While I can appreciate and applaud a company finally not rewarding bad performance, I don’t like the fact that it’s the government making them do it. Companies that reward bad performace should be allowed to fail so that companies that reward good performance can take their place.
lastbat, I am with you. While I abhore the bonuses that were giving out, I think I am more worried about the government interference in the private sector. Where will government stop? Executive secretaries only allowed to make 75k? This is a slippery slope indeed. Pretty soon we will have Obamanots claiming a plumber is not entitled to earn more than 250k a year. Wait, that is already happening.
Absolutely the government should get involved, the government is bailing them out. the government is us. and we don’t want to pay AND we want our money back!! this bailout makes me so mad I get sick every time I am reminded of it. SICK SICK SICK!
Funny, when I borrowed money for my house and my new car, neither lender told me how to spend my money that I made. Not once did one call me and say I could not go on vacation or buy that nice shotgun I wanted. Keep in mind people, this was a LOAN to AIG. At a very steep interest rate as well. AIG has plenty of assets to back up the loan. They just need time to sell them off. I prefer to keep my liberty and privacy.
Yes, it is taxpayer money. So when we do the massive buy up of all these toxic mortgages, will the government get to tell the people in these houses that they can’t buy little susie her prom dress or little billy a new pair of baseball shoes? Maybe the missus wants a boob job? Where do you draw the line? Also, knocking off $8 million in incentive junkets will cost the company 10 times that in lost sales.
not to worry, Compman…I have it on good authority from a certain hillbilly ex-president that boob-jobs will be subsidized by the government. They won’t be of the same quality that you could get from private practice (and may appear lopsided), but have no fear.
So how do they go about getting the $$ back, I wonder? Just send an invoice to the former execs demanding a check for $15 or $20M, or whatever? I foresee lawsuits…
Compman, Unless you got a unsecured loan there are plenty of strings attached. Since AIG couldn’t do this on their own they need to play by a new set of rules or go belly.
I see where the government sees a right to step in with AIG, because along with the loan came the right to, if I remember right, 70% ownership (or some huge stake). So as owners they do have a right to do what they want.
I’ve been against the bailout from the get go. I’d rather go through the potential pain than keep throwing good money after bad with a system that doesn’t work to companies that reward bad performance. My retirement plan is to be appointed CEO of some major corporation, drive it into the ground for a few weeks, maybe a couple of months, then get canned with a few million as a golden parachute.
Zurich is positioning itself to aquire, What, from the Farmers side this may be a positive, perhaps their growth will be a benefit to you on the Zurich side. Hopefully the government will stay out of the insurance business for a little while longer.
Just look at the wreckage at AIG
Even in his most reckless moves, Hank never greamed (or “nightmared”) that this could ever happen to his baby; not in a million years
Maybe he really IS sick
In the bailout deal, the government got preferred stock, not common stock. That gives the ‘owners’ a right to an income stream, but not voting rights in the operation of the company.
Well said, lastbat. AIG’s stock dropped like a stone for good reason: the company had been mismanaged. While there was a very large number of hard working and honest employees and brokers doing business for AIG, the fact remains the company was mismanaged. Survival of the fittest comes into play every day in the business world and AIG had fallen way down the “fittest scale.” Whether it is a small mutual company or a giant like AIG, company failures are a reality that simply need to play out.
Why was everyone so petrified of the demise of AIG? Its failure would certainly change the insurance landscape, but this change might have actually been a positive one. Better managed companies stepping in to take care of business is a natural course of events and, ultimately, a good thing in a capitalistic economy in spite of some short-term pain. That’s simply what happens when we decide to put on the big boy and girl pants and deal with a little adversity.
The last time I checked insurance companies were beating each other’s brains in chasing revenue and market share. It seems to me that AIG business hitting the street might actually be good for our industry. Unfortunately, though, we once again fell prey to the doomsday message of government and the pundits and were convince we had not other choice than to stop such a calamity. It seems we will never learn.
1) whether or not the government loaned the money, those contracts signed by these companies for the execs they placed into office, will have to be paid. remember that the contract is a binding agreement. so they will have pay on those.
2) money given – agreed, that there needs to be oversight on the amount given and how that amount will be returned w/interest. sure they can cancel upcoming events. even still, $8 mill is just a small fraction in the amount owed.
3) cancelling policies – wow! so, if we are losing money, then why are we getting rid of premium? definately does not sound like good information.
Yes, sadly, it is the land of executive entitlement. Explain it to me like I’m a four year old how a company’s compensation committee can award bonuses and then look into the kitty and tell their stockholders that there isn’t enough money for dividends, and not connect the two? If I guided my company to bankruptcy, but declared stock options before hand and cashed them in, why isn’t that criminal? The lawsuits are just beginning; there are attorneys salivating in the wings.
While I can appreciate and applaud a company finally not rewarding bad performance, I don’t like the fact that it’s the government making them do it. Companies that reward bad performace should be allowed to fail so that companies that reward good performance can take their place.
I hope you are listening Zurich!
OK, but what about the top execs at Fannie & Freddie?
lastbat, I am with you. While I abhore the bonuses that were giving out, I think I am more worried about the government interference in the private sector. Where will government stop? Executive secretaries only allowed to make 75k? This is a slippery slope indeed. Pretty soon we will have Obamanots claiming a plumber is not entitled to earn more than 250k a year. Wait, that is already happening.
Absolutely the government should get involved, the government is bailing them out. the government is us. and we don’t want to pay AND we want our money back!! this bailout makes me so mad I get sick every time I am reminded of it. SICK SICK SICK!
The government is only involved because the government is paying for it.
Funny, when I borrowed money for my house and my new car, neither lender told me how to spend my money that I made. Not once did one call me and say I could not go on vacation or buy that nice shotgun I wanted. Keep in mind people, this was a LOAN to AIG. At a very steep interest rate as well. AIG has plenty of assets to back up the loan. They just need time to sell them off. I prefer to keep my liberty and privacy.
160 events will save $8 million. I suppose it’s good PR but tell me, what the #@!! difference that makes?
On the other hand, someone getting paid a $34 million bonus for running this company into the ground? That should be a capital offense!!!
Compman, I see your point. However, the government is loaning taxpayer money so there should be accountability in how they choose to spend that.
Your loan is through a private lender, and does not utilize taxpayer funds.
He who gives up his freedoms for protectionisms deserves everything he gets.
Get a set.
Yes, it is taxpayer money. So when we do the massive buy up of all these toxic mortgages, will the government get to tell the people in these houses that they can’t buy little susie her prom dress or little billy a new pair of baseball shoes? Maybe the missus wants a boob job? Where do you draw the line? Also, knocking off $8 million in incentive junkets will cost the company 10 times that in lost sales.
not to worry, Compman…I have it on good authority from a certain hillbilly ex-president that boob-jobs will be subsidized by the government. They won’t be of the same quality that you could get from private practice (and may appear lopsided), but have no fear.
PS–GO PHILLIES!!!
Hey, If there any execs out there for AIG, I’d love a job working there….Great perks dude!!!
So how do they go about getting the $$ back, I wonder? Just send an invoice to the former execs demanding a check for $15 or $20M, or whatever? I foresee lawsuits…
Yup. At least we won’t have to bail out the Law Firms.
That will be next!
Compman, Unless you got a unsecured loan there are plenty of strings attached. Since AIG couldn’t do this on their own they need to play by a new set of rules or go belly.
This used to be the land of opportunity, sadly it is fast becoming the land of entitlement!
Too bad aig employees could not share in the perks, but instead, were rewarded with poor raises and fallen stock prices in their stock purchase plans.
Bart
What is going on with Zurich, I just applied for a position with them?
I see where the government sees a right to step in with AIG, because along with the loan came the right to, if I remember right, 70% ownership (or some huge stake). So as owners they do have a right to do what they want.
I’ve been against the bailout from the get go. I’d rather go through the potential pain than keep throwing good money after bad with a system that doesn’t work to companies that reward bad performance. My retirement plan is to be appointed CEO of some major corporation, drive it into the ground for a few weeks, maybe a couple of months, then get canned with a few million as a golden parachute.
Zurich is positioning itself to aquire, What, from the Farmers side this may be a positive, perhaps their growth will be a benefit to you on the Zurich side. Hopefully the government will stay out of the insurance business for a little while longer.
Just look at the wreckage at AIG
Even in his most reckless moves, Hank never greamed (or “nightmared”) that this could ever happen to his baby; not in a million years
Maybe he really IS sick
In the bailout deal, the government got preferred stock, not common stock. That gives the ‘owners’ a right to an income stream, but not voting rights in the operation of the company.
Well said, lastbat. AIG’s stock dropped like a stone for good reason: the company had been mismanaged. While there was a very large number of hard working and honest employees and brokers doing business for AIG, the fact remains the company was mismanaged. Survival of the fittest comes into play every day in the business world and AIG had fallen way down the “fittest scale.” Whether it is a small mutual company or a giant like AIG, company failures are a reality that simply need to play out.
Why was everyone so petrified of the demise of AIG? Its failure would certainly change the insurance landscape, but this change might have actually been a positive one. Better managed companies stepping in to take care of business is a natural course of events and, ultimately, a good thing in a capitalistic economy in spite of some short-term pain. That’s simply what happens when we decide to put on the big boy and girl pants and deal with a little adversity.
The last time I checked insurance companies were beating each other’s brains in chasing revenue and market share. It seems to me that AIG business hitting the street might actually be good for our industry. Unfortunately, though, we once again fell prey to the doomsday message of government and the pundits and were convince we had not other choice than to stop such a calamity. It seems we will never learn.
many problems are going to exists.
1) whether or not the government loaned the money, those contracts signed by these companies for the execs they placed into office, will have to be paid. remember that the contract is a binding agreement. so they will have pay on those.
2) money given – agreed, that there needs to be oversight on the amount given and how that amount will be returned w/interest. sure they can cancel upcoming events. even still, $8 mill is just a small fraction in the amount owed.
3) cancelling policies – wow! so, if we are losing money, then why are we getting rid of premium? definately does not sound like good information.
2007 Net Results for WC –
Combined results for the top 3
AIG 95.3%
Liberty Mut 114.7%
Zurich 116.6%
Yes, sadly, it is the land of executive entitlement. Explain it to me like I’m a four year old how a company’s compensation committee can award bonuses and then look into the kitty and tell their stockholders that there isn’t enough money for dividends, and not connect the two? If I guided my company to bankruptcy, but declared stock options before hand and cashed them in, why isn’t that criminal? The lawsuits are just beginning; there are attorneys salivating in the wings.
Buy AIG now .70c a share, Noone will be able to steal your dividend unless it is Obama.
By the way, does anyone know Obama’s stance on affirmative action? We know he is for redistribution of wealth, what about your jobs?