AIG is still costing taxpayers

[emptystep]

This is pretty dated but I just got a email from a email list I am on. Republican will be sure to bring this up during debates spending cuts, or perhaps not.

AIG’s past losses cost taxpayers now and into the future - The Washington Post
By Elizabeth Warren, Damon Silvers, Mark McWatters and Kenneth Troske, Published: March 29, 2012

When the U.S. economy was in crisis in October 2008, Congress passed a $700 billion bailout of our financial system. The Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) was heavily scrutinized in the media and passionately debated on Wall Street and Main Street. Congress created a bipartisan committee — on which we served — to oversee the funds distributed through TARP. The committee conducted dozens of public hearings and produced 30 oversight reports.

Compare that experience with a recent event. AIG, a massive insurance company that received $182 billion in TARP and Federal Reserve bailouts during the financial crisis, reported in February that it had earned $19.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2011. Its profits increased a staggering $17.7 billion — from a loss of $2.2 billion a year earlier — because of special tax breaks from the Treasury Department.

Yet there was no congressional debate, no front-page story, no special oversight committee. What happened?

When filing tax returns, companies must report whether they have turned a profit or lost money. If they have made a profit, they must pay the appropriate taxes. On the other hand, if they have suffered a loss, they may “carry forward” that loss to reduce future tax bills.

A company that loses $100 million in one year and profits $500 million the following year will pay taxes on only $400 million of the profit, thanks to the reserved tax loss. That $100 million tax loss “carry forward” has clear monetary value: At today’s corporate tax rate of 35 percent, a company could reduce its tax bill by $35 million.

 

[emptystep]

news today

Lawmakers outraged after AIG announces potential suit against US over bailout

As American International Group Inc. weighs whether to join a lawsuit against the government that spent $182 billion to save it from collapse, U.S. lawmakers have a message for the insurance behemoth: “Don’t even think about it.”

In a letter to AIG Chairman Robert Miller, U.S. Reps. Peter Welch, D-Vt., and Michael Capuano, D-Mass., characterized the insurer as the “poster child” for Wall Street greed, fiscal mismanagement and executive bonuses.

“Now, AIG apparently seeks to become the poster company for corporate ingratitude and chutzpah,” the letter read. “Taxpayers are still furious that they rescued a company whose own conduct brought it down. Don’t rub salt in the wounds with yet another reckless decision that is on par with the reckless decision that led to the bailout in the first place.”

Read more: Lawmakers outraged after AIG announces potential suit against US over bailout | Fox News

 

[TNHarley]

I think it could possibly hurt the world economy if we did not bail them out. Their greed was the problem, as with most big companies. I probably wouldnt have bailed them out, at least not that much. Reap what you sow

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I think it could possibly hurt the world economy if we did not bail them out. Their greed was the problem, as with most big companies. I probably wouldnt have bailed them out, at least not that much. Reap what you sow

the governemnt does let 10 million companies a year fail, but AIG had to be saved so our economy would not die too.

Governemnt also bails out millions of individuals each year. Do you want them to reap what they sow too?? Are they greedy, stupid, lazy or what?? Tell us. Don't be afraid, junior.

 

[boedicca]

AIG is pretty much obligated to file this lawsuit. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to look out for its shareholders, a major one of which is the former CEO. Maurice Greenberg has been very vocal about the suspicious looting of AIG to benefit other companies, such as Goldman.

Goldman and others were given 100% of their money for credit default swaps that should have resulted in huge losses. Hank Paulson, a Goldman Alum, oversaw this unseemly process. Greenberg is right to ask the questions - and the board has a duty of care to act.

 

[TNHarley]

Reaping meant we bailed them out now they are talking about suing us. Context clues, junior

 

[TNHarley]

AIG is pretty much obligated to file this lawsuit. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to look out for its shareholders, a major one of which is the former CEO. Hank Greenberg has been very vocal about the suspicious looting of AIG to benefit other companies, such as Goldman.

Goldman and others were given 100% of their money for credit default swaps that should have resulted in huge losses. Hank Paulson, a Goldman Alum, oversaw this unseemly process. Greenberg is right to ask the questions - and the board has a duty of care to act.

You think they had a legal obligation to their shareholders?

 

[boedicca]

AIG is pretty much obligated to file this lawsuit. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to look out for its shareholders, a major one of which is the former CEO. Hank Greenberg has been very vocal about the suspicious looting of AIG to benefit other companies, such as Goldman.

Goldman and others were given 100% of their money for credit default swaps that should have resulted in huge losses. Hank Paulson, a Goldman Alum, oversaw this unseemly process. Greenberg is right to ask the questions - and the board has a duty of care to act.

You think they had a legal obligation to their shareholders?

Uh. Yes. They did and still do.

They also received far harsher treatment than the other TARP recipients, to the detriment of their shareholders. If I were one, I would want answers, too.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

AIG is pretty much obligated to file this lawsuit. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to look out for its shareholders, a major one of which is the former CEO. Hank Greenberg has been very vocal about the suspicious looting of AIG to benefit other companies, such as Goldman.

Goldman and others were given 100% of their money for credit default swaps that should have resulted in huge losses. Hank Paulson, a Goldman Alum, oversaw this unseemly process. Greenberg is right to ask the questions - and the board has a duty of care to act.

You think they had a legal obligation to their shareholders?

Uh. Yes. They did and still do.

They also received far harsher treatment than the other TARP recipients, to the detriment of their shareholders. If I were one, I would want answers, too.

I don't think its going to be all that complicated. AIG looked the worst of all because they were selling fradulent insurance to most of Wall Street. Goldman may have been dumb but they were mostly innocent buyers.

When you look at the huge time pressure what the Feds did seemed to stabilize the situation and that was a miracle for which we should all be thankful.

Lets not forget the Fan/Fred got 200 billion, won't pay back one penny, and the libturds won't say word one about it let alone let it go bankrupt.

 

[boedicca]

I don't believe At All that Goldman Sachs or the rest of them were innocent.

Yes, the Feds stabilized the situation...and now we have even Bigger Too Big Too Fail banks.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't believe At All that Goldman Sachs or the rest of them were innocent.

Well maybe dumb and innocent because they did not imagine how dumb and innocent AIG was. But then based on history housing prices did not go down much if at all so maybe AIG was not that bad after all. Given that nobody anywhere saw it coming its probably best not to assign blame, but better to change to system to more capitalism.

Yes, the Feds stabilized the situation...and now we have even Bigger Too Big Too Fail banks.

and we are all now on guard against bubbles too. Banks are now very very conservative to a fault because 100's went bankrupt!!

 

[emptystep]

Yes, the Feds stabilized the situation...and now we have even Bigger Too Big Too Fail banks.

and we are all now on guard against bubbles too. Banks are now very very conservative to a fault because 100's went bankrupt!!

Yes, because no one has ever seen a bubble before.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, the Feds stabilized the situation...and now we have even Bigger Too Big Too Fail banks.

and we are all now on guard against bubbles too. Banks are now very very conservative to a fault because 100's went bankrupt!!

Yes, because no one has ever seen a bubble before.

the housing bubble was not a bubble that we saw????????????

 

[iamwhatiseem]

AIG is pretty much obligated to file this lawsuit. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to look out for its shareholders, a major one of which is the former CEO. Maurice Greenberg has been very vocal about the suspicious looting of AIG to benefit other companies, such as Goldman.

Goldman and others were given 100% of their money for credit default swaps that should have resulted in huge losses. Hank Paulson, a Goldman Alum, oversaw this unseemly process. Greenberg is right to ask the questions - and the board has a duty of care to act.

They do, however I have to say Greenberg being suspicious of anything is like Arnold Swartzenager complaining about violence on TV. Greenberg knew full well the galaxy-sized risks he placed on those very shareholders, as well as Wall Street.
For him to complain about any wrongdoing is nothing less than absurd.

 

[boedicca]

AIG is pretty much obligated to file this lawsuit. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to look out for its shareholders, a major one of which is the former CEO. Maurice Greenberg has been very vocal about the suspicious looting of AIG to benefit other companies, such as Goldman.

Goldman and others were given 100% of their money for credit default swaps that should have resulted in huge losses. Hank Paulson, a Goldman Alum, oversaw this unseemly process. Greenberg is right to ask the questions - and the board has a duty of care to act.

They do, however I have to say Greenberg being suspicious of anything is like Arnold Swartzenager complaining about violence on TV. Greenberg knew full well the galaxy-sized risks he placed on those very shareholders, as well as Wall Street.
For him to complain about any wrongdoing is nothing less than absurd.

Greenberg left the CEO spot in 2005. If you have something that shows he was involved in the 2008 CDS debacle, please post.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

AIG is pretty much obligated to file this lawsuit. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to look out for its shareholders, a major one of which is the former CEO. Maurice Greenberg has been very vocal about the suspicious looting of AIG to benefit other companies, such as Goldman.

Goldman and others were given 100% of their money for credit default swaps that should have resulted in huge losses. Hank Paulson, a Goldman Alum, oversaw this unseemly process. Greenberg is right to ask the questions - and the board has a duty of care to act.

They do, however I have to say Greenberg being suspicious of anything is like Arnold Swartzenager complaining about violence on TV. Greenberg knew full well the galaxy-sized risks he placed on those very shareholders, as well as Wall Street.
For him to complain about any wrongdoing is nothing less than absurd.

Greenberg left the CEO spot in 2005. If you have something that shows he was involved in the 2008 CDS debacle, please post.

It seems to me he was quilty of not understanding what the London branch was doing, but then again any close look at operations there may have led him to beleive that all safe because all everyone and every industry were betting that houses did not decline in price, and that was based on history.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

AIG is pretty much obligated to file this lawsuit. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to look out for its shareholders, a major one of which is the former CEO. Maurice Greenberg has been very vocal about the suspicious looting of AIG to benefit other companies, such as Goldman.

Goldman and others were given 100% of their money for credit default swaps that should have resulted in huge losses. Hank Paulson, a Goldman Alum, oversaw this unseemly process. Greenberg is right to ask the questions - and the board has a duty of care to act.

They do, however I have to say Greenberg being suspicious of anything is like Arnold Swartzenager complaining about violence on TV. Greenberg knew full well the galaxy-sized risks he placed on those very shareholders, as well as Wall Street.
For him to complain about any wrongdoing is nothing less than absurd.

Greenberg left the CEO spot in 2005. If you have something that shows he was involved in the 2008 CDS debacle, please post.

Greenberg is one of the founding fathers of ultra-high risk policies and deeply imbedded in the corruption of Wall Street firms in the 90's and early 2000's.
Anyone posting in the economic section should not need links to Greenberg's scandals and nefarious ways. He got away with what he was doing because he was making $millionaires out of a lot of folks. In 2005 he was more or less fired after refusing to stop writing up ultra high risk plans and highly questionable leadership and incentive plans that strongly encouraged unchecked risk and short term gains.

 

[boedicca]

They do, however I have to say Greenberg being suspicious of anything is like Arnold Swartzenager complaining about violence on TV. Greenberg knew full well the galaxy-sized risks he placed on those very shareholders, as well as Wall Street.
For him to complain about any wrongdoing is nothing less than absurd.

Greenberg left the CEO spot in 2005. If you have something that shows he was involved in the 2008 CDS debacle, please post.

Greenberg is one of the founding fathers of ultra-high risk policies and deeply imbedded in the corruption of Wall Street firms in the 90's and early 2000's.
Anyone posting in the economic section should not need links to Greenberg's scandals and nefarious ways. He got away with what he was doing because he was making $millionaires out of a lot of folks. In 2005 he was more or less fired after refusing to stop writing up ultra high risk plans and highly questionable leadership and incentive plans that strongly encouraged unchecked risk and short term gains.

I'm not defending what he did when he was CEO - just pointing out that he left the firm three years prior to the bail out. It's rather suspicious that very sophisticated and highly connected mega firms such as Goldman Sachs were 100% made whole via this process. If I were an AIG shareholder, I would want to know why.

 

[Politico]

Shame they're not gonna file now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

highly connected mega firms such as Goldman Sachs were 100% made whole via this process. If I were an AIG shareholder, I would want to know why.

Goldman had to borrow billions from Buffett just to survive, many other went bankrupt and shareholders lost 98%!!