BREAKING NEWS: AIG will get a government bail-out....

#26
#26
oklavol said:
I don't think this is proper use of taxpayer money to bail out mismanaged private corporations. It's a very bad precedent. Not the right message to wall street.
Click to expand...

This is not a giveaway. This is a true loan, which will be repaid at a very high interest rate while shareholders' value is diluted to virtual worthlessness and management is wiped-out. I am not convinced of the rightness or wrongness of it, but I do think calling this a "bail out" is a real misnomer. The best description of this action that I have read so far is "controlled bankruptcy". The loan allows AiG to operate long enough that it can sell off its subsidiaries for value instead of allowing a bunch of vultures (probably mostly foriegners) to gobble up the subsidiaries on the cheap as Barclay's has done with the best pieces of Lehman.
 
#27
#27
oklavol said:
I don't think this is proper use of taxpayer money to bail out mismanaged private corporations. It's a very bad precedent. Not the right message to wall street.
Click to expand...

But it is ok to use taxpayer money to bail out private citizens who have mismanaged their lives?
 
#28
#28
oklavol said:
I don't think this is proper use of taxpayer money to bail out mismanaged private corporations. It's a very bad precedent. Not the right message to wall street.
Click to expand...

You obviously dont have any of your retirement money/insurance with AIG

If they went bk people who invested their retirement $ in AIG annuities would be wiped out. Whole Life cash value policies would be wiped out, Term policies worthless. If you got hit by someone who has AIG car insurance, They+You would not be covered. Let not mention the fact that they insured bonds too, the devastation would be on a massive/global scale

The shareholders (which include you and me if you own any MutualFunds) got wiped out... How much more pain do you want inflicted??
 
#29
#29
oklavol said:
I don't think this is proper use of taxpayer money to bail out mismanaged private corporations. It's a very bad precedent. Not the right message to wall street.
Click to expand...

the treasury got 80% of the company. I bet you $100 they make money off this deal.
 
#30
#30
droski said:
the treasury got 80% of the company. I bet you $100 they make money off this deal.
Click to expand...

I guess that is the part that baffles me and makes me wonder where there will be any residual for the preferred stock shareholders. I admit I am not a finance guy. If you feel like taking the time to expound on the subject I am happy to read.
 
#31
#31
VolsNSkinsFan said:
You obviously dont have any of your retirement money/insurance with AIG

If they went bk people who invested their retirement $ in AIG annuities would be wiped out. Whole Life cash value policies would be wiped out, Term policies worthless. If you got hit by someone who has AIG car insurance, They+You would not be covered. Let not mention the fact that they insured bonds too, the devastation would be on a massive/global scale

The shareholders (which include you and me if you own any MutualFunds) got wiped out... How much more pain do you want inflicted??
Click to expand...

It's not the government's role to support private businesses when they stuggle. That's socialism.

What makes this business so worthy of a govt bailout, when the other businesses that fail every year aren't?
 
#32
#32
oklavol said:
It's not the government's role to bail private businesses when they stuggle. That's socialism.
Click to expand...

So you think people who have their retirement money tied up with them should lose it as well?
 
#33
#33
KB5252 said:
But it is ok to use taxpayer money to bail out private citizens who have mismanaged their lives?
Click to expand...

Who has ever said they are in favor of taxpayer money to bail out private citizens for mismanaging their money? I haven't.
 
#34
#34
KB5252 said:
So you think people who have their retirement money tied up with them should lose it as well?
Click to expand...

Yeah, they took the risk they get the reward or the loss. Everyone knows there aren't any guarantees when you invest. Apparently these were all guaranteed by the govt now so there was no risk.
 
#35
#35
oklavol said:
Who has ever said they are in favor of taxpayer money to bail out private citizens for mismanaging their money? I haven't.
Click to expand...

But your candidate for president wants to give tax money to many people who pay nothing in. It just seems to me that you are being a little hypocritical here.

Obama claims there are people out there who need help and he plans on giving it to them when they haven't worked for it. What is the difference here?
 
#36
#36
oklavol said:
Yeah, they took the risk they get the reward or the loss. Everyone knows there aren't any guarantees when you invest. Apparently these were all guaranteed by the govt now so there was no risk.
Click to expand...

Well in a large part liberal policies with other peoples money is what has caused this chain of events to happen.
 
#37
#37
KB5252 said:
But your candidate for president wants to give tax money to many people who pay nothing in. It just seems to me that you are being a little hypocritical here.

Obama claims there are people out there who need help and he plans on giving it to them when they haven't worked for it. What is the difference here?
Click to expand...

My candidate? When did I ever say he was my candidate. His social programs are a joke.
 
#38
#38
oklavol said:
My candidate? When did I ever say he was my candidate. His social programs are a joke.
Click to expand...

My apologies then, the impression I got from some of your posts led me to think that. I assumed and I'm sure you know the rest.:hi:
 
#39
#39
KB5252 said:
Well in a large part liberal policies with other peoples money is what has caused this chain of events to happen.
Click to expand...

The Republicans have held the majority in the house and the senate for 6 of the last 8 years and the white house for the last 8.

The democrats dont get money from big businesses to finance their campaigns the way Republicans do. They were the ones in favor of deregulation to make it easier for Wall Street to profit. But there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides.
 
Last edited:
#40
#40
oklavol said:
The Republicans have held the majority in the house and the senate for 6 of the last 8 years and the white house for the last 8.

The democrats dont get money from big businesses to finance their campaigns the way Republicans do. They were the ones in favor of deregulation to make it easier for Wall Street to profit. But there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Even the repubs lately have been very liberal with money and that is the reason they lost so many seats.
 
#41
#41
KB5252 said:
My apologies then, the impression I got from some of your posts led me to think that. I assumed and I'm sure you know the rest.:hi:
Click to expand...

I defend him, but his social programs, his spending programs are indefensible. They are a joke. He's not a good candidate IMO.
 
#42
#42
VolunteerHillbilly said:
I guess that is the part that baffles me and makes me wonder where there will be any residual for the preferred stock shareholders. I admit I am not a finance guy. If you feel like taking the time to expound on the subject I am happy to read.
Click to expand...

there's recovery value in the preferreds as long as they remain outstanding and the company recovers. My guess is they don't pay the common dividend going forward. They haven't ruled on the preferred dividend, but I'd think they'd want to pay that. But I thought they'd pay the preferreds with fannie and freddie too. . .
 
#43
#43
oklavol said:
The democrats dont get money from big businesses to finance their campaigns the way Republicans do. They were the ones in favor of deregulation to make it easier for Wall Street to profit. But there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides.
Click to expand...

That is 100% WRONG

McCain and Obama target, accept funds from Wall Street bankers - Tampa Bay Business Journal:

Obama has taken a total of $14 million, while McCain has taken in $10.2 million.

Investment firms have donated $9.9 million to Obama and $6.9 million to McCain this campaign thus far, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Commercial banks have given Obama $2.1 million and McCain $1.9 million. Private equity firms and hedge funds have given Obama $2 million and McCain $1.4 million, according to CFRP.
Click to expand...
 
#44
#44
oklavol said:
The democrats dont get money from big businesses to finance their campaigns the way Republicans do.

Republicans may have They were the ones in favor of deregulation to make it easier for Wall Street to profit. But there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides.
Click to expand...

That's not true of Dems in general -- at least not since 2006 when Big Business realized they would control Congress. I do agree that McCain is more reliant on Big Business and lobbyists than the Obama campaign.

As far as regulation, Reps always want less. Dems always want more. Looks like Dems will probably benefit from this fiasco since McCain can't seem to string together more than three coherent words about the economy.

This is where Romney could've helped McCain -- although I'm sure Palin is more than making up for it based on her energy expertise.
 
#45
#45
oklavol said:
Yeah, they took the risk they get the reward or the loss. Everyone knows there aren't any guarantees when you invest. Apparently these were all guaranteed by the govt now so there was no risk.
Click to expand...

How would you feel if you took your 401k retirement money and bought a "guaranteed" annuity so that you could have income for your retirement, and one day you woke up and that Annuity no longer existed and your money is gone. People buy annuities because they are safe investments. This is much different from Enron and people who lost everything because they had all their $$ in Enron stock.

This isnt Sam and Andys on the strip going out of business, this is a DOW component and millions would be crushed
 
#47
#47
VolsNSkinsFan said:
How would you feel if you took your 401k retirement money and bought a "guaranteed" annuity so that you could have income for your retirement, and one day you woke up and that Annuity no longer existed and your money is gone. People buy annuities because they are safe investments.
Click to expand...

It wasn't guaranteed it was an investment. You want guaranteed put your money in a bank CD they are guaranteed, annuities arent (but they are now apparently).
 
#48
#48
VolsNSkinsFan said:
How would you feel if you took your 401k retirement money and bought a "guaranteed" annuity so that you could have income for your retirement, and one day you woke up and that Annuity no longer existed and your money is gone. People buy annuities because they are safe investments. This is much different from Enron and people who lost everything because they had all their $$ in Enron stock.

This isnt Sam and Andys on the strip going out of business, this is a DOW component and millions would be crushed
Click to expand...
This is a pretty gross exaggeration.

The enron situation was about the equity value of the company going to zero. Here you're implying that actual assets and liabilities of the company go to zero, which would not have been the case.
 
#49
#49
oklavol said:
It wasn't guaranteed it was an investment. You want guaranteed put your money in a bank CD they are guaranteed, annuities arent (but they are now apparently).
Click to expand...

I could take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, but all you'd be buying is a guaranteed POS. (sorry, i was open)
 
#50
#50
Banks are guaranteed, investments aren't.

You want your money guaranteed you put it in a bank. You want a higher return then you invest, but you also accept the risk (or at least you use to).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top