To AIG Execs...
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,771
Likes: 2
I presume you are referring to this?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5973452&page=1
OK, first off the "bail out" wasn't cause AIG didn't have any money. They had lots of money and LOTS of less liquid assets, but they had an extremely large call that they couldn't meet without using cash money they had.
Using said cash money would have lowered their reserve levels to below what the govt said they must keep in order to be an Insurance co. so the govt would have been force to close them.
They had two choices, meet the call and fold the insurance company, or try to dump huge amounts of assets on the market and sell at fire sale prices which would have worsened the economy.
No one has ever said they were poor.
Secondly no one bailed them out, they made them a LOAN which AIG has to pay back. There is some justice in this world because AIG got a "B" loan and buying "B" loans is what got them into this mess. But they still have all the operating capital to play with.
The longer it takes for them to pay it back the more we, the taxpayers, benefit as we get the interest on the loan so that means we make more money if they don't tighten their belts and pay it off quickly.
Same thing with the Fannie/Freddie stuff, we will make money on that transaction.
And thirdly even I could use a trip to the spa to recover from all the media circus of the election and the economy.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5973452&page=1
OK, first off the "bail out" wasn't cause AIG didn't have any money. They had lots of money and LOTS of less liquid assets, but they had an extremely large call that they couldn't meet without using cash money they had.
Using said cash money would have lowered their reserve levels to below what the govt said they must keep in order to be an Insurance co. so the govt would have been force to close them.
They had two choices, meet the call and fold the insurance company, or try to dump huge amounts of assets on the market and sell at fire sale prices which would have worsened the economy.
No one has ever said they were poor.
Secondly no one bailed them out, they made them a LOAN which AIG has to pay back. There is some justice in this world because AIG got a "B" loan and buying "B" loans is what got them into this mess. But they still have all the operating capital to play with.
The longer it takes for them to pay it back the more we, the taxpayers, benefit as we get the interest on the loan so that means we make more money if they don't tighten their belts and pay it off quickly.
Same thing with the Fannie/Freddie stuff, we will make money on that transaction.
And thirdly even I could use a trip to the spa to recover from all the media circus of the election and the economy.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 59,141
Likes: 1
From: Lost in the mountains
You can try to defend them all you want, but lets use some common sense here....People are getting fuked left and right, the govt gives them an assload of money, and 1 week later they blow $400k on some lavish vacation. Someone with common sense would realize this is a beyond stupid idea.
Im gonna agree with Gymkata and say die in a mother phuckin fire
Im gonna agree with Gymkata and say die in a mother phuckin fire
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,956
Likes: 478
From: MAHT-O-MEDI
I would say something similar. Does not matter the product, when execs treat themselves to lavish compensation or perks it comes at a cost in retained earning for the shareholders or higher price of the product for the customer.
I highly DOUBT these execs were not paid enough to pay for their own freaking spa vacation. And after the bailout, you would think the company would have the common sense to cancel it. Regardless of whether it was the same division in the company or not. Frivolous spending is frivolous spending.
This is a small example, but any way you cut it it is just rewarding corporate execs at the expense of everyone. Its got to stop.
We had a local health care CEO pay himself close to a billion (With a B) dollars over a few years in cash and (backdated) stock options for a company that performed about average in the sector. That money came out of the pockets of his own employees, cutomers who paid too much for health care, and prevented some people from being able to afford the overpriced care. I guess a 200 foot yacht is not enough when you can have a 300 for yacht. And I am far from a lefty.
I highly DOUBT these execs were not paid enough to pay for their own freaking spa vacation. And after the bailout, you would think the company would have the common sense to cancel it. Regardless of whether it was the same division in the company or not. Frivolous spending is frivolous spending.
This is a small example, but any way you cut it it is just rewarding corporate execs at the expense of everyone. Its got to stop.
We had a local health care CEO pay himself close to a billion (With a B) dollars over a few years in cash and (backdated) stock options for a company that performed about average in the sector. That money came out of the pockets of his own employees, cutomers who paid too much for health care, and prevented some people from being able to afford the overpriced care. I guess a 200 foot yacht is not enough when you can have a 300 for yacht. And I am far from a lefty.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,590
Likes: 0
From: West Springfield MA
Not defending the cost, but cancelling the retreat a week before it was scheduled would have lrft AIG liable for the full cost of the retreat.
I've negotiated contracts for weekend events. A cancellation with a week to go would have resulted in my organization's being responsible for the full bill for use of the facility.
I've negotiated contracts for weekend events. A cancellation with a week to go would have resulted in my organization's being responsible for the full bill for use of the facility.
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Dublin, pa
Originally Posted by ajlafleche,Oct 8 2008, 11:40 AM
I've negotiated contracts for weekend events. A cancellation with a week to go would have resulted in my organization's being responsible for the full bill for use of the facility.
They should have canceled it, just as a show of good faith. Instead they racked up huge bar tabs and food bills partying while their company is failing... Pretty stupid from a PR perspective...
Just by 2 cents...
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,759
Likes: 1
From: Sun★Works
Like Wildncrzy said
it may not be the best face-saving move to perform but the retreat was planned and afforded long before the bail out or their need to use said bailout. Their participation in the bail out was to cover a nut and keep the company from instant closure.
It does not mean they are out of money or lack the ability to spend it as they see fit. Our hard earned money did not go to paying for the retreat nor did they pay for it fraudulantly.
The posters calling for them to have cancelled the event obv know little or nothing about atrition fees when planning an event as well....good point ajlafleche
it may not be the best face-saving move to perform but the retreat was planned and afforded long before the bail out or their need to use said bailout. Their participation in the bail out was to cover a nut and keep the company from instant closure.
It does not mean they are out of money or lack the ability to spend it as they see fit. Our hard earned money did not go to paying for the retreat nor did they pay for it fraudulantly.
The posters calling for them to have cancelled the event obv know little or nothing about atrition fees when planning an event as well....good point ajlafleche