sure you have read parts 1.2. and 3: I'm Hunting Big Game Today:The Squid On A Spear Tip, Part 1 & Introduction Hunting the Squid, Part2: Since When Is Enough Derivative Exposure To Blow Up The World Something To...

Now, AIG's shareholders are being forced to finance the bailout of Goldman Sachs. To not combat that should open AIG management up to shareholder lawsuits, for they are not acting as a fiduciary of the shareholder capital if they let this slide. It's one thing to pay for the AIG bailout, but its another to pay for the Goldman bailout. In addition, this forced bailout that refused to force AIG creditors not to take haircuts runs counter to the ideology the government used when it forced the Chrysler's creditor's to take massive haircuts.

When the government began rescuing it from collapse in the fall of 2008 with what has become a $182 billion lifeline, A.I.G. was required to forfeit its right to sue several banks — including Goldman, Société Générale, Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch — over any irregularities with most of the mortgage securities it insured in the precrisis years.

But after the Securities and Exchange Commission’s civil fraud suit filed in April against Goldman for possibly misrepresenting a mortgage deal to investors, A.I.G. executives and shareholders are asking whether A.I.G. may have been misled by Goldman into insuring mortgage deals that the bank and others may have known were flawed.

The anger here should be directed at Goldman, et. al., and not AIG. AIG's management is doing its job, something that our government officials failed to do in making Goldman, et. al. whole during the bailout. Can anyone sayregulatory capture?Goldman et. al.'s transgressions against its clients and counterparties in terms of misrepresentation and what appears to this lay person as outright fraud have been downright egregious, as clearly articulated in Goldman Sachs Executive Director Corroborates Reggie Middleton's Stance: Business Model Designed To Walk Over Clients, it's just that this time, the US taxpayer AND the AIG shareholders are the "Muppets"! The Abacus deal was particularly atrocious, Paulson, Abacus and Goldman Sachs Lawsuit. How about Morgan Stanley's CRE deals on behalf of their so-called clients? Wall Street Real Estate Funds Lose Between 61% to 98% for Their Investors as They Rake in Fees!

If Goldman, et. al. were allowed to swim solely at the mercy of the free markets, it (they) would be sinking, Goldman Sachs Latest: Vindicates BoomBustBlog Research ...

... documents also indicate that regulators ignored recommendations from their own advisers to force the banks to accept losses on their A.I.G. deals and instead paid the banks in full for the contracts. That decision, say critics of the A.I.G. bailout, has cost taxpayers billions of extra dollars in payments to the banks. It also contrasts with the hard line the White House took in 2009 when it forced Chrysler’s lenders to take losses when the government bailed out the auto giant.

Regulatory capture! Banks simply lobby harder and pay more to the government than auto companies. How many auto company execs are embedded in government leadership seats worldwide?

As a Congressional commission convenes hearings Wednesday exploring the A.I.G. bailout and Goldman’s relationship with the insurer, analysts say that the documents suggest that regulators were overly punitive toward A.I.G. and overly forgiving of banks during the bailout — signified, they say, by the fact that the legal waiver undermined A.I.G. and its shareholders’ ability to recover damages.

“Even if it turns out that it would be a hard suit to win, just the gesture of requiring A.I.G. to scrap its ability to sue is outrageous,” said David Skeel, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “The defense may be that the banking system was in trouble, and we couldn’t afford to destabilize it anymore, but that just strikes me as really going overboard.”

“This really suggests they had myopia and they were looking at it entirely through the perspective of the banks,” Mr. Skeel said.

Nahh? It's called the Federal Reserve Bank, not the Federal Reserve Insurer, nor the Federal Reserve Taxpayer! Who the hell do you think they will back in a crunch?

About $46 billion of the taxpayer money in the A.I.G. bailout was used to pay to mortgage trading partners like Goldman and Société Générale, a French bank, to make good on their claims. The banks are not expected to return any of that money, leading the Congressional Research Service to say in March that much of the taxpayer money ultimately bailed out the banks, not A.I.G.

Of which the interest of about 50% of which should be refunded to AIG shareholders. Without the AIG bailout, these banks would have recieved ZILCH, NOTHING, NADA, Bull Sh1t!

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-01-09/aig-has-every-right-responsibility-sue-us-excessive-interest-payments-its-bai

So...a company that was losing it's shirt because of derivitive trading...and exposure to the "hot potato"...when passed down from entity to entity on Wall Street...and they didn't "buy" enough insurance to hedge get's exposed...in comes the american taxpayer! That's right...we'll save them! With all of OUR money! We've done it with banks...automotive companies...AIG deserves a crack at it too! Why not? It's not like we were doing anything useful with the dough! So, we go and do all that and AFTER an election where we had a chance to bounce the thieves that set up the companies with free money...we RE-ELECTED THEM!!! What's AIG want now?

MORE MONEY!

You can't script this any better. It's a joke writing a joke within a joke for joke's sake!

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your CigarBid Forums forum account or Register a new forum account

daveincincy
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

It was funnier when the Wayans brothers did it. [frypan]

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

It was funnier when the Wayans brothers did it. [frypan]

daveincincy wrote:

They were doing it for the laughs...not to rip anyone off.

I'm actually waiting to hear the line..."We wudda been worse off if we did nothing"...THAT might make laugh too. After reading the OP...why oh why did ANYONE think it was wise to give them money?

Edited by user 13 years ago | Reason: Not specified

bloody spaniard
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

So what you're saying is that the AIG investors are not entitled to damages after their company was bailed out? And that AIG is not entitled to glom in on a good thing??
You bas tard. 😠

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

So what you're saying is that the AIG investors are not entitled to damages after their company was bailed out? And that AIG is not entitled to glom in on a good thing??
You bas tard. 😠

bloody spaniard wrote:

I know riiight?[whip]

Why they oughta just erase bond/stockholder equity too...ooops![frypan]

DadZilla3
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

Why they oughta just erase bond/stockholder equity too...ooops![frypan]

DrMaddVibe wrote:

You can only get away with that if your union had previously kicked in large contributions to a certain Kenyan's election campaign. 😳

carpenter69
Connoisseur

13 years ago

My old man retired and took part time job with AIG. Not as financial consultant or anything like that. You see, they have one of the most incredible 18 hole golf courses in the U.S. . Here's the kicker, no one is allowed to use it but the low life scumbag management. This course costs a Fortune to maintain, yet gets less than 100 rounds played on it each year. Wait. Here's the point, as our country is falling to ****, these scumbags and their brethren from B of A, Goldman Sachs, etc. arrive in 6 limo's for a round of golf. While the rest of us bite our nails, and wonder if our pensions,enuity, or 401k even exists anymore. I saw a little mob justice is in order. Don't get me wrong. Tons of morons took loans they couldn't afford, but these scumbags knew it was only a matter of time before it blew!!!!!!!!

Whew, I feel better.
Carp.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

The entire golf world needs a bailout.

I hear ya![frypan]

daveincincy
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

carpenter69 wrote:

Hey...you gotta offer these types of benefits to people if you want to hire and retain the cream of the crop.

[sarcasm]

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

#10

The UAW has their own golf course too!

Gotta keep Rosie the Riveter happy!

daveincincy
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#11

The UAW has their own golf course too!

Gotta keep Rosie the Riveter happy!

DrMaddVibe wrote:

Proper attire NOT required.

DrMaddVibe
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

13 years ago

#12

Proper attire NOT required.

daveincincy wrote:

[-x

•UAW members receive a 10 percent discount.
•UAW retirees receive a 20 percent discount.
•PROPER GOLF ATTIRE AND SOFT SPIKES ONLY.
•Shirts with collars, please, and no cutoffs or gym shorts

http://blacklakegolf.com/rates-3/

Look for the union label.

Edited by user 13 years ago | Reason: Not specified

daveincincy
Herf-A-Holic

13 years ago

#13

DrMaddVibe wrote:

But...if they did show up in cutoffs or gym shorts they probably couldn't be kicked off the course without a proper hearing.

carpenter69
Connoisseur

13 years ago

#14

Yeah, my union gives us a hoodie, after we do our picket duty of course. Mandatory or $500 fine.

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: