AIG Update: PROFITS, that's right, I said PROFITS

[Vast LWC]

CNNMoney.com Market Report - May. 7, 2010

Troubled insurer AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) reported a quarterly profit Friday morning, versus a year-ago loss, as the company's insurance business continued to stabilize. The company's shares are up 23% this year on hopes it can pay back the more than $120 billion in loans it owes taxpayers.

Interesting.

 

[Vast LWC]

Ooh, here's a better link from the Washington Post:

washingtonpost.com

Bailout recipient American International Group reported a profit Thursday for the third time in four quarters, improving odds that taxpayers will see at least some of their money returned by the insurance giant.

AIG, which is still nearly 80 percent government-owned, reported first-quarter earnings of $1.5 billion compared with a loss of $4.4 billion in the corresponding period last year. The latest results are a far cry from last March when AIG reported the worst annual earnings of any U.S. company in history.

"Things are moving in the right direction," said Bill Bergman, a senior analyst at Morningstar.

 

[hortysir]

Nooooo!!!!!!

Must......stop.............pro...fits

 

[Vast LWC]

No, profits are a good thing! LOL.

AIG paying back the taxpayers would be fantastic!

 

[hortysir]

It would just get dumped into the Fed's special fund reserved for future bail-outs.
It won't go toward paying down any of our debt.

 

[Vast LWC]

It would just get dumped into the Fed's special fund reserved for future bail-outs.
It won't go toward paying down any of our debt.

The Government owns an 80 percent share of AIG. Any AIG profit is by definition taxpayer profit.

Plus those loans are in fact loans, and do need to be paid back at some point.

 

[hortysir]

I saw a banner, and then a commercial, that GM has paid back their loan.
Are we still shareholders?
Just askin'

 

[Vast LWC]

I saw a banner, and then a commercial, that GM has paid back their loan.
Are we still shareholders?
Just askin'

We are, and all the signs point to us making an eventual profit from that too.

If we get dividends for those shares and then sell them down the road, we'll be making a profit.

 

[Yurt]

did they use the same hocus pocus accounting GM used to show a "profit"?

 

[SFC Ollie]

I saw a banner, and then a commercial, that GM has paid back their loan.
Are we still shareholders?
Just askin'

Well, I think GM made A payment. I wonder how they were able to turn a profit all of a sudden at AIG though. Of course any payback any of them make should go straight back to whoever the Federal Government borrowed it from to begin with.

 

[Vast LWC]

did they use the same hocus pocus accounting GM used to show a "profit"?

Hocus Pocus?

GM paid back it's loans, now, whatever gains it makes will provide profit for the taxpayers who own an 80% share in the company and are eligible for dividends.

And when we sell those shares, hopefully at a higher value than they were when we bought them, we'll get our money back to boot.

 

[Vast LWC]

I saw a banner, and then a commercial, that GM has paid back their loan.
Are we still shareholders?
Just askin'

Well, I think GM made A payment. I wonder how they were able to turn a profit all of a sudden at AIG though. Of course any payback any of them make should go straight back to whoever the Federal Government borrowed it from to begin with.

I will agree with that. Should be used to pay down the debt. Definitely.

 

[Yurt]

did they use the same hocus pocus accounting GM used to show a "profit"?

Hocus Pocus?

GM paid back it's loans, now, whatever gains it makes will provide profit for the taxpayers who own an 80% share in the company and are eligible for dividends.

And when we sell those shares, hopefully at a higher value than they were when we bought them, we'll get our money back to boot.

i can't find the link(s) but i remember reading a few articles last week or the week before about how GM actually didn't make a profit, they used tricky accounting to show a profit, eg., they characterized some of the government bailout money in such a manner that it would show a profit....

i believe obama's admin admitted to this

 

[Vast LWC]

did they use the same hocus pocus accounting GM used to show a "profit"?

Hocus Pocus?

GM paid back it's loans, now, whatever gains it makes will provide profit for the taxpayers who own an 80% share in the company and are eligible for dividends.

And when we sell those shares, hopefully at a higher value than they were when we bought them, we'll get our money back to boot.

i can't find the link(s) but i remember reading a few articles last week or the week before about how GM actually didn't make a profit, they used tricky accounting to show a profit, eg., they characterized some of the government bailout money in such a manner that it would show a profit....

i believe obama's admin admitted to this

Well, yes, this is true.

Because the Taxpayer bought shares of GM, and GM used the funds from the sale to pay off loans.

GM did not make a profit, but it pretty much broke even, and now that it doesn't owe any more loan money, and has cut costs and increased sales, it should start to see a profit.

 

[hortysir]

did they use the same hocus pocus accounting GM used to show a "profit"?

Hocus Pocus?

GM paid back it's loans, now, whatever gains it makes will provide profit for the taxpayers who own an 80% share in the company and are eligible for dividends.

And when we sell those shares, hopefully at a higher value than they were when we bought them, we'll get our money back to boot.

Pardon me, but that post just weirded me right the fuck out.
Why/how should taxpayers realize a profit from a private company?
I realize that they're not, technically, a "private" company any more. That "we" own it.
That's exactly turned me off from the get-go.
If they bankrupt, fine. See 'ya.
But now "we", as taxpayers, own a publicly traded company and stand to realize a profit from it.......

That's just fucking weird

 

[Yurt]

Hocus Pocus?

GM paid back it's loans, now, whatever gains it makes will provide profit for the taxpayers who own an 80% share in the company and are eligible for dividends.

And when we sell those shares, hopefully at a higher value than they were when we bought them, we'll get our money back to boot.

i can't find the link(s) but i remember reading a few articles last week or the week before about how GM actually didn't make a profit, they used tricky accounting to show a profit, eg., they characterized some of the government bailout money in such a manner that it would show a profit....

i believe obama's admin admitted to this

Well, yes, this is true.

Because the Taxpayer bought shares of GM, and GM used the funds from the sale to pay off loans.

GM did not make a profit, but it pretty much broke even, and now that it doesn't owe any more loan money, and has cut costs and increased sales, it should start to see a profit.

ok...why does the government still own a 60% share then? i really don't think GM will ever show a profit until they change their quality controls and their design staff. toyota went from the underdog to the topdog because they had great quality control and good design staff....then, like GM, they got too cocky or comfortable and thus, tried to cut corners....they got smacked hard this year...GM should have been smacked hard too, not bailed out

but alas, i must admit i appear to be wrong on the bush bailouts, because they appear to have worked....i think more time is need to tell though

 

[Vast LWC]

Pardon me, but that post just weirded me right the fuck out.
Why/how should taxpayers realize a profit from a private company?
I realize that they're not, technically, a "private" company any more. That "we" own it.
That's exactly turned me off from the get-go.
If they bankrupt, fine. See 'ya.
But now "we", as taxpayers, own a publicly traded company and stand to realize a profit from it.......

That's just fucking weird

If the government has a chance to invest and make a profit with taxpayer funds, why wouldn't they?

It's not like the government just took it over, they bailed out the company by purchasing shares.

And the shares can be bought back by private investors at any time. Which is why it's not "Socialism".

 

[Yurt]

Pardon me, but that post just weirded me right the fuck out.
Why/how should taxpayers realize a profit from a private company?
I realize that they're not, technically, a "private" company any more. That "we" own it.
That's exactly turned me off from the get-go.
If they bankrupt, fine. See 'ya.
But now "we", as taxpayers, own a publicly traded company and stand to realize a profit from it.......

That's just fucking weird

If the government has a chance to invest and make a profit with taxpayer funds, why wouldn't they?

It's not like the government just took it over, they bailed out the company by purchasing shares.

And the shares can be bought back by private investors at any time. Which is why it's not "Socialism".

the government should not be allowed to do that...our government was never set up to allow that. and it is socialism, just because we would allow a private party to buy out the government share, doesn't mean its not socialism while the government owns it....

 

[Vast LWC]

ok...why does the government still own a 60% share then? i really don't think GM will ever show a profit until they change their quality controls and their design staff. toyota went from the underdog to the topdog because they had great quality control and good design staff....then, like GM, they got too cocky or comfortable and thus, tried to cut corners....they got smacked hard this year...GM should have been smacked hard too, not bailed out

but alas, i must admit i appear to be wrong on the bush bailouts, because they appear to have worked....i think more time is need to tell though

It is indeed possible that GM will not get their shit together enough, and that the taxpayer will never see a return on their investment.

I like to believe that that will not be the case.

But that's the risk that you take with any investment.

GM has been trying to scale down operational costs and implement some of the stuff you're talking about though. Especially after they saw how well it worked for Ford. And Ford is doing effing great by the way. Go Ford!

 

[SFC Ollie]

Pardon me, but that post just weirded me right the fuck out.
Why/how should taxpayers realize a profit from a private company?
I realize that they're not, technically, a "private" company any more. That "we" own it.
That's exactly turned me off from the get-go.
If they bankrupt, fine. See 'ya.
But now "we", as taxpayers, own a publicly traded company and stand to realize a profit from it.......

That's just fucking weird

If the government has a chance to invest and make a profit with taxpayer funds, why wouldn't they?

It's not like the government just took it over, they bailed out the company by purchasing shares.

And the shares can be bought back by private investors at any time. Which is why it's not "Socialism".

When the Government has hiring and firing power over the CEO of a private company I call that socialism, or at least closer to it than i want to see.