dmarc117 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) American Intl: CNBC reporting that AIG is seeking funds from govt ahead of report; says co could report loss of $60 bln CNBC's Faber reports that the co is in discussion with the govt to secure additional funds so it can keep operating after next Monday, when it will report the largest loss in corp history. Sources say the losses will be near, if not exceeding, $60 bln due to write downs on a variety of assets. The loss is likely to trigger downgrades of its insurance and credit ratings, which will force the co to raise collateral. As well it its book value falls below a certain value, which it is cerain to do, it will trigger defaults in certain of its debt instruments, according to people familiar with the situation. Talks are focused on the co can swap some of the debt held by the govt for equity in the co. The only problem with this is that the govt's ownership take cant exceed 79.9%. If it can't meet the collateral calls, AIG is preparing for the possibility of bankruptcy; although a bankruptcy is unlikely, a bankruptcy of the holding company might not pose the systemic risk it once did. Edited February 23, 2009 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I'm starting to become numb and desensitized to these reports. Free market capitalism rocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I'm starting to become numb and desensitized to these reports. Free market capitalism rocks. Yes it does. Unfortunately massively regulated capitalism where those that are in charge of the oversight are given hugh campaign donations by those they are supposed to be regulating doesn't. Individuals used to do their own due diligence, now they expect the government to do it for them like everything else. When the people doing the regulating are getting paid by the people they are regulating, they tend to look the other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Yes it does. Unfortunately massively regulated capitalism where those that are in charge of the oversight are given hugh campaign donations by those they are supposed to be regulating doesn't. Individuals used to do their own due diligence, now they expect the government to do it for them like everything else. When the people doing the regulating are getting paid by the people they are regulating, they tend to look the other way. You are gone, man. Gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) Yes it does. Unfortunately massively regulated capitalism where those that are in charge of the oversight are given hugh campaign donations by those they are supposed to be regulating doesn't. Individuals used to do their own due diligence, now they expect the government to do it for them like everything else. When the people doing the regulating are getting paid by the people they are regulating, they tend to look the other way. i think barney frank's manlover is on the board of fannie WASHINGTON — Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s. So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions. Edited February 23, 2009 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 i think barney frank's manlover is on the board of fannie Your link isn't working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 Your link isn't working. http://blog.nationbuilder.org/2008/10/barn...annie-exec.html i can find more if you so desire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Yes it does. Unfortunately massively regulated capitalism where those that are in charge of the oversight are given hugh campaign donations by those they are supposed to be regulating doesn't. Individuals used to do their own due diligence, now they expect the government to do it for them like everything else. When the people doing the regulating are getting paid by the people they are regulating, they tend to look the other way. You watch timmay's PBS link? Lack of regulation was so obviously not the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Incredible. You'd think the grand economic minds throwing these institutions a life line would know how long of a rope to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 You watch timmay's PBS link? Lack of regulation was so obviously not the problem. The PBS link I watched didn't address with anything that really lead up to why Bear Stearns went belly up (i.e., the stuff that happened years / decades ago) ... just with what happed immediately prior to and afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 The PBS link I watched didn't address with anything that really lead up to why Bear Stearns went belly up (i.e., the stuff that happened years / decades ago) ... just with what happed immediately prior to and afterwards. It addressed the issue rather clearly to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 The PBS link I watched didn't address with anything that really lead up to why Bear Stearns went belly up (i.e., the stuff that happened years / decades ago) ... just with what happed immediately prior to and afterwards. have you heard the rumor why they let bs and leh go under? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) have you heard the rumor why they let bs and leh go under? Paulson didn't like Fuld (Lehmans' CEO) ... and ... Bear was the only Wall Street firm that didn't participate in the LTCM bail out in the late 1990s and Paulson was still pissed at Bear for that. Edited February 23, 2009 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Paulson didn't like Fuld (Lehmans' CEO) ... and ... Bear was the only Wall Street firm that didn't participate in the LTCM bail out in the late 1990s and Paulson was still pissed at Bear for that. It's Paulson's fault? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 It's Paulson's fault? He was in the eye of the storm and his decisions may have been biased by previous actions of those he was dealing with ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 He was in the eye of the storm and his decisions may have been biased by previous actions of those he was dealing with ... Certainly but that's probably inherent to the position unless you want someone with no experience. I just asked if it was his fault? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 (edited) Certainly but that's probably inherent to the position unless you want someone with no experience. I just asked if it was his fault? "Fault" implies definity. In this case, there is no definity. Lots of people to carry part of the blame. Frankly, probably everyone that does not live completely off the grid enjoys some part of the blame. IMO. Personally, I think that the last 40 years of congress and POTUS's, plus the regulators they all hired / appointed, plus Greenspan, plus the "compensation consultants" who promoted the current compensation struture on Wall Street (and most of the rest of corporate America), plus...you get the idea...are all far more to blame than Paulson or Bernanke. Edited February 24, 2009 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 http://blog.nationbuilder.org/2008/10/barn...annie-exec.html i can find more if you so desire No need, I found what I needed. Bill Sammon is FOX News' Washington Deputy Managing Editor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTheWebToedBoy Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 The last time the Government freaked and bailed them out..... It will be interesting to see if they will do it again. I guess is they will.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 (edited) "Fault" implies definity. In this case, there is no definity. Lots of people to carry part of the blame. Frankly, probably everyone that does not live completely off the grid enjoys some part of the blame. IMO. Personally, I think that the last 40 years of congress and POTUS's, plus the regulators they all hired / appointed, plus Greenspan, plus the "compensation consultants" who promoted the current compensation struture on Wall Street (and most of the rest of corporate America), plus...you get the idea...are all far more to blame than Paulson or Bernanke. That seems to be an endictment or indictment (I never read what those papers say) of the system. Edited February 24, 2009 by Clubfoothead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Paulson didn't like Fuld (Lehmans' CEO) ... and ... Bear was the only Wall Street firm that didn't participate in the LTCM bail out in the late 1990s and Paulson was still pissed at Bear for that. Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 The last time the Government freaked and bailed them out..... It will be interesting to see if they will do it again. I guess is they will.... I would think they would....AIG manages either all or a significant portion of the civil service pension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 This is sick from CNBC..."AIG has pretty much lost more money in a quarter than any company has ever lost." Ouch...and we should continue to bail these people out, I guess? :slapshead: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 This is sick from CNBC..."AIG has pretty much lost more money in a quarter than any company has ever lost." Ouch...and we should continue to bail these people out, I guess? :slapshead: And let them have another lavish party afterwards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 And let them have another lavish party afterwards? They might invite you.....that would be fun.....right??? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.