Again, I wish I could invent a time machine, go back in time and stop the bailout. Then Hank would have lost 100% of his AIG investment instead of 95% and this lawsuit would have never been brought.
Greenberg is mad that he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and ended up paying the fiddler. It was not bad enough that he got caught in bid rigging schemes with Marsh. They have had a culture of corruption at AIG for at least 30 years. Now, all he does is sue, sue, sue like he is in the right. I will be very surprised if he wins this one. The old adage that you can’t fight city hall is pretty true.
“I think a number of my colleagues were inferring that based on margin calls.” What attorney allowed his client to speculate as to what others were thinking? That should have been an objection because he cannot really know what they were thinking.
Harsh interest rates should have been assessed (my opinion) as at least the company survived. AIG should not have been rescued without financial penalty to all who owned, invested in, and bought from that company. At least they still have their equity and stock. Without the bailout, they would just have debt. Gratitude might be more in order.
If AIG did not like the terms of the bailout, could they not have rejected them to see if they could have gotten “better terms” in the free market? Of course there was nobody on the planet willing to invest any capital in AIG, so what’s wrong with the government offering the most profitable terms to itself when nothing else was available? Especially when considering they were risking tax-payer funds who had absolutely no say-so in the matter. Speaking of which, where’s my dividend check for risking my taxes on this bailout which allegedly produced a profit. Maybe I should squeeze it out of Hank.
Dave, if they were going to lower the boom on AIG and charge those kind of interest rates, they should have done so with some of the other financial institutions and made them pay dearly for their indiscretions. AIG was just one of the players in this fiasco. I am still not convinced all the loan was paid back even with sale of assets etc.
Just because they didn’t do it with other financial institutions, it doesn’t mean it was wrong to do it with AIG. We have to keep in mind that they DID know they insuring worthless subprime loans/bonds. (And if they didn’t, they were paying their Underwriters for nothing.)
Had AIG not offered insurance on the subprime instruments, banks would have had to back away from the bonds as investments in the first place, and we could have avoided the whole mess.
Again, I wish I could invent a time machine, go back in time and stop the bailout. Then Hank would have lost 100% of his AIG investment instead of 95% and this lawsuit would have never been brought.
Greenberg is mad that he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and ended up paying the fiddler. It was not bad enough that he got caught in bid rigging schemes with Marsh. They have had a culture of corruption at AIG for at least 30 years. Now, all he does is sue, sue, sue like he is in the right. I will be very surprised if he wins this one. The old adage that you can’t fight city hall is pretty true.
“I think a number of my colleagues were inferring that based on margin calls.” What attorney allowed his client to speculate as to what others were thinking? That should have been an objection because he cannot really know what they were thinking.
Harsh interest rates should have been assessed (my opinion) as at least the company survived. AIG should not have been rescued without financial penalty to all who owned, invested in, and bought from that company. At least they still have their equity and stock. Without the bailout, they would just have debt. Gratitude might be more in order.
I know that this is not a trial (technically, only figuratively), but did anyone coach these guys?
If AIG did not like the terms of the bailout, could they not have rejected them to see if they could have gotten “better terms” in the free market? Of course there was nobody on the planet willing to invest any capital in AIG, so what’s wrong with the government offering the most profitable terms to itself when nothing else was available? Especially when considering they were risking tax-payer funds who had absolutely no say-so in the matter. Speaking of which, where’s my dividend check for risking my taxes on this bailout which allegedly produced a profit. Maybe I should squeeze it out of Hank.
Dave, if they were going to lower the boom on AIG and charge those kind of interest rates, they should have done so with some of the other financial institutions and made them pay dearly for their indiscretions. AIG was just one of the players in this fiasco. I am still not convinced all the loan was paid back even with sale of assets etc.
Just because they didn’t do it with other financial institutions, it doesn’t mean it was wrong to do it with AIG. We have to keep in mind that they DID know they insuring worthless subprime loans/bonds. (And if they didn’t, they were paying their Underwriters for nothing.)
Had AIG not offered insurance on the subprime instruments, banks would have had to back away from the bonds as investments in the first place, and we could have avoided the whole mess.