Former Commish Kerik Cries During Court Appearance
Bloomberg Speaks Out On Anti-Hugging Cabbie
UWS Protests Puppy Mill Pups at Store
Teen Pulls BB Gun On Cops, Gets Shot In The Face
Yankees, Fans Revel In Ticker Tape Parade Frenzy
Last night, the federal government gave insurer AIG a new lease on life with an $85 billion loan--in exchange for a 79.9% stake in the company. The NY Times reports, "The decision, only two weeks after the Treasury took over the federally chartered mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is the most radical intervention in private business in the central bank’s history." As the Wall Street Journal noted, the Fed decided not to bail out Lehman Brothers, but "this time, the government decided AIG truly was too big to fail."
More details about the deal: The loan is a 2-year loan with a "rate of three-month Libor plus 850 basis points." AIG jobs and policies are expected not to be affected. AIG CEO Robert Willumstad will step down and Bloomberg News reports that retired Allstate CEO Edward Liddy will take over. You can read the Fed's statement here, which also reads: "The Board determined that, in current circumstances, a disorderly failure of AIG could add to already significant levels of financial market fragility and lead to substantially higher borrowing costs, reduced household wealth, and materially weaker economic performance. " (Many companies and individuals have at least "some exposure" with AIG.)
Governor David Paterson said, "This is good news for New York and great news for policy holders and employees around the world. Through a reorganization and further action, jobs will be saved, businesses will remain stable and certainly our financial recovery will be easier if not sooner.”
And a UBS credit analyst told Bloomberg News, "It's an enormous relief. Nobody really knows what it would have meant if they would have been allowed to fail, but there was an enormous amount of systemic risk. The problem was, nobody really knew how bad it could have been."
Here's a statement from AIG: "We believe the loan, which is backed by profitable, well-capitalized operating subsidiaries with substantial value, will protect all AIG policyholders, address rating agency concerns and give AIG the time necessary to conduct asset sales on an orderly basis. We expect that the proceeds of these sales will be sufficient to repay the loan in full and enable AIG’s businesses to continue as substantial participants in their respective markets. In return for providing this essential support, American taxpayers will receive a substantial majority ownership interest in AIG."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Our economy sucks (thanks Bush administration and your policies).
"American taxpayers will receive a substantial majority ownership interest in AIG"
so when should I expect my stock options...what a crock of shit. time to move to Canada...
BAILOUTS
Our government is there
For fat cats and the fatter,
Those deemed too big to fail,
While we're too small to matter.
So, Free Marketer Bush has nationalized an insurance company.
Damn commie.
When is he going distribute the wealth to the poor people?
You can't stop the dominoes from fallling. Wamu is next.
This sucks. The only thing that will make me feel any better is if some people are charged with high treason.
time to move to Canada...
The irony being that Canada's economy is largely based on selling natural resources to the United States. I guess they can switch to selling everything to China.
So you'd prefer one of the world's largest insurers to go bankrupt? Yes it is too big to fail and yes the government is right to move in to prevent even more chaos in the financial markets. This doesn't mean they will do the same for every company and they shouldn't, especially smaller banks that don't hold as much sway over the markets.
I love how the administration a few years ago recommended that we take social security and leave it to the people to invest in the market. Thank god that plan didn't go through.
actually, if it wasn't for Clinton allowing banks to take on mortgages, then the system would not have collapsed this badly.
Obviously certain things such as a war costing billions of dollars, and natural disasters (just wait until New Madrid suffers another earthquake) that nobody was adequately prepared for have only exacerbated the situation
It is unbelievable that AIG (the parent company) was allowed to guarantee all the exotic and risky structured products AIG Financial Products was involved in. This was a huge regulatory failure.
"So, Free Marketer Bush has nationalized an insurance company."
Actually, it was Paulson and Bernanke. It took 7 years, but Bush has finally realized he's in over his head.
shit! I have to take my money out of Wamu now!
"actually, if it wasn't for Clinton allowing banks to take on mortgages"
This was a bipartisan bill, written in part by McCain's economic advisor Phil Gramm, not a unilateral executive action as your statement implies.
#11, not to worry. The depression era president, one FDR,instituted something called FDIC so $100,000. of your fortune deposited in WaMU is safe. According to the Republicans of his time, he was a traitor to his class and possibly an agent of the Soviets.
bsalamon: i can't believe you pulled a "but clinton..." on this story.
This was a bipartisan bill, written in part by McCain's economic advisor Phil Gramm, not a unilateral executive action as your statement implies.
But Clinton is supposed to be some genius so he should have vetoed it.
Interesting how this is Bush's fault but the tech bubble is not Clinton's. Frankly, I think both of them are Wall Street's fault with Greenspan taking a close second and the bronze medal going to the GOP Congress deregulation.
Its everyone's fault as far as I'm concerned. Stop spending more money than you earn, stop over extending yourself, and limit your exposure to risk.
Thats a lesson the government, banking industry, and especially the American people need to learn.
But Clinton is supposed to be some genius so he should have vetoed it.
Interesting how this is Bush's fault but the tech bubble is not Clinton's. Frankly, I think both of them are Wall Street's fault with Greenspan taking a close second and the bronze medal going to the GOP Congress deregulation.
bingo.
Both parties are corrupt scum.
@mocanlagunas
the FDIC protects deposits the first $100,000 in any insured bank.
If you have more than 100K at WaMu (though I don't know why any one person would) do something about it now.
Wake up and smell the napalm; there ain't no free market and there never was, all we had is varying degrees of state capitalism.
AIG may have been saved by this move, but it is certainly borne by our expense, TANSTAAFL.
There is no such thing as too big to fail, only too small-minded people who never learned anything but the regurgitated crap that passes for mainstream econ in this sunsetting empire.
"Too big to fail" has no basis in economic reality; it's an emotional argument without grounding in practicality or ethics. If you care to learn a bit of economics, don't be afraid to visit the Ludvig von Mises Institute at www.mises.org
hopefully the good vibes in charlotte will keep wachovia open.
The Keynesian "spend yourself rich" attitude will continue to destroy this country. Its just that going forward the country/economy will degrade faster than it did before.
When people start going to jail, I'll believe things are getting better.
hey, I want to work for the .gov.
how bout getting me a job at AIG? best of both worlds. giant bonuses and govt days off.
the FDIC protects deposits the first $100,000 in any insured bank.
yes but the FDIC has $50 billion in capital available for this and it guarantees the deposits for $1 trillion. there is a good chance the FDIC will need a cash infusion if it gets too bad...which will be paid...once again...by the people.
the best thing would be to have let the shit hit the fan and make these crooks pay, but here comes uncle sam to the rescue to bail out the idiots. how exactly is this going to teach any lessons. now these knuckleheads will be right back at it. its like that college kid that keeps spending and spending cause he knows mommy and daddy will give him money when he fucks up.
told you it's like a big party to them.
smirking, sneering, giggling, all cliquish.
I'm stocking up on Pb like those returning from Hurricane Ike.
You know Antoine Isaiah Gibson of the 9th Ward in NewOrleans is wondering when the government is going to make out some AIG checks for him.
"Our economy sucks (thanks Bush administration and your policies)."
What are you talking about? McCain says our economy is in great shape. And surely he wouldn't lie to the American people. Right?
I wish I could get a fat government check for being so extraordinarily bad at my job that it puts the entire economy in danger.
Business 101. If you take risks and don't have enough money to pay back loans you go out of business.
"American taxpayers will receive a substantial majority ownership interest in AIG."
This means we all are all getting stock options then? What kind of ownership is the average guy getting??
McCain says our economy is in great shape.
He actually only said that if you stop the video tape and keep looping it like in Obama's latest ad. The sooner everyone realizes that Obama's campaign is as empty as McCain's the better we will be.
Not at all, East. He's repeated it many times, along with a redefinition of "fundamentals" to mean "workers".
Well, I don't know exactly what he meant by "fundamentals" the other day any more than you do but the clip Obama's camp is running is taken by truncating the following quote after the word strong:
"Our economy, I believe, still, the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times, so I promise you: We will never put America in this position again."
If that isn't Rovian politicking I don't know what is.
What exactly is your point anyway? He says "these are very, very difficult times" so calling him oblivious is nonsense. If you want to take issue with his policies then do so. On this we would probably agree although I would probably have a harsher view of Obama than you. All he seems capable of is taking verbal shots at McCain that rile up his audience wherever he is giving his stump speech. The crowds eat it up but when the New York Times runs a front page story August 17 titled "Seeing Tougher Race, Allies Ask Obama to Make 'Hope' Specific" it's time to stop wondering why the race is so close.
Thanks to US taxpayers, those tw*ts at Manchester United can continue to wear the AIG logo proudly on their jerseys. Now if only the Glazers can follow AIG's path to bankruptcy that would be sweet.
My point was that McCain has repeated his assertion several times. To claim it's being taken out of context is incorrect. McCain wants it both ways here.. he wants to play Reagan and say that everything's just fine, but he also has to acknowledge that there are problems. He somehow manages to fit these two opposing ideas into the same sentence.
Obama has been specific if you actually pay attention, or spend 10 seconds on his website. He has had a 30 page "blueprint for change" on his site for the last 7 months, and you're going to claim he isn't specific?
and you're going to claim he isn't specific?
It isn't just me which I why I mentioned the New York Times front page story August 17 titled "Seeing Tougher Race, Allies Ask Obama to Make 'Hope' Specific". When your own party is worried maybe it's time to change the strategy.
And I spent time on Obama's website and no, I don't think it is specific at all. But I laughed when you quoted "Blueprint for Change". He has said change so many times the word has lost all meaning. And thanks for the snarky and insulting attitude. I guess nobody is allowed to question St. Obama. But it doesn't matter if anyone questions him anyway. All he does is say "Change" and mention George W. Bush so many times you would think he is actually on the ballot.
But as for McCain, you haven't really made a point. He isn't saying everything is fine. What part of "these are very, very difficult times" do you not understand?
It was hyperbolic to claim McCain says everything is fine, but I did make a very explicit point: McCain is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
You seem to have latched onto the word "change" in my reply and ignored the fact I am referencing an actual document, not just a word. There are many, many specific proposals in the blueprint. It doesn't sound like you have even looked at it. You just saw that I used the word "change" and went off on a rant. Seems like my attitude was appropriate.
"American taxpayers will receive a substantial majority ownership interest in AIG."
George W's spokesperson admitted the AIG loans might never be repaid, it which case we will all have ownership of a worthless/dead company.
let me start by saying that i have no time for john mccain. but i don't think anybody on this site does so there is no need to beat that home.
eastriver you are absolutely correct. he is a master of making generalities. i see nothing that he offers except raising taxes on the rich and nationalizing health care. this way the government can be in charge of our mortgages, our insurance, our healthcare, what's next? just throw tax dollars at the problem, then they'll disappear...right?
i see nothing in this "blueprint" but him stating the obvious. he is a master of pointing out the problem while never specifically getting into how he is going to fix that problem.
ladies and gentlemen...i present to you...captain obvious!
I'm stocking up on Pb like those returning from Hurricane Ike.
Yeah, and what are you going to do with it? It's always big talk from you about how you love your ammo. You know, maybe if you didn't spend all your money on cheap Pb, you'd be able to afford some expensive Au.
Yea, I have no idea what "captain obvious" means. If your house is on fire, you focus on how to get out of it first. You don't sit around pontificating on what "evacuate" means. No three-peat for me. If any independent candidate had a chance of winning, I might consider it, but we know that will never happen.
As Phineas Gage points out in No End In Sight? topic elsewhere on this board:
Quit whining about the mental recession you damn liberals.
-- Sen. Gramm, senior economic advisor to Sen. McCain
Can't believe you're still mentioning the tech bubble EastRiver. What a joke!
A.I.G. insured particular types of securities held by counterparties around the world. They amounted to over $440 billion that would have been pure loss exposure to banks, especially in Europe. An A.I.G. collapse would have paralyzed the finacial system and meant certain panic and a depression. We may yet have both, but the Fed chose to be damned if they did stop it here.
And I'm totally freaking out that we've lost Bear, Merrill, Lehman, and now A.I.G. and yet that goddamned brain-dead car accident victim, WaMu still clings to lfe in its ICU bed. For god's sake, will someone unplug this piece of shit?