AIG exec resignation letter

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707They didn't stop a depression; they postponed it and made it significantly worse than it otherwise would have been.

so you want to have a depression now?

a. let AIG fail now = 90% chance we go depression

b. let AIG fail when economy get better = 60% chance go depression

I take b

 

[nullzero]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: AreaCode707They didn't stop a depression; they postponed it and made it significantly worse than it otherwise would have been.

so you want to have a depression now?

a. let AIG fail now = 90% chance we go depression

b. let AIG fail when economy get better = 60% chance go depression

I take b

It does not matter if AIG fails or not we still go into a depression. You can not avoid the law of mathematics and magically make the trillions in losses disappear. The debt will need to be defaulted on either by bankruptcy or inflation. Someone is going to take the loss be it the tax payer, private sector, foreigners, etc.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: AreaCode707They didn't stop a depression; they postponed it and made it significantly worse than it otherwise would have been.

so you want to have a depression now?

a. let AIG fail now = 90% chance we go depression

b. let AIG fail when economy get better = 60% chance go depression

I take b

The problem is that we are making the economy worse the more we babysit AIG. There will be no better economy while we drain the taxpayers to prop it up; that's a Ponzi scheme that ultimately is doomed to fail. So our real choices are:

a. let AIG fail now = 100% chance we go depression for 2 years

b. let AIG fail in a year = 100% chance go depression for 4 years

c. let AIG fail in a year = 100% chance go depression for 6 years

etc.

The numbers are hypothetical here, but that is a certain trend.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
so you want to have a depression now?

a. let AIG fail now = 90% chance we go depression

b. let AIG fail when economy get better = 60% chance go depression

I take b

The problem is that we are making the economy worse the more we babysit AIG. There will be no better economy while we drain the taxpayers to prop it up; that's a Ponzi scheme that ultimately is doomed to fail. So our real choices are:

a. let AIG fail now = 100% chance we go depression for 2 years

b. let AIG fail in a year = 100% chance go depression for 4 years

c. let AIG fail in a year = 100% chance go depression for 6 years

etc.

The numbers are hypothetical here, but that is a certain trend.

dumbest statement ever.... almost nothing in the world is 100%, as long as there is a chance, we gonna fight to not go into depression.

prediction: 50% chance go into depressiion

50% is the highest I've read... some say 25% chance.

please stop your bs.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
so you want to have a depression now?

a. let AIG fail now = 90% chance we go depression

b. let AIG fail when economy get better = 60% chance go depression

I take b

The problem is that we are making the economy worse the more we babysit AIG. There will be no better economy while we drain the taxpayers to prop it up; that's a Ponzi scheme that ultimately is doomed to fail. So our real choices are:

a. let AIG fail now = 100% chance we go depression for 2 years

b. let AIG fail in a year = 100% chance go depression for 4 years

c. let AIG fail in a year = 100% chance go depression for 6 years

etc.

The numbers are hypothetical here, but that is a certain trend.

dumbest statement ever.... almost nothing in the world is 100%, as long as there is a chance, we gonna fight to not go into depression.

prediction: 50% chance go into depressiion

50% is the highest I've read... some say 25% chance.

please stop your bs.

I used hypothetical numbers the same way you did, and I pointed that out in my post. If you've read chances are no higher than 50%, why did you say 90% in your post? Because we're having a forum discussion.

Do you see my point though? The Ponzi scheme method of propping up AIG isn't "waiting for the ecomony to get better", it's actively making the economy worse. The longer we wait for AIG to fail, the weaker our economy becomes and worse the impact of failure is.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: AreaCode707They didn't stop a depression; they postponed it and made it significantly worse than it otherwise would have been.

so you want to have a depression now?

a. let AIG fail now = 90% chance we go depression

b. let AIG fail when economy get better = 60% chance go depression

I take b

You left out 'with trillions less debt' on plan A.

The Great Depression had a lot of foolish (private) cash injection that postponed it. We should not make the same mistake.

I'm not saying we are - I'm saying that we shouldn't, and some people think we are.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
so you want to have a depression now?

a. let AIG fail now = 90% chance we go depression

b. let AIG fail when economy get better = 60% chance go depression

I take b

The problem is that we are making the economy worse the more we babysit AIG. There will be no better economy while we drain the taxpayers to prop it up; that's a Ponzi scheme that ultimately is doomed to fail. So our real choices are:

a. let AIG fail now = 100% chance we go depression for 2 years

b. let AIG fail in a year = 100% chance go depression for 4 years

c. let AIG fail in a year = 100% chance go depression for 6 years

etc.

The numbers are hypothetical here, but that is a certain trend.

dumbest statement ever.... almost nothing in the world is 100%, as long as there is a chance, we gonna fight to not go into depression.

prediction: 50% chance go into depressiion

50% is the highest I've read... some say 25% chance.

please stop your bs.

I used hypothetical numbers the same way you did, and I pointed that out in my post. If you've read chances are no higher than 50%, why did you say 90% in your post? Because we're having a forum discussion.

Do you see my point though? The Ponzi scheme method of propping up AIG isn't "waiting for the ecomony to get better", it's actively making the economy worse. The longer we wait for AIG to fail, the weaker our economy becomes and worse the impact of failure is.

90% if we just let AIG fail now.

50% is if we hold on to AIG.

where did you get your 100% crap from ?

 

[Fern]

IMO, nobody has ever explained/justified this whole "OMGz! if AIG fails it'll cause a depression' stuff.

When I read articles about it, what it comes down to is a lot people/governments having their insurance cancelled.

I'm sure we can figure a way around that problem. As it stands now, people have been having their insurance cancelled for along time. You just need a notification period so you can sign up with another company. So, we could've held them around long enough to issue notifications then shut them down.

I also suspect that the policies could be 're-sold' to another insurer, they take the policies over. If not one-by-one the government could have probably just taken over the whole thing as a pool and turned around and reinsured it. Then outsource payments receipts and claims handling etc elsewhere.

Insurance companies have gone bankrupt before and it wasn't the end of the world.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
IMO, nobody has ever explained/jusrified this whole "OMGz! if AIG fails it'll cause a depression' stuff.

When I read articles about it, what it comes down to is a lot people/governments having their insurance cancelled.

I'm sure we can figure a way around that problem. As it stands now, people have been having their insurance cancelled for along time. You just need a notification period so you can sign up with another company. So, we could've held them around long enough to issue notifications then shut them down.

I also suspect that the policies could be 're-sold' to another insurer, they take the policies over. If not one-by-one the government could have probably just taken over the whole thing as a pool and turned around and reinsured it. Then outsource payments receipts and claims handling etc elsewhere.

Insurance companies have gone bankrupt before and it wasn't th eend of the world.

Fern

Read 'The Shock Doctrine'. It explains how these crises, sometimes manufactured and sometimes real, are used as 'opportunities' to push through policies normally taboo.

The Bush administration used 'there will be a catastrophic terrorist attack - we don't want the first warning to be a mushroom cloud' to say 'let us do what we want'.

It's not to say that there wouldn't be massive disruption in the financial sector, but there is obviously a massive transfer of the few dollars the middle class has left ot the wealthy.

That'll seem non-intuitive given that the stock crash has hurt the wealthy (with paper losses), but if you look at this in terms of long-term share of the wealth instead of simply the Dow-Jones, it becomes clearer that the labor market is greatly harmed, the bubble of Middle Class wealth in housing has been depleted, and 'cash is king' benefits the wealthy, who can acquire assets.

Reversing the FDR-started period of a healthy middle class to return to a society where the masses have less requires taking their money, and that's what's happening, in part.

'Thank you for borrowing so much, personally for many of you and through your share of the national debt for everyone, and helping to undo the strong middle class.'

It's not the rich who have to sell low in a crisis, they can wait it out (and buy low). It's the middle class who does.

What a great idea, though, to prevent the public from using its vote to go after the wealthy stockholders, by giving them a small percent share in the market, so the public will vote for policies favoring the stockholders - even though the top 1% own well over half of the stocks.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
so you want to have a depression now?

a. let AIG fail now = 90% chance we go depression

b. let AIG fail when economy get better = 60% chance go depression

I take b

The problem is that we are making the economy worse the more we babysit AIG. There will be no better economy while we drain the taxpayers to prop it up; that's a Ponzi scheme that ultimately is doomed to fail. So our real choices are:

a. let AIG fail now = 100% chance we go depression for 2 years

b. let AIG fail in a year = 100% chance go depression for 4 years

c. let AIG fail in a year = 100% chance go depression for 6 years

etc.

The numbers are hypothetical here, but that is a certain trend.

dumbest statement ever.... almost nothing in the world is 100%, as long as there is a chance, we gonna fight to not go into depression.

prediction: 50% chance go into depressiion

50% is the highest I've read... some say 25% chance.

please stop your bs.

I used hypothetical numbers the same way you did, and I pointed that out in my post. If you've read chances are no higher than 50%, why did you say 90% in your post? Because we're having a forum discussion.

Do you see my point though? The Ponzi scheme method of propping up AIG isn't "waiting for the ecomony to get better", it's actively making the economy worse. The longer we wait for AIG to fail, the weaker our economy becomes and worse the impact of failure is.

90% if we just let AIG fail now.

50% is if we hold on to AIG.

where did you get your 100% crap from ?

Dude, I said IN the post, and AFTER the post, that those were hypothetical numbers and it was clear I was using them to make my point. You appear to have no argument with my actual point so you want to accuse me of making up numbers, which I admitted to when I posted! Either rebut me, admit I'm right or get out of the thread. We've had a relatively intelligent discussion about it thus far. Give me your counter argument so we can keep it going.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

I guess some didn't read the part that he agreed to work for a huge dollar amount bonus - not a dollar. Just like many of us, he gambled and lost. He should take comfort in knowing that there have to be Losers in order for there to be Winners. Life is unfair that way and freedom is, of course, untidy.

Most losers disappear into anonymity. They aren't tarred and feathered by elected officials.

"Yawn" . The sense of entitlement some of these Wall Streeters crave....There you have it: hedging and speculation, baby.

I may have some sympathy for DeSantis. if he speaks the truth. He says he didn't engage in any credit default swaps nonsense. He says his business unit was "consistently profitable" for the company, that he was working for a $1 annual salary, and that he's been spending "10, 12, 14 hours a day" trying to save the company. He even lost "a significant portion" of his life savings and "personally suffered from AIG's controversial activity -directly and indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers." He was repeatedly promised a gargantuan bonus in exchange for these hardships, and now his employer has abandoned him and attorneys in general are demagoguing him. So he's washing his hands of the whole thing.

What he doesn't understand is that the rage that's been aimed at him and his colleagues isn't just about the money and the failure - it's about the vast and bottomless sense of entitlement that well-heeled Wall Streeters can't seem to shake. When he describes the AIG retention contracts as "ethical and useful," and when he compares himself to a "plumber" being "cheated" of his payment because an electrician burned down the house, he seems to be discovering for the first time that life is not fair. Also, he fails to understand that in this case, the humble plumber works for the electrician who burned down our house.

Most people who earn less than $700,000 a year have understood for some time that life is not fair. It's a hard lesson to learn, and it's generally a good idea to speak out in the face injustices large and small. But when the economy is cratering because of the company you work for, and unemployment is heading to double digits, to complain about how hard you work and make a show of being wealthy enough to turn away $742,000 is not the note you want to hit. You are not a plumber, Mr. DeSantis. You are a fabulously wealthy and fortunate man, and you ought to appreciate that and give your money away, if that's what you want to do, without aggrandizing & grandstanding yourself in the process.

Thanks BMW for a well said post.

Who in their right mind would work for a $1 salary?? For a company when, at the time, all the rats were fleeing the ship?!

A smarter executive would have demanded more money up front, would have established a regular and well compensated salary, and would not have put all his eggs into a "bonus" basket that was ohhhh so close to being the governments basket.

They (these executives) all banked on "business as usual" and quite frankly that is what bit him and his associates in the ass.

feel sorry for them? no thanks.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

I guess some didn't read the part that he agreed to work for a huge dollar amount bonus - not a dollar. Just like many of us, he gambled and lost. He should take comfort in knowing that there have to be Losers in order for there to be Winners. Life is unfair that way and freedom is, of course, untidy.

Most losers disappear into anonymity. They aren't tarred and feathered by elected officials.

"Yawn" . The sense of entitlement some of these Wall Streeters crave....There you have it: hedging and speculation, baby.

I may have some sympathy for DeSantis. if he speaks the truth. He says he didn't engage in any credit default swaps nonsense. He says his business unit was "consistently profitable" for the company, that he was working for a $1 annual salary, and that he's been spending "10, 12, 14 hours a day" trying to save the company. He even lost "a significant portion" of his life savings and "personally suffered from AIG's controversial activity -directly and indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers." He was repeatedly promised a gargantuan bonus in exchange for these hardships, and now his employer has abandoned him and attorneys in general are demagoguing him. So he's washing his hands of the whole thing.

What he doesn't understand is that the rage that's been aimed at him and his colleagues isn't just about the money and the failure - it's about the vast and bottomless sense of entitlement that well-heeled Wall Streeters can't seem to shake. When he describes the AIG retention contracts as "ethical and useful," and when he compares himself to a "plumber" being "cheated" of his payment because an electrician burned down the house, he seems to be discovering for the first time that life is not fair. Also, he fails to understand that in this case, the humble plumber works for the electrician who burned down our house.

Most people who earn less than $700,000 a year have understood for some time that life is not fair. It's a hard lesson to learn, and it's generally a good idea to speak out in the face injustices large and small. But when the economy is cratering because of the company you work for, and unemployment is heading to double digits, to complain about how hard you work and make a show of being wealthy enough to turn away $742,000 is not the note you want to hit. You are not a plumber, Mr. DeSantis. You are a fabulously wealthy and fortunate man, and you ought to appreciate that and give your money away, if that's what you want to do, without aggrandizing & grandstanding yourself in the process.

Please go grab a dictionary and figure out the difference between entitlement and a contract. Please tell me you understand in business law that a contract =/= some gamble for salary. And please tell me how you figure an Exec VP of commodity/equity "works for" people in credit default swap that made most of the AIG mess.

You and the rest of mob are the ones who need to understand that life is not fair. It takes people with special experience and knowledge to do some very specific task, to manage the mess that is AIG. And those people with those skill comes in big price tag and 1+million salary is nothing in Financial firms when ONE TRANSACTION can be hundreds of million.

It is already very difficult to run a company like AIG, and if you people actually spend one day in a financial firm that is being restructured, you'd know it's 100x harder.

US as a country decided to bailout/restructure AIG, and you better stick to your decision. What's worse than a wrong decision is a half assed effort that accomplished nothing and wasted all the money and effort put in. What's happenning now with AIG is this half assed effort with mob calling for fairness/justice while having no idea what it takes to get the job done. All I can say is good luck to America. Don't point fingers at the government when you lose your super power status, you only have yourself to blame.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: AreaCode707They didn't stop a depression; they postponed it and made it significantly worse than it otherwise would have been.

so you want to have a depression now?

a. let AIG fail now = 90% chance we go depression

b. let AIG fail when economy get better = 60% chance go depression

I take b

It doesn't matter to give AIG money is the equivalent of giving into terrorist demands. All it will do is encourage AIG to ask for more money along with the rest of the scum on wall street.

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
pathetic.

$742,006.40 is not a payment from A.I.G, its a payment from us. Its not "donated", its giving back rightfully.

we really need to hang these dumb ass AIG execs.

 

[her209]

/playing smallest violin in the world

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Fern
IMO, nobody has ever explained/justified this whole "OMGz! if AIG fails it'll cause a depression' stuff.

When I read articles about it, what it comes down to is a lot people/governments having their insurance cancelled.

I'm sure we can figure a way around that problem. As it stands now, people have been having their insurance cancelled for along time. You just need a notification period so you can sign up with another company. So, we could've held them around long enough to issue notifications then shut them down.

I also suspect that the policies could be 're-sold' to another insurer, they take the policies over. If not one-by-one the government could have probably just taken over the whole thing as a pool and turned around and reinsured it. Then outsource payments receipts and claims handling etc elsewhere.

Insurance companies have gone bankrupt before and it wasn't the end of the world.

Fern

It actually has to do with credit default swaps and screwing companies that thought they were insured vs the housing market. I don't really care though. AIG should be allowed to fail. I'm tired of hearing their whiny executives begging for US tax dollars.

 

[z0mb13]

I see a lot of jealousy for these wall street people.
IMO most of them deserve the bonuses that they make. Granted some of them are really overpaid (10mill or more bonus a year is just recockculous), but the majority are not
These people are creme of the crop. If you think that their skills are easily replaceable, why don't you just go to NY and try to get their jobs at 10% of what they are making?
Oh yeah you can't, you don't have the skills nor the experience.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: z0mb13
I see a lot of jealousy for these wall street people.
IMO most of them deserve the bonuses that they make. Granted some of them are really overpaid (10mill or more bonus a year is just recockculous), but the majority are not
These people are creme of the crop. If you think that their skills are easily replaceable, why don't you just go to NY and try to get their jobs at 10% of what they are making?
Oh yeah you can't, you don't have the skills nor the experience.

Thats why every company had to take a bailout from the US government? If Uncle Sam hadn't rescued AIG, companies like Goldman Sachs would be in hot water(It stood to lose 13 billion if AIG failed). The government should stay out of the financial markets and retroactively reclaim all bailout funds including the billions that were funneled to JP Morgan and Goldman through AIG.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Read 'The Shock Doctrine'. It explains how these crises, sometimes manufactured and sometimes real, are used as 'opportunities' to push through policies normally taboo.

The Bush administration used 'there will be a catastrophic terrorist attack - we don't want the first warning to be a mushroom cloud' to say 'let us do what we want'.

""Never let a serious crisis go to waste...it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

-Rom Emmanuel

 

[nullzero]

Let these bastards like AIG fail already and have the government come in and fund the opening of new institutions that can be sold off to the public in a stock offering.

 

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: z0mb13
I see a lot of jealousy for these wall street people.
IMO most of them deserve the bonuses that they make. Granted some of them are really overpaid (10mill or more bonus a year is just recockculous), but the majority are not
These people are creme of the crop. If you think that their skills are easily replaceable, why don't you just go to NY and try to get their jobs at 10% of what they are making?
Oh yeah you can't, you don't have the skills nor the experience.

Thats why every company had to take a bailout from the US government? If Uncle Sam hadn't rescued AIG, companies like Goldman Sachs would be in hot water(It stood to lose 13 billion if AIG failed). The government should stay out of the financial markets and retroactively reclaim all bailout funds including the billions that were funneled to JP Morgan and Goldman through AIG.

actually I just read an article that Goldman was fully covered on their AIG position. So their loss would be immaterial.
I am beginning to think Goldman has a crystal ball somewhere in their office...

Also AIG is actually a solid and profitable company. Only one trading arm was responsible for this, and the people working there are rightfully gone. This is a classic case of blaming the whole population for the action of some individuals.

 

[LTC8K6]

Fire them? No, hire them!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...s-an-aig-board-member/

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Fire them? No, hire them!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...s-an-aig-board-member/

Damn, not just any board, right on the Financial Products board!:laugh:

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Fire them? No, hire them!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...s-an-aig-board-member/

Damn, not just any board, right on the Financial Products board!:laugh:

I believe they only have ONE BoD for the whole company.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Fern
IMO, nobody has ever explained/justified this whole "OMGz! if AIG fails it'll cause a depression' stuff.

When I read articles about it, what it comes down to is a lot people/governments having their insurance cancelled.

I'm sure we can figure a way around that problem. As it stands now, people have been having their insurance cancelled for along time. You just need a notification period so you can sign up with another company. So, we could've held them around long enough to issue notifications then shut them down.

I also suspect that the policies could be 're-sold' to another insurer, they take the policies over. If not one-by-one the government could have probably just taken over the whole thing as a pool and turned around and reinsured it. Then outsource payments receipts and claims handling etc elsewhere.

Insurance companies have gone bankrupt before and it wasn't the end of the world.

Fern

It actually has to do with credit default swaps and screwing companies that thought they were insured vs the housing market. I don't really care though. AIG should be allowed to fail. I'm tired of hearing their whiny executives begging for US tax dollars.

Exactly. Letting AIG fail would cause it to need to pay investors who are long CDS against them -- which of course, AIG can't do with $1.6 trillion in short exposure. Hence, the long investors would be forced to take significantly less than 100 cents on the dollar for protection which they no doubt have hedged the other way on their books...it would create a cascading effect and more global losses.

That's the real problem. But conceptually I agree, let them fail. If the global foundation is that shaky, just burn the darn thing down to the most solid blocks and rebuild from there. The bailouts are just going to delay the inevitable anyway IMO.