Peter, before you get too excited let me give you a reality check. You and AIG are the poster children for too big to fail. AIG was the biggest bailout in human history. If you after a $182 billion bailout are not too big to fail, then nobody is. If Congress gets anywhere near close to deeming you not too big to fail as currently structured, they will be summarily be taken out back and shot. Being the self-preservationists that they are, they will not allow that to happen and you will not lose that designation. Dream on Peter, dream on.
Dave, AIG continues to fail as we have seen on numerous articles. They cut their employment, reduce salaries, sell off assets and it is still a losing proposition.
Perhaps too many congressmen had AIG, GM, etc. in their portfolios at the time of the bailout? Who controlled Congress at that time?
Prevention is the better option; i.e. better regulatory oversight through more aggressive audits, financial exams, etc. The argument against that (too much expense added, time wasted) is easily refuted by pointing out the potential costs of another meltdown.
Identification of the irresponsible & guilty parties within each of AIG, GM, etc, should precede renewed emphasis on ERM, Solvency II, etc., going forward.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Peter, before you get too excited let me give you a reality check. You and AIG are the poster children for too big to fail. AIG was the biggest bailout in human history. If you after a $182 billion bailout are not too big to fail, then nobody is. If Congress gets anywhere near close to deeming you not too big to fail as currently structured, they will be summarily be taken out back and shot. Being the self-preservationists that they are, they will not allow that to happen and you will not lose that designation. Dream on Peter, dream on.
Dave, AIG continues to fail as we have seen on numerous articles. They cut their employment, reduce salaries, sell off assets and it is still a losing proposition.
Perhaps too many congressmen had AIG, GM, etc. in their portfolios at the time of the bailout? Who controlled Congress at that time?
Prevention is the better option; i.e. better regulatory oversight through more aggressive audits, financial exams, etc. The argument against that (too much expense added, time wasted) is easily refuted by pointing out the potential costs of another meltdown.
Identification of the irresponsible & guilty parties within each of AIG, GM, etc, should precede renewed emphasis on ERM, Solvency II, etc., going forward.