• 📚 A new project from the admin: Check out PictureBooks.io, an AI storyteller that lets you create personalized picture books for kids in seconds. Give it a try and let me know what you think!

AIG Needs Another Bailout

Godwynn

March to the Sea
Joined
May 17, 2003
Messages
20,524
Is this number 3 or 4? I lost count...

All Aboard The Failboat

After all the money AIG's had shoveled at it, why does it need another $10 billion? Because, as the Wall Street Journal reports, the money its gotten from the government are supposed to pay off its bad CDS bets -- essentially, the money went to retiring the underlying CDO --- but it's also stuck $10 billion on what were just bad bets, not necessarily designed to help clients manage risk.

The $10 billion in other IOUs stems from market wagers that weren't contracts to protect securities held by banks or other investors against default. Rather, they are from AIG's exposures to speculative investments, which were essentially bets on the performance of bundles of derivatives linked to subprime mortgages, commercial real-estate bonds and corporate bonds.

These bets aren't covered by the pool to buy troubled securities, and many of these bets have lost value during the past few weeks, triggering more collateral calls from its counterparties. Some of AIG's speculative bets were tied to a group of collateralized debt obligations named "Abacus," created by Goldman Sachs.

Let them fall? Keep throwing money at them?
 
Letting them fail guarantees the government loses 100B+ wouldn't it?
 
Letting them fail guarantees the government loses 100B+ wouldn't it?

Are you talking about the money we have already given to them?

I don't know if the saying about throwing good money after bad applies here.
 
Are you talking about the money we have already given to them?

Yeah. If AIG goes under, then that 80% stake is worth nothing.

I don't know if the saying about throwing good money after bad applies here.

I don't either. :dunno: Not throwing 10B (or more likely, 5-7B and they asked for 10) might guarantee a fail. But throwing the money might might not prevent a fail. Someone who actually studies this stuff needs to weigh in. The government should be protecting its own interests and if that means a few more billion... then do it. Hopefully AIG will be worth enough to resell down the line.

Oh and I blame Clinton. :mischief:
 
The WSJ article (or the first few sentences that I can read w/o a sub) says that AIG did not tell investors nor the government about these apparently naked bets. Now they've been caught with their pants down. How much further can this analogy go, I wonder?
 
Nationalization. What a wonderful phrase!
Nationalization. It ain't no passing craze!
It means no (financial) worries for the rest of your days
It's our bailout-free, philosophy
Nationalization

Well, the market cap of AIG is only $4.75 billion...
 
I don't know what that means, but why are we throwing ten times that amount into it?

We can buy the entire company for half of that $10 billion amount. Then the liabilities would become the responsibility of the United States government, as well as it's operations.

Right off hand it seems like we are paying AIG's liabilities, even though for the past twenty years its profits have gone to it's shareholders.
 
Maybe they need to take a naturalist approach. In nature, there's no such thing as "too big to fail" even giant stars go supernova eventually.

Kill off all the plankton in the oceans and see what happens.
 
As a non-american I find it hillarious.
If something like this starts happening in Germany I'll start seriously contemplating terrorism.
 
If something like this starts happening in Germany I'll start seriously contemplating terrorism.

And how do you think we feel? Of course, the corollary here is that if we let AIG fail, then the terrorists win. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom