“The idea that AIG might sue the government is an unbelievable insult to our nation’s taxpayers, who cleaned up the mess this firm created,” he [Elijah Cummings] said in a statement”
14.5% is a high interest rate, maybe 10 points higher that what the normal was back then. Chapter 11 isn’t the end of the world, and many companies come out of Chapter 11 stronger and better. The Board is acting on behalf of the stockholders and the company, and it is prudent to consider a possible return of money. Considering and doing are 2 different things.
For Conspiracy Theorists, how do we know what role the government had in saving AIG? If AIG went under, how many other businesses, banks, countries and individuals would have been impacted? Perhaps the bailout was forced, do we really know what happened?
We bail them out from a self induced failure and now they are considering a lawsuit?? How crazy is that?? Hindsight is 20/20 so they say…….maybe we should have just let them fail.
We definietly should of let them fail. This is rediculous that they even consider a lawsuit. I really hope this is just media drumming up drama over an act of courtesy meeting with their old business partner but it doesn’t seem like it so far.
Why is corporate governance so hard for people to understand?
The board’s fiduciary obligations to their shareholders means they have to consider it and provide a well-reasoned rationale for rejecting this course of action to prevent shareholder lawsuits. No way they join this lawsuit! But they need to be able to demonstrate they considered and rejected it, for the good of the company and shareholders.
And, unfortunately because of how corporate laws are written, the board does not get to consider what is good for the public and the country in general.
Understood. It would be very suprising if AIG joins this suit in the end. But, this is one instance when the language they use in “considering” the lawsuit should be phrased very carefully.
Unbelievable…. They should have failed and gone under for poor business practices. Get bailed out and now sue because you feel the terms were unfair.
Next time, let the carrier go under.
You also had an obligation to not to support underhanded, sneaky practices that you hoped never saw the light of day. You also had an obligation not to set an economic calamity into motion. Most of all, you had an obligation to act above board.
I thought it was AIG that “masterminded” the tort reform effort against frivilous lawsuits over the past 25 years. As a lawyer who prosecutes bad faith insurance conduct, I’m thinking COUNTERCLAIM!
All TARP recipients and Lehman Brothers should sue the federal government for creating the environment that inspired the “toxic assets” to begin with. Let’s not pile on AIG when there are plenty of “Friends of Angelo” still seated in congress or whop are serving in this administration. And, let’s not forget Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who were sleeping at the switch when this was heading toward a train wreck. And now, Barney Frank wants to be appointed to John Kerry’s soon-to-be vacated Senate seat so that he can avoid the scrutiny of an election campaign?
Who could have possibly foresaw such moral hazards when a government hand selects a few chosen companies as “more equal than others” and not subject to laws that apply to the rest of us?
The fact that they are beginning to defend this consideration points to the greater likelihood that they will move forward with this suit. As I’ve said numerous times before we should have let them fail. They still running those crappy ads? Damn them to hell.
It seems the problem is Hank Greenberg. He is making a stink about the bailout which probably was caused with the culture and things done under his watch. Maybe as a stockholder I should pursue a derivative action against Hank.
Perhaps we, as agents have the obligation to not use them for our coverage needs. If every independent agent in this country directed their brokers to not seek quotes from AIG/Chartis, I think a lot of their employees would be sitting around twiddling their thumbs and eventually losing their jobs. This outlaw company needs to have some more serious pruning on their size.
What a whiney, pathetic loser! Don’t you have some customers to attend, products to develop or other companies with whom you can’t compete to crusade against during business hours?
Seriously, you spend an immense amount of time playing on the internet bitching and moaning about AIG. Maybe if you spent even a fraction of that time working you’d be able to compete with them.
Phoenix, hate to say you show your ignorance with your post Agent is an insurance agent. Hen doesn’t compete with AIG but can use them as a provider of insurance for his client. He is in a unique position to grade their capabilities as an insurer from a pretty unbiased viewpoint. But go ahead and make your silly pointless posts.
You’re not much better than Agent, Dave. You personally know Agent and can vouch for the fact that he actually is an independent insurance agent? Even if he is, come on now, the position is nowhere near unique. I was an agent for the first 15 of my nearly 30 years in the industry so I think I know a little bit about what agents do and what they know. Clearly Agent, and possibly you, have an unhealthy obsession with AIG. There are only a few sources from which such an obsession can stem. My guess is that either or both of you were rejected or fired by AIG at one point or just flat out lost too many accounts to them and are exacting your “revenge” with incessant critical bashing on a web site which nobody outside the industry is going to see. You and your friends go ahead an boycott AIG. Considering you all spend more time playing on the internet, you can’t be selling many policies in the first place anyway.
Phoenix, the fact that you described agent as a competitor of AIG’s points out your obvious ignorance which will color any other statement you may make here. Have a wonderful clueless life.
January 10, 2013 at 10:12 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Phoenix, your statement about your background in the industry is very telling. If you were an agent for 15 years and failed at it, you obviously weren’t very good at what you did. I have been an agent for 30 years and have a proven track record and a successful agency. I have seen people who were in the agency business, couldn’t make it so they became “marketing persons” for companies. They generally are not very good at that either. If they had a personality like yours, I wouldn’t be doing any business with them.
January 11, 2013 at 7:53 am
Phoenix says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well Dave, Agent specifically said that he refused to offer AIG quotes to his clients. Therefore, any of the quotes he does offer (at least on coverages and in territories AIG writes) would have to be from AIG’s competitors, correct?
January 10, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Bystander says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Not that I agree with Phoenix regarding your knowledge of the industry or your work in general, but the context of your post relating to the employees is worrisome. “I think a lot of their employees would be sitting around twiddling their thumbs and eventually losing their jobs” seems to me that your rant does not have the typical citizen’s best interest in mind as that would mean 60K+ more unemployed individuals. To me, that seems to have little to do with AIG and more to do with a personal issue.
So AIG thinks the government (we the people) charged them too much to bail them out? They obviously still have not learned the credit business, the rate is tied to the risk. And it was risky because the gov’t didn’t know what kind of can of worms they were getting into. I am sure all the borrowers at American General think their rate is too high also, but are they valid to file suit? AIG should have just not agreed to the costs and folded their tent up if they didn’t like the terms. And I think Hank is suffering from severe dementia!
In fact, I have a Capital One card that charges me 16.9%, while my credit score (average of 3 bureaus) is around 760. What do I do? I rarely use that one and then pay the balance in full each time. I haven’t thought of suing them.
As filthy rich as Hank is, he has to try and steal from the taxpayers on top of it. I don’t know about suffering from dementia, but I’d like to catch him alone in a dark alley and show him some suffering.
“The idea that AIG might sue the government is an unbelievable insult to our nation’s taxpayers, who cleaned up the mess this firm created,” he [Elijah Cummings] said in a statement”
I agree.
14.5% is a high interest rate, maybe 10 points higher that what the normal was back then. Chapter 11 isn’t the end of the world, and many companies come out of Chapter 11 stronger and better. The Board is acting on behalf of the stockholders and the company, and it is prudent to consider a possible return of money. Considering and doing are 2 different things.
For Conspiracy Theorists, how do we know what role the government had in saving AIG? If AIG went under, how many other businesses, banks, countries and individuals would have been impacted? Perhaps the bailout was forced, do we really know what happened?
Most people who did NOT play a significant part in causing the meltdown are paying a higher rate. AIG should have been charged at least 20%.
We bail them out from a self induced failure and now they are considering a lawsuit?? How crazy is that?? Hindsight is 20/20 so they say…….maybe we should have just let them fail.
We definietly should of let them fail. This is rediculous that they even consider a lawsuit. I really hope this is just media drumming up drama over an act of courtesy meeting with their old business partner but it doesn’t seem like it so far.
Why is corporate governance so hard for people to understand?
The board’s fiduciary obligations to their shareholders means they have to consider it and provide a well-reasoned rationale for rejecting this course of action to prevent shareholder lawsuits. No way they join this lawsuit! But they need to be able to demonstrate they considered and rejected it, for the good of the company and shareholders.
And, unfortunately because of how corporate laws are written, the board does not get to consider what is good for the public and the country in general.
Understood. It would be very suprising if AIG joins this suit in the end. But, this is one instance when the language they use in “considering” the lawsuit should be phrased very carefully.
Actually moving forward with a lawsuit is what I object to. That is a definite slap in the face of the vast majority.
next time eff them all let em fail!!!! now they want more tax payor money!
reminds me of those two old ladies that were sitting in a restaurant eating lunch–
“The food here is just TERRIBLE!!!” one of them says.
“I know, and such SMALL PORTIONS!” says the other.
Unbelievable…. They should have failed and gone under for poor business practices. Get bailed out and now sue because you feel the terms were unfair.
Next time, let the carrier go under.
Dear AIG:
You also had an obligation to not to support underhanded, sneaky practices that you hoped never saw the light of day. You also had an obligation not to set an economic calamity into motion. Most of all, you had an obligation to act above board.
Now, what does your Board have to say about that?
I thought it was AIG that “masterminded” the tort reform effort against frivilous lawsuits over the past 25 years. As a lawyer who prosecutes bad faith insurance conduct, I’m thinking COUNTERCLAIM!
All TARP recipients and Lehman Brothers should sue the federal government for creating the environment that inspired the “toxic assets” to begin with. Let’s not pile on AIG when there are plenty of “Friends of Angelo” still seated in congress or whop are serving in this administration. And, let’s not forget Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who were sleeping at the switch when this was heading toward a train wreck. And now, Barney Frank wants to be appointed to John Kerry’s soon-to-be vacated Senate seat so that he can avoid the scrutiny of an election campaign?
Who could have possibly foresaw such moral hazards when a government hand selects a few chosen companies as “more equal than others” and not subject to laws that apply to the rest of us?
“Hogwash” is all I can say to AIG and our government. It would seem the Peter Principle is alive and well in America.
The fact that they are beginning to defend this consideration points to the greater likelihood that they will move forward with this suit. As I’ve said numerous times before we should have let them fail. They still running those crappy ads? Damn them to hell.
It seems the problem is Hank Greenberg. He is making a stink about the bailout which probably was caused with the culture and things done under his watch. Maybe as a stockholder I should pursue a derivative action against Hank.
Exactly!
Told ya
Sanity prevailed. AIG decided not to join the suit. They’re still a scumbag company though.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/aig-decides-not-join-greenberg-195133412.html
Perhaps we, as agents have the obligation to not use them for our coverage needs. If every independent agent in this country directed their brokers to not seek quotes from AIG/Chartis, I think a lot of their employees would be sitting around twiddling their thumbs and eventually losing their jobs. This outlaw company needs to have some more serious pruning on their size.
Bwaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaa!
What a whiney, pathetic loser! Don’t you have some customers to attend, products to develop or other companies with whom you can’t compete to crusade against during business hours?
Seriously, you spend an immense amount of time playing on the internet bitching and moaning about AIG. Maybe if you spent even a fraction of that time working you’d be able to compete with them.
Phoenix, hate to say you show your ignorance with your post Agent is an insurance agent. Hen doesn’t compete with AIG but can use them as a provider of insurance for his client. He is in a unique position to grade their capabilities as an insurer from a pretty unbiased viewpoint. But go ahead and make your silly pointless posts.
You’re not much better than Agent, Dave. You personally know Agent and can vouch for the fact that he actually is an independent insurance agent? Even if he is, come on now, the position is nowhere near unique. I was an agent for the first 15 of my nearly 30 years in the industry so I think I know a little bit about what agents do and what they know. Clearly Agent, and possibly you, have an unhealthy obsession with AIG. There are only a few sources from which such an obsession can stem. My guess is that either or both of you were rejected or fired by AIG at one point or just flat out lost too many accounts to them and are exacting your “revenge” with incessant critical bashing on a web site which nobody outside the industry is going to see. You and your friends go ahead an boycott AIG. Considering you all spend more time playing on the internet, you can’t be selling many policies in the first place anyway.
Phoenix, the fact that you described agent as a competitor of AIG’s points out your obvious ignorance which will color any other statement you may make here. Have a wonderful clueless life.
Phoenix, your statement about your background in the industry is very telling. If you were an agent for 15 years and failed at it, you obviously weren’t very good at what you did. I have been an agent for 30 years and have a proven track record and a successful agency. I have seen people who were in the agency business, couldn’t make it so they became “marketing persons” for companies. They generally are not very good at that either. If they had a personality like yours, I wouldn’t be doing any business with them.
Well Dave, Agent specifically said that he refused to offer AIG quotes to his clients. Therefore, any of the quotes he does offer (at least on coverages and in territories AIG writes) would have to be from AIG’s competitors, correct?
Not that I agree with Phoenix regarding your knowledge of the industry or your work in general, but the context of your post relating to the employees is worrisome. “I think a lot of their employees would be sitting around twiddling their thumbs and eventually losing their jobs” seems to me that your rant does not have the typical citizen’s best interest in mind as that would mean 60K+ more unemployed individuals. To me, that seems to have little to do with AIG and more to do with a personal issue.
So AIG thinks the government (we the people) charged them too much to bail them out? They obviously still have not learned the credit business, the rate is tied to the risk. And it was risky because the gov’t didn’t know what kind of can of worms they were getting into. I am sure all the borrowers at American General think their rate is too high also, but are they valid to file suit? AIG should have just not agreed to the costs and folded their tent up if they didn’t like the terms. And I think Hank is suffering from severe dementia!
In fact, I have a Capital One card that charges me 16.9%, while my credit score (average of 3 bureaus) is around 760. What do I do? I rarely use that one and then pay the balance in full each time. I haven’t thought of suing them.
As filthy rich as Hank is, he has to try and steal from the taxpayers on top of it. I don’t know about suffering from dementia, but I’d like to catch him alone in a dark alley and show him some suffering.
Hank is laughing. He just got paid $115 Million.