The more this onion gets peeled the more it smells like the government is going to lose this case. Either the facts supporting Starr’s case are that good or the witnesses have not been properly coached by the DoJ.
Again, AIG should have been allowed to fail. Then we wouldn’t even be here and all those poor shareholders the government allegedly screwed over would have lost 100% not 95%. The government had no reason to bailout this worthelss company with my tax dollars.
This suit is absurd. Had the government not intervened on a scale unprecedented in history it would have collapsed and the stock would have been worth less than toilet paper. The fact that “Hank” feels entitled to billions of dollars of taxpayer money ought to outrage every single reader. The chutzpah and greed of this man has no bounds.
I would agree that the government should not have intervened. If AIG had taken the bankruptcy route, then the company could have taken its time in preparing a plan to emerge and while that was taking place the states could have overseen the insurance company subsidiaries and ensured that they were operated in a relatively safe manner to protect the interests of policyholders.
Meanwhile, the parent company creditors such as Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, JPMorganChase, Barclays and a host of others could have presented their claims to the court and waited months to see a dime. Perhaps those enterprises, which were facing claims from others to whom they had sold credit default swaps, would have decide it was in their best interest to take a haircut on their claims to obtain a quick settlement from AIG rather than get 100% of their claim as the government raced to provide.
You make it sound like AIG was the only entity that entered into poorly designed CDS transactions, yet CS, GS and the rest had foolishly and recklessly exposed themselves to enormous financial risk by concentrating counterparty risk in a single place (AIG). Why were only the AIG shareholders subject to significant risk and the shareholders of CS, GS, and the rest spared any loss?
Finally someone writing something that makes sense. All these people who cry “should have let them bankrupt, then they would have zero” do not understand: 1) how bankruptcy works; and 2) that the AIG insurance companies largely had statutory protections and thus plenty of money for their own continuing operations.
Hank Greenberg may not be lovable, but you all act like that means he is stupid. His whole point is that had AIG been allowed to “fail”, it would have likely come out far better off than it is now.
And, in case anyone has failed to hear the news these past six years. AIG did not cause the financial crisis, bad mortgage LENDING is at the root of the crisis.
Correct, AIG was the only entity which entered into poorly designed CDS transactions. They designed them. They sold them. They promised to pay them off If triggered. They, the largest insurance company on the planet set these up, sold them and promised to pay. For years they made ungodly high profits on selling this insurance. In large part to subsidize the bleeding going on in their traditional P&C operations. And then their big risk blew up in their face. Bad insurance they had no intention of paying off. Dozens of scumbags at AIG collected hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses on those illusory profits. And now the scumbags want to sue us, the taxpayers, for bailing them out of their terrible bet. AIG screwed the pooch by selling this worthless insurance, pocketing the money and then saying they couldn’t pay. Somebody deserves to go to jail over this!
Correction. For years they made ungodly high profits, not to subsidize the bleeding P&C operations. The P&C operations were the only profitable part of AIG. They made ungodly profits because the could. Period. Lots and lots of people got rich off those ungodly profits, knowing the bottom was bound to fall out and they just didn’t care. They took the money and ran.
The more this onion gets peeled the more it smells like the government is going to lose this case. Either the facts supporting Starr’s case are that good or the witnesses have not been properly coached by the DoJ.
Again, AIG should have been allowed to fail. Then we wouldn’t even be here and all those poor shareholders the government allegedly screwed over would have lost 100% not 95%. The government had no reason to bailout this worthelss company with my tax dollars.
This suit is absurd. Had the government not intervened on a scale unprecedented in history it would have collapsed and the stock would have been worth less than toilet paper. The fact that “Hank” feels entitled to billions of dollars of taxpayer money ought to outrage every single reader. The chutzpah and greed of this man has no bounds.
Greenburgh is approximately 90 years old, he should focus more on his retirement and donate his billions to those less fortunate.
Only the good die young.
I would agree that the government should not have intervened. If AIG had taken the bankruptcy route, then the company could have taken its time in preparing a plan to emerge and while that was taking place the states could have overseen the insurance company subsidiaries and ensured that they were operated in a relatively safe manner to protect the interests of policyholders.
Meanwhile, the parent company creditors such as Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, JPMorganChase, Barclays and a host of others could have presented their claims to the court and waited months to see a dime. Perhaps those enterprises, which were facing claims from others to whom they had sold credit default swaps, would have decide it was in their best interest to take a haircut on their claims to obtain a quick settlement from AIG rather than get 100% of their claim as the government raced to provide.
You make it sound like AIG was the only entity that entered into poorly designed CDS transactions, yet CS, GS and the rest had foolishly and recklessly exposed themselves to enormous financial risk by concentrating counterparty risk in a single place (AIG). Why were only the AIG shareholders subject to significant risk and the shareholders of CS, GS, and the rest spared any loss?
Finally someone writing something that makes sense. All these people who cry “should have let them bankrupt, then they would have zero” do not understand: 1) how bankruptcy works; and 2) that the AIG insurance companies largely had statutory protections and thus plenty of money for their own continuing operations.
Hank Greenberg may not be lovable, but you all act like that means he is stupid. His whole point is that had AIG been allowed to “fail”, it would have likely come out far better off than it is now.
And, in case anyone has failed to hear the news these past six years. AIG did not cause the financial crisis, bad mortgage LENDING is at the root of the crisis.
Correct, AIG was the only entity which entered into poorly designed CDS transactions. They designed them. They sold them. They promised to pay them off If triggered. They, the largest insurance company on the planet set these up, sold them and promised to pay. For years they made ungodly high profits on selling this insurance. In large part to subsidize the bleeding going on in their traditional P&C operations. And then their big risk blew up in their face. Bad insurance they had no intention of paying off. Dozens of scumbags at AIG collected hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses on those illusory profits. And now the scumbags want to sue us, the taxpayers, for bailing them out of their terrible bet. AIG screwed the pooch by selling this worthless insurance, pocketing the money and then saying they couldn’t pay. Somebody deserves to go to jail over this!
Correction. For years they made ungodly high profits, not to subsidize the bleeding P&C operations. The P&C operations were the only profitable part of AIG. They made ungodly profits because the could. Period. Lots and lots of people got rich off those ungodly profits, knowing the bottom was bound to fall out and they just didn’t care. They took the money and ran.
Another example of Boomer’s being the worst generation. Thanks for nothing, Agent.
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/20/baby_boomers_ruined_america_why_blaming_millennials_is_misguided_and_annoying/
Stan, I don’t think Hank could be considered a boomer. He’s 90.
Hank Greenburg has a chapter in Tom Brokaw’s book, “The Greatest Generation”:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_uQfjgIplokC&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=greenberg+greatest+generation&source=bl&ots=a6qO3yblFZ&sig=l9o2QMJcqwFvg33WHdUyhZZKVUY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GWVJVPuVK5DGgwT55oDABg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=greenberg%20greatest%20generation&f=false
If the link doesn’t work – begins on page 319.