AIG is still costing taxpayers

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

If AIG had failed we'd all be in a fricken bread line now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

If AIG had failed we'd all be in a fricken bread line now.

1) very true and obviously so but Marxist liberals hate the idea of corporate bailouts so much it drives them crazy.

2) but of course libturds love personal welfare bailouts without any expectation of payback except for the votes they buy with the welfare.

3) If liberal government had not interfered with the Republican free market it never would have happened

4) If we had good accounting enforcement (Sarbanes-Oxley) it never would have happened either.

 

[boedicca]

Shame they're not gonna file now.

There is a lawsuit - it was filed in 2011 by Starr Int'l (Greenberg's firm), which is being represented by David Boies. Starr had asked AIG to participate. AIG has declines, but Starr is proceeding with the suit.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

I said it back in 2008, and say it again now. Goldman Sachs is the most corrupt institution currently in existence in the entire financial system - worldwide.
They have oligarch control over the US Treasury dept almost to the point of complete access and control. Likewise with the White House...even now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

I said it back in 2008, and say it again now. Goldman Sachs is the most corrupt institution currently in existence in the entire financial system - worldwide.
They have oligarch control over the US Treasury dept almost to the point of complete access and control. Likewise with the White House...even now.

too stupid!! that's why they had to beg Warren Buffett for a $6 billion loan just to survive.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?

 

[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.

If AIG had failed we'd all be in a fricken bread line now.

I am not sure that is in question. The issue was the nature of the bailout and whether or not adjustments might be in order at this time. Yeah, at the time we had to make sure the structure did not fall apart, The structure was inherently weak however. How do we proceed is the question. I don't think continuing to give them a free, or greatly discounted anyway, ride is good for anyone, except AIG.

 

[Toro]

I'm thinking about buying the stock. It is trading at 0.5x tangible book value.

 

[emptystep]

I'm thinking about buying the stock. It is trading at 0.5x tangible book value.

You haven't reading this thread, have you?

 

[Toro]

I'm thinking about buying the stock. It is trading at 0.5x tangible book value.

You haven't reading this thread, have you?

This thread makes me want to buy it more.

I just got off the phone with a big AIG shareholder. It's dirt cheap. Could be a $100 stock in a few years.

 

[emptystep]

I'm thinking about buying the stock. It is trading at 0.5x tangible book value.

You haven't reading this thread, have you?

This thread makes me want to buy it more.

I just got off the phone with a big AIG shareholder. It's dirt cheap. Could be a $100 stock in a few years.

I can't remember what the heck that company's name was that was cooking it's books. It bought and sold energy on the west coast. They were selling and buying back and calling it a profit or something like that. Anyway it was a huge company and it did have assets so I bought a thousand shares at $1 each. Woke up the very next morning and could not believe my eyes. Shares were at $0.01. Company flat-lined. Your reason for buying is a good way to go broke.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You haven't reading this thread, have you?

This thread makes me want to buy it more.

I just got off the phone with a big AIG shareholder. It's dirt cheap. Could be a $100 stock in a few years.

I can't remember what the heck that company's name was that was cooking it's books. It bought and sold energy on the west coast. They were selling and buying back and calling it a profit or something like that. Anyway it was a huge company and it did have assets so I bought a thousand shares at $1 each. Woke up the very next morning and could not believe my eyes. Shares were at $0.01. Company flat-lined. Your reason for buying is a good way to go broke.

Enron!! It gave rise to Sarbanes-Oxley which was suppposed to put CEO's in jail for misleading financial statements, but the Fed never used it in the housing crisis, yet anyway, for some reason that is not clear.

 

[Toro]

You haven't reading this thread, have you?

This thread makes me want to buy it more.

I just got off the phone with a big AIG shareholder. It's dirt cheap. Could be a $100 stock in a few years.

I can't remember what the heck that company's name was that was cooking it's books. It bought and sold energy on the west coast. They were selling and buying back and calling it a profit or something like that. Anyway it was a huge company and it did have assets so I bought a thousand shares at $1 each. Woke up the very next morning and could not believe my eyes. Shares were at $0.01. Company flat-lined. Your reason for buying is a good way to go broke.

I don't think you understand what's going on. All you've posted is a 10-month old article about AIG's tax loss carryforwards and a lawsuit against the government. The first is positive for the company, the second may also be. AIG today is nothing like Enron. AIG in 2007 was like Enron, but you don't understand the restructuring the company has undertaken.

AIG is selling its aircraft leasing business. Once it's done, it will own a profitable US life business and an unprofitable global P&C business. The company will make a profit but if it can right-size its P&C business, which has a combined ratio of 104-105, its profits will explode. It is going to have a ton of cash roll in over the next few years, from operations and sales of assets. It will be overcapitalized.

The stock trades at $35. It's tangible book value is $64. That means if the company were liquidated today, it would fetch almost double its share price. The P&C business is long-tail, but they've spent the past three years cleaning it up. There is no burn-down coming.

I'm restricted from buying the stock but plan to in the near future.

 

[emptystep]

This thread makes me want to buy it more.

I just got off the phone with a big AIG shareholder. It's dirt cheap. Could be a $100 stock in a few years.

I can't remember what the heck that company's name was that was cooking it's books. It bought and sold energy on the west coast. They were selling and buying back and calling it a profit or something like that. Anyway it was a huge company and it did have assets so I bought a thousand shares at $1 each. Woke up the very next morning and could not believe my eyes. Shares were at $0.01. Company flat-lined. Your reason for buying is a good way to go broke.

I don't think you understand what's going on. All you've posted is a 10-month old article about AIG's tax loss carryforwards and a lawsuit against the government. The first is positive for the company, the second may also be. AIG today is nothing like Enron. AIG in 2007 was like Enron, but you don't understand the restructuring the company has undertaken.

AIG is selling its aircraft leasing business. Once it's done, it will own a profitable US life business and an unprofitable global P&C business. The company will make a profit but if it can right-size its P&C business, which has a combined ratio of 104-105, its profits will explode. It is going to have a ton of cash roll in over the next few years, from operations and sales of assets. It will be overcapitalized.

The stock trades at $35. It's tangible book value is $64. That means if the company were liquidated today, it would fetch almost double its share price. The P&C business is long-tail, but they've spent the past three years cleaning it up. There is no burn-down coming.

I'm restricted from buying the stock but plan to in the near future.

All you said was that AIG was a good buy because of its price to tangible book value. I said that was not a good reason for buying a stock and gave you an example of something I experienced.

Hopefully nothing today is like Enron.

To say if the company was liquidated today you would get more per share than you paid all the way down seems a little off.

 

[Toro]

I can't remember what the heck that company's name was that was cooking it's books. It bought and sold energy on the west coast. They were selling and buying back and calling it a profit or something like that. Anyway it was a huge company and it did have assets so I bought a thousand shares at $1 each. Woke up the very next morning and could not believe my eyes. Shares were at $0.01. Company flat-lined. Your reason for buying is a good way to go broke.

I don't think you understand what's going on. All you've posted is a 10-month old article about AIG's tax loss carryforwards and a lawsuit against the government. The first is positive for the company, the second may also be. AIG today is nothing like Enron. AIG in 2007 was like Enron, but you don't understand the restructuring the company has undertaken.

AIG is selling its aircraft leasing business. Once it's done, it will own a profitable US life business and an unprofitable global P&C business. The company will make a profit but if it can right-size its P&C business, which has a combined ratio of 104-105, its profits will explode. It is going to have a ton of cash roll in over the next few years, from operations and sales of assets. It will be overcapitalized.

The stock trades at $35. It's tangible book value is $64. That means if the company were liquidated today, it would fetch almost double its share price. The P&C business is long-tail, but they've spent the past three years cleaning it up. There is no burn-down coming.

I'm restricted from buying the stock but plan to in the near future.

All you said was that AIG was a good buy because of its price to tangible book value. I said that was not a good reason for buying a stock and gave you an example of something I experienced.

Hopefully nothing today is like Enron.

To say if the company was liquidated today you would get more per share than you paid all the way down seems a little off.

It's called "value investing." I've been very successful doing this over the years.

If you don't wish to buy, that's fine. I am.

 

[emptystep]

I don't think you understand what's going on. All you've posted is a 10-month old article about AIG's tax loss carryforwards and a lawsuit against the government. The first is positive for the company, the second may also be. AIG today is nothing like Enron. AIG in 2007 was like Enron, but you don't understand the restructuring the company has undertaken.

AIG is selling its aircraft leasing business. Once it's done, it will own a profitable US life business and an unprofitable global P&C business. The company will make a profit but if it can right-size its P&C business, which has a combined ratio of 104-105, its profits will explode. It is going to have a ton of cash roll in over the next few years, from operations and sales of assets. It will be overcapitalized.

The stock trades at $35. It's tangible book value is $64. That means if the company were liquidated today, it would fetch almost double its share price. The P&C business is long-tail, but they've spent the past three years cleaning it up. There is no burn-down coming.

I'm restricted from buying the stock but plan to in the near future.

All you said was that AIG was a good buy because of its price to tangible book value. I said that was not a good reason for buying a stock and gave you an example of something I experienced.

Hopefully nothing today is like Enron.

To say if the company was liquidated today you would get more per share than you paid all the way down seems a little off.

It's called "value investing." I've been very successful doing this over the years.

If you don't wish to buy, that's fine. I am.

It's called trying to run up the price.

 

[Toro]

All you said was that AIG was a good buy because of its price to tangible book value. I said that was not a good reason for buying a stock and gave you an example of something I experienced.

Hopefully nothing today is like Enron.

To say if the company was liquidated today you would get more per share than you paid all the way down seems a little off.

It's called "value investing." I've been very successful doing this over the years.

If you don't wish to buy, that's fine. I am.

It's called trying to run up the price.

lol

No it's not.