Does anyone else think this commercial is totally out of touch and irritating to watch?
"We sold trillions of dollars in credit default swaps to any bank or hedge fund that wanted to buy them which led to the greatest economic collapse since the great depression. Now we're going to go on TV and thank the American people for the bailout Washington* gave us against the will of the American people while pretending we did nothing wrong and don't owe an apology to all the people who lost their job and house during the financial crisis we contributed to more than any other bank in the world."
*To any Republican who reads this, no, I'm not saying "Washington" to avoid blaming Obama or Democrats. I'm well aware Obama gave the bailout and hands out corporate welfare like candy, it just sounded better with "Washington" instead of "Obama and Congress," so don't turn the thread into how much Obama ed up. I'm well aware of it. This thread is about how out of touch and brazen this commercial seems, and whether or not other people have that reaction.
Saying Washington instead of Obama/Dems is pointless. Senile, emotionally unstable McLiar/pitbull would have done EXACTLY the same bailout of the financial sector (aka the 1% class the Repugs wars for againsy the 99%).
For the auto bailouts, I'm not so sure. The Repugs really want to prove the govt s up everything and must be destroyed, so McLiar/pitbull not bailing out GM/Chrysler would have been a huge Repug opportunity to deliver a govt up.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-05-2013 at 03:50 PM.
how come none of the oxymorons who cause the GFC went to jail?
them losing billions in dodgy schemes is no different to that clown who loss 70billion defrauding his clients..at the end of the day its still defrauding
Thank you America!
*btw, America, our lawyer would like a word with you.
(Reuters) - American International Group Inc , the insurer rescued by the U.S. government in 2008 with a bailout that ultimately totaled $182 billion, may now join a lawsuit against the government alleging the terms of the deal were unfair.
link
^ that's kind of like the guy in The Incredibles that sued Mr Incredible for saving his life during the suicide attempt
corporate bull at its finest
lol, corporate America at its finest.
I'm as disgusted and angry as the OP; and let's all be honest here....this subject has nothing to do with your political beliefs as much as it does our maliciously corrupt government system.
Like the sentiment in this thread already points out... the corporate marketing that is being displayed is insulting; as if the American public is so unintelligent that we don't realize their greed is unfathomable.
Imagine if a slave owner asked his slaves to help him pay his debts otherwise he may lose his land, then the slaves are forced to pay their master's debts, then the master doesn't free his slaves, but says 'hey thanks for bailing me out, but you are still my slave.'....this is essentially what has happened to us.
Get back to work slave.
Republicans and Democrats both support and love bailouts. That's how we roll in America. When a big company s up, we bail them out.
"corrupt government system."
ah, the old hate-govt distraction. Let's all concentrate on the corrupted exclusively so we all ignore the sacred, adored, untouchable corrupted corrupters.
Today, American International Group (A.I.G.) issued the following letter to American taxpayers.
Dear American Taxpayers:
In 2008, you paid for a bailout of A.I.G. totalling $182 billion. Today, we are writing to tell you that we’re thinking of suing you.
When we made this decision, we knew we were in for some rough treatment from the media. We’ve been called everything from soulless bloodsuckers to Satan’s scabrous handmaidens, and worse. At A.I.G., though, we have a different name for ourselves: true American heroes.
You see, by suing the same people who bailed out our asses just five years ago, we are standing up for one of the most precious American rights of all: the right to sue someone who has just saved your life.
Let’s say that you’re trapped in a burning building and a fireman pulls you out to safety. Once you’re out of the fire, though, you notice that the fireman carelessly ripped the lapel of your Armani jacket. Shouldn’t you be able to sue the fireman for the full cost of its replacement?
Or let’s say you’re drowning in the ocean. A lifeguard dives in, pulls you back onto the shore, and administers mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Aren’t you en led to take appropriate action—i.e., sue him for sexual harassment?
By suing you, we are standing up for the right of every other American who might, through no fault of his own, have his life saved and want to sue the person who saved him for millions of dollars. And that’s why we’re asking for your help today.
Lawsuits aren’t cheap. They require highly paid lawyers, who rack up millions in legal fees, not to mention first-class airfare, hotels, and sumptuous gourmet meals—hardly the kind of expense that we at A.I.G. can afford.
That’s why we’d like you to pay for it.
You may think we’re expecting a lot, asking you for the money necessary for us to sue you. But, remember, there’s a bigger principle at stake, and someday, if you’re pulled from a burning building or an ocean, you’ll be glad you stood with us today.
Oh, and as for our ad campaign, “Thank you, America”? We’re sticking with that, just changing the first word.
See you in court,
Your friends at A.I.G.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...itz%20%2868%29
iow, You, America (the standard corporate business practice)
AIG's board is considering joining Greenberg's/investors' suit.
Schadenfreude Alert: With or Without AIG’s Help, Hank Greenberg Plans to Torture Treasury and Geithner
Never underestimate the greed of a billionaire. But I have to say separately that I will thoroughly enjoy the pigfight between former AIG chief Hank Greenberg’s C.V. Starr (now the biggest shareholder in AIG) versus the Federal government over the rescue of AIG. Any cost and embarrassment that the Administration suffers will be the direct result of the Bush-Obama policies of being concerned only about saving financialplayers rather than meting out any punishments, and for being incompetent negotiators.
The flip side is the AIG directors and its CEO Benmosche have been consistently intransigent in their dealings with the government (see here and here, for instance); this is one of the few boards that might be loopy enough to sign up for Greenberg’s scheme.
And just imagine, if this goes to court, Boies will almost certainly seek to put Paulson, Geithner and Bernanke on the stand. I don’t see how Geithner, as a private citizen, could refuse; if Bernanke is reappointed, he might escape (judges tend to show some deference in calling top executives and officials to testify if less senior people have enough knowledge to appear in their place).
Put it another way: if you thought Geithner squirmed when Elizabeth Warren grilled him, you haven’t seen anything till Boies has a go at him. That alone is reason to look on this suit with more sympathy than it otherwise deserves: it will lead any successor bailouter in chief to be a lot more careful and demanding when he shovels out cash to wards of the state.
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/...qxfCvQYVxuf.99
Greenberg was pushed out of AIG Spitzer, the Sheriff of Wall St.
On March 15, 2005, AIG's board forced Greenberg to resign from his post as Chairman and CEO under the shadow of criticism from Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of the state of New York. On May 26, 2005, as part of a series of actions against the alleged criminal activities of large corporations, Spitzer filed a complaint against Greenberg, AIG, and Howard I. Smith (ex-CFO of AIG) alleging fraudulent business practice, securities fraud, common law fraud, and other violations of insurance and securities laws.[citation needed]
After a subsequent investigation, however, all criminal charges were dropped, and Greenberg was not held responsible for any crimes. The State Attorney General's office however is still pursuing Greenberg in civil court for many of these same criminal allegations. Greenberg settled on a $15 million fine for the accusations of fraudulent AIG financial positions.[citation needed]
Spitzer did, however, bring civil charges against Greenberg, though he dropped two of the six initial charges in September 2006.[11] Greenberg's attorney claimed vindication with the dropping of the two charges, but Spitzer's office maintained that the four remaining charges are the core of the State's original charges.[citation needed]
In November 2012, A Miami court dismissed Greenberg's claims that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York broke the fiduciary rights of AIG shareholders during the bailout rescue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_R._Greenberg
TheN Greenburg/Wall St got dubya/ head's DoJ/FBI to take down Spitzer.
Well that's pretty insulting to watch.
Too bad Lt. Dan didn't know about this.
Today, American International Group (A.I.G.) issued the following letter to American taxpayers.
Dear American Taxpayers:
In 2008, you paid for a bailout of A.I.G. totalling $182 billion. Today, we are writing to tell you that we’re thinking of suing you.
When we made this decision, we knew we were in for some rough treatment from the media. We’ve been called everything from soulless bloodsuckers to Satan’s scabrous handmaidens, and worse. At A.I.G., though, we have a different name for ourselves: true American heroes.
You see, by suing the same people who bailed out our asses just five years ago, we are standing up for one of the most precious American rights of all: the right to sue someone who has just saved your life.
Let’s say that you’re trapped in a burning building and a fireman pulls you out to safety. Once you’re out of the fire, though, you notice that the fireman carelessly ripped the lapel of your Armani jacket. Shouldn’t you be able to sue the fireman for the full cost of its replacement?
Or let’s say you’re drowning in the ocean. A lifeguard dives in, pulls you back onto the shore, and administers mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Aren’t you en led to take appropriate action—i.e., sue him for sexual harassment?
By suing you, we are standing up for the right of every other American who might, through no fault of his own, have his life saved and want to sue the person who saved him for millions of dollars. And that’s why we’re asking for your help today.
Lawsuits aren’t cheap. They require highly paid lawyers, who rack up millions in legal fees, not to mention first-class airfare, hotels, and sumptuous gourmet meals—hardly the kind of expense that we at A.I.G. can afford.
That’s why we’d like you to pay for it.
You may think we’re expecting a lot, asking you for the money necessary for us to sue you. But, remember, there’s a bigger principle at stake, and someday, if you’re pulled from a burning building or an ocean, you’ll be glad you stood with us today.
Oh, and as for our ad campaign, “Thank you, America”? We’re sticking with that, just changing the first word.
See you in court,
Your friends at A.I.G.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...itz%20%2868%29
iow, You, America (the standard corporate business practice)
Latest word on this is that the Board of Directors at AIG met today and heard a pitch from the former head of AIG, Greenberg, asking them to participate in HIS suit against the Federal Gov't. for $25B. The Board declined to participate. Greenberg is going ahead.
This, to me, is the very definition of the Jewish word, chutzpah.
Absolutely jaw-dropping arrogance.
Wouldn't you just love to be the judge who is the first to hear this pleading??
Ex-A.I.G. Chief Wins Bailout Suit, but Gets No Damages
Maurice R. Greenberg, the former chief executive of theAmerican International Group, prevailed in his lawsuit against the United States government on Monday, but a federal judge declined to award any damages.
The lawsuit, brought by Mr. Greenberg on behalf of himself and other A.I.G. shareholders, contended that the Federal Reserve overstepped its bounds when it bailed out the giant insurer in 2008, taking 79.9 percent of the company’s equity in the process. They argued that the Fed did not have the legal right to take the equity and effectively become its majority owner as a condition for the bailout.
Judge Thomas C. Wheeler of the United States Court of Federal Claims sided with Mr. Greenberg, who is still a large A.I.G. shareholder through his company Starr International. But at the same time, the judge ruled that Mr. Greenberg could not show that the shareholders were damaged by the seizure of the equity and therefore awarded no monetary judgment. Mr. Greenberg had been seeking nearly $40 billion in compensation.
Judge Wheeler wrote that the Fed’s action “cons uted an illegal exaction under the Fifth Amendment.”
“The Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Banks possessed the authority in a time of crisis to make emergency loans to distressed en ies such as A.I.G., but they did not have the legal right to become the owner of A.I.G.,” he wrote in his decision. “There is no law permitting the Federal Reserve to take over a company and run its business in the commercial world as consideration for a loan.”
The judge’s ruling also criticized the government for “unduly harsh treatment” of A.I.G. compared with other financial ins utions that were bailed out during the financial crisis.
However, when it came to assessing damages, Judge Wheeler ruled that he “must examine what would have happened to A.I.G. if the government had not intervened.”
“The inescapable conclusion is that A.I.G. would have filed for bankruptcy,” he wrote. “In that event, the value of the shareholders common stock would have been zero.”
Consequently, even though the government acted illegally, the shareholders, he wrote, were not en led to damages.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/bu...T.nav=top-news
chances the s bag will appeal?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-15-2015 at 01:27 PM.
that the OP thinks AIG is a bank.
In A.I.G. Case, Surprise Ruling That Could End All Bailouts
When the Federal Reserve propped up A.I.G. in September 2008, unlike its approach with most of the big banks, it threw out the company’s chief executive and took control of 79.9 percent of the company, nearly wiping out many of its shareholders. Taxpayers got all of their money back, and then some, receiving a profit of more than $20 billion.
The judge’s decision could have far-reaching consequences should another financial crisis occur — and if history is any guide, one will. Legal experts say that the ruling, coupled with certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law enacted after the crisis, makes it unlikely the government would ever rescue a failing ins ution, even if an intervention was warranted.
Should that happen, and the government decides it is handcuffed by the law from any intervention, taxpayers can thank Maurice Greenberg, the company’s former chief executive and one of its largest shareholders. He sued the government on behalf of shareholders, contending its takeover was illegal and unfair to investors.
The judge largely sided with Mr. Greenberg, confounding many legal experts who considered the case a long shot. A federal judge had previously thrown a companion case out of court, calling Mr. Greenberg’s accusations “worthy of an Oliver Stone movie.”
“Twenty percent of something [is] better than 100 percent of nothing.”
Inexplicably, that line of logic did not extend to the judge’s ruling that the government had unfairly taken advantage of A.I.G. by requiring tough loan terms, including the equity stake and a 12 percent interest rate.
“The court bizarrely expressed repeated sympathy for A.I.G. while failing to properly weigh the economic wreckage suffered by the American people,” Mr. Kelleher said in an email.
“It’s the U.S. taxpayers that have been victimized here by A.I.G. when it acted recklessly, precipitated the crash of the financial system, took a $185 billion bailout, and then gave bonuses to some of the very same people who irresponsibly sold the derivatives that blew up the company.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/bu...er=rss&emc=rss
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-16-2015 at 12:35 PM.
what?
Stealing in a nonviolent manner is considered mild mannered.
Even if you ruin older folk's lives by taking their pension.
Maybe if the criminals had to spend the rest of their lives doing dirty jobs in nursing homes and after proving they won't steal dentures, we can let em work the kitchen.
AIG wasn't a bank. It didn't package or sell the derivatives. It provided insurance for an annual fee from Goldman Sachs to make up the difference if the CDS's defaulted.
AIG wasn't a bank. It didn't package or sell the derivatives. It provided insurance for an annual fee from Goldman Sachs to make up the difference if the CDS's defaulted. In retrospect it was a dumb thing to do but at the time they thought it was a safe bet. I'm not defending them, just pointing out they weren't the ones packaging and selling the derivatives as the OP claimed. Basically AIG sold deeply out of the money put options to Goldman on their derivative transactions. In a crashing market you want to own puts and get ed if you sold puts. AIG got ed. At the very time they needed to raise money to cover their positions and ncreae collareral on their deals the market completely froze up.
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 06-16-2015 at 03:09 PM.
A CDS is an unregulated quasi-insurance. AIG's London subsidiary sold almost $400 billion worth of CDS.
A subsidiary of AIG wrote insurance in the form of credit default swaps, meaning it offered buyers insurance protection against losses on debts and loans of borrowers, to the tune of $447 billion.
https://moneymorning.com/2008/09/23/...fault-swaps-3/
What caused this crisis?
The predominant cause is that certain AIG member companies oversold a form of unregulated quasi-insurance called credit default swaps (“CDSs”) to banks, hedge funds, and other financial ins utions.
http://www.dgslaw.com/images/materials/DARG_867118.html
Insurance companies are required to keep a certain amount of liquidity to pay off the insured when a disaster strikes.
AIG should not have been allowed to sell insurance. Seems reasonable.
Oh , I forgot. Thats some sort of rule cooked up by a government, let the free market take care of it.
Sure thing.
Once a CDO debt pool is assembled, it is sliced into layers based on risk and return. Merrill sold the safest, or top layer, of deals like South Coast to large banks, including in Europe and Canada.
The banks wanted protection in case the housing market tanked. Many turned to Goldman, which effectively insured the securities against losses. Then, to cover its own potential losses, Goldman bought protection from AIG, in the form of credit-default swaps.
Goldman charged more than AIG for the protection, so it was able to pocket the difference, making millions while moving the default risks to AIG, according to people familiar with the trades.
The banks eventually realized they didn't need to use Goldman as a middleman.
The trades seemed prudent at the time given AIG's strong credit rating and the fact that AIG agreed to make payments to Goldman, known as collateral, if the value of the CDOs declined. The trades were also low risk for Goldman as long as AIG stayed afloat.
Other banks also acted as middlemen, including Merrill Lynch, which did roughly $6 billion of these deals compared to $14 billion for Goldman, according to people familiar with the trades and the analysis of banks' exposures to AIG.
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1...90453176996032
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
