AIG largest shareholder, Hank Greenberg, Suing The US Gov over bailout, Stewart Rips him a new one

Just when I thought I was getting sick of The Daily Show, Jon does a piece on AIG Slimeball, Subhuman Hank Greenberg who is suing the US Government over the Bailout in which AIG received $184 Billion dollars to save it.

You think ISIS is a threat to the US. I think this lowlife and his ilk, in which there are so many, are worse. Check It.

a reply to: ugmold

They are a bigger threat for sure...

But they won't send me in to kick his ass.

I'm not a huge Stewart fan simply because I can't stand some of his adherence to political religion...But on this note he dead on. Who the hell do these people think they are. We, the tax payers saved them. Now they think they can fleece us more via courts.

a reply to: ugmold

Company was worth 15 billion and we gave them 184 billion....hmmm....WTF. To top it off that arse is sueing.


I rarely say this but they need to bring back town square hangings.

A 15 billion dollar company brought for 200 billion. And it's not enough profit. Greed has gone beyond unbelievable.

This is one reason why they should have been allowed go belly up.

I would like to take that old mummy on a fishing trip. If we don't catch anything, I'll still share some rice and beans with him at the end of the day. Then after a few drinks I will wrench his neck and relieve his poor soul of all it's suffering.
I wouldn't waste energy burying his stinking corpse. Birds have to eat the same as worms.

a reply to: ugmold

Isn't Stewart's brother a federal reserve banker? Isn't Stewart a millionaire on one of the most successful private entertainment channels around? Isn't he more influential than Charlie Rose at this point? Should he be trusted?

a reply to: Nechash

Jon Stewart was born a Liebowitz. His brother, Larry Liebowitz, is the COO of the New York Stock Exchange. I don't really think he's hurting for money, even without the popularity of the Daily Show.

a reply to: Nechash
It has come to this" People you don't respect, dissing on even a lower (in this case much lower, scrape that, morbid scum) people you don't respect.

How is that?

The law suit could be very embarrassing for the government, which is always a good thing. An article suggests that it may end the "too big too fail" concept that just about everyone outside of Washington rejects, another plus.

AIG was dying, they tried a number of ways to keep the company afloat, but they all fell through. A group of big banks looked at AIG and decided it wasn't worth saving. The demands for money were more than AIG had, they were broke.

The government gave AIG an $85 million loan. After that, they were given more money and the loan terms were loosened. Under the too big to fail doctrine, AIG survived.

The suit claims that the government didn't provide the same help to AIG as it did to other failing companies. When the government did offer money, they wanted all of the company's assets to secure the loan and 80% ownership of the company. Greenberg is claiming that taking that much of the company was an unconstitutional taking of of private property.

This is where the government has gotten itself into a mess. Ben Bernanke, then the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said that AIG

had lots and lots of perfectly good assets. And as a result, it had collateral which it could offer to the Fed to allow us to make a loan to provide the liquidity needed to stay afloat.

Now the government is trying to argue that AIG was not full of good collateral, but was so desperate for help that the government was justified in taking such a large portion of the ownership. But that just stirs up more problems. The government is not supposed to loan money to insolvent companies, but only those with good collateral. So, if we accept the government's argument, then what were they doing rescuing AIG in the first place?

Greenberg has a fair chance of winning. That's not the proper result, but at the very least, it will give the administration a fresh new scandal to deal with.

www.realclearmarkets.com...

a reply to: ugmold

Pretty much. We are all human, so we are allowed to be errant. I just wish I knew who was trustworthy. That would be nice.

a reply to: halfpint0701

Thank you. At least someone around here knows what is going on.

But AIG is a corporation. And now, corporations are people. And people can't sue the US government unless the US government allows them to.

Awesome reply and synopsis.

originally posted by: charles1952
The law suit could be very embarrassing for the government, which is always a good thing. An article suggests that it may end the "too big too fail" concept that just about everyone outside of Washington rejects, another plus.

AIG was dying, they tried a number of ways to keep the company afloat, but they all fell through. A group of big banks looked at AIG and decided it wasn't worth saving. The demands for money were more than AIG had, they were broke.

The government gave AIG an $85 million loan. After that, they were given more money and the loan terms were loosened. Under the too big to fail doctrine, AIG survived.

The suit claims that the government didn't provide the same help to AIG as it did to other failing companies. When the government did offer money, they wanted all of the company's assets to secure the loan and 80% ownership of the company. Greenberg is claiming that taking that much of the company was an unconstitutional taking of of private property.

This is where the government has gotten itself into a mess. Ben Bernanke, then the Chairman of the Federal Reserve said that AIG

had lots and lots of perfectly good assets. And as a result, it had collateral which it could offer to the Fed to allow us to make a loan to provide the liquidity needed to stay afloat.

Now the government is trying to argue that AIG was not full of good collateral, but was so desperate for help that the government was justified in taking such a large portion of the ownership. But that just stirs up more problems. The government is not supposed to loan money to insolvent companies, but only those with good collateral. So, if we accept the government's argument, then what were they doing rescuing AIG in the first place?

Greenberg has a fair chance of winning. That's not the proper result, but at the very least, it will give the administration a fresh new scandal to deal with.

www.realclearmarkets.com...

AIG provided insurance for the all the subprime mortgages or most of them bought by Wall St. - if AIG went under the entire Western Banking System would have collapsed in 2008.

Have no opinion if that was good or bad but if it took 15 Trillion to bail-out AIG the Fed's would have done it cause if AIG went every bank in the US would have collapsed along with many other insurance companies.

a reply to: BABYBULL24

I saw an article which had clips from a New York Times editorial. I forgot to cut and paste the link, but it doesn't matter, just the ideas do.

. . . In a joint statement with the Federal Reserve on Monday, the Treasury justified the move, saying that "the potential cost to the economy and the taxpayer of government inaction would be extremely high."

That's a textbook rationale for any bailout. What no one is saying . . . is which firms would be most threatened by an AIG collapse. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve noted in their statement that AIG is a "significant counterparty to a number of major financial institutions."

That means that by enabling AIG to avert bankruptcy proceedings, the taxpayer is also bailing out — whom, exactly?

The AIG bailouts fail the basic test of transparency: Who ends up with the money? Major financial institutions are not innocent victims of AIG's demise. They are sophisticated investors, and they should have known the risks being taken . . .

Whomever the recipients are, they should be investigated for their roles in the crash and, to the extent possible, be made to pay for the bailouts. . . .

I wonder if it is so certain that the world would collapse if the government didn't bailout AIG. I know that's what the government officials said, but they couldn't have said anything else.

Just wondering.

a reply to: charles1952

I thought your post was petty - your willing to allow this buffoon to sue the U.S government just so those pesky lefties look stupid? The guy has already had 184billion to save a company that wasn't.worth.#.

It's an insult to every tax paying American, no matter what side of the political spectrum you vote.

Throw the case out of court and throw him out of America. Greedy old fool.

a reply to: SearchLightsInc

If you thought my post was petty, then you didn't read it.

This was a New York Times editorial asking who got the money given to AIG. It didn't go into AIG pockets exclusively, most of it went to other large banks to whom AIG owed money. The Times wants to know who got the money. Since it went to large institutions who had, presumably, carefully investigated AIG, the taxpayers were really bailing out companies you don't even know. Why shouldn't they pay some of the cost of the bailout.

Do you seriously think that's petty?

Or are you referring to the longer post sourced from RealClearMarkets? That's a good history of the situation and the embarrasing position the government put itself in through their bailout shenanigans. Do you think that's petty?

Oh, and you see exile as a good solution for someone who exercises his right to sue? You must not be from the US.

Please forgive my blunt tone, but I am furious for another ATS related reason, and my emotions are getting the better of me.

Then you ask a question which I presume comes from the keyboard of someone not familiar with United States. You ask if I'm willing to allow him to sue the US government? Anybody can sue for any reason at any time. There is no way to stop them (there is, but it doesn't apply here). What do you want me or anyone else to do. Do you know how a lawsuit works?

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

If you thought my post was petty, then you didn't read it.

This was a New York Times editorial asking who got the money given to AIG. It didn't go into AIG pockets exclusively, most of it went to other large banks to whom AIG owed money. The Times wants to know who got the money. Since it went to large institutions who had, presumably, carefully investigated AIG, the taxpayers were really bailing out companies you don't even know. Why shouldn't they pay some of the cost of the bailout.

Do you seriously think that's petty?

Or are you referring to the longer post sourced from RealClearMarkets? That's a good history of the situation and the embarrasing position the government put itself in through their bailout shenanigans. Do you think that's petty?

Oh, and you see exile as a good solution for someone who exercises his right to sue? You must not be from the US.

Please forgive my blunt tone, but I am furious for another ATS related reason, and my emotions are getting the better of me.

Then you ask a question which I presume comes from the keyboard of someone not familiar with United States. You ask if I'm willing to allow him to sue the US government? Anybody can sue for any reason at any time. There is no way to stop them (there is, but it doesn't apply here). What do you want me or anyone else to do. Do you know how a lawsuit works?

Charles, I think your post in regards to his court case was interesting. You state that he kinda has a point. But then your attitude about it making the established government look stupid just made me "wtf"

A few years ago, a woman entered a coffee shop and accidently split hot coffee all over herself. She then began a lawsuit against said shop because she "wasn't informed how hot the coffee was" this, to me, is consistent with the same level of stupidity as Greens case against the government.

His right to sue is dulled by the fact that the company was broke and there was no one willing to help them out. The company was then saved at the expense of the American tax payer and for a much higher price than it was actually worth. This old mn does not have a leg to stand on simply for the fact that AIG wouldn't be in business if it wasn't for the U.S gov.

He is clearly someone with a "me me me" mentality, perhaps in future he should learn the lesson of investing in sustainable companies so that they don't belly flop and require interference from the government in future.

As for my comment about exiling him, maybe a little harsh. But I think we both agree that the world itself would be better off without these types of greedy, selfish people.

a reply to: SearchLightsInc

Dear SearchLightsInc,

Thanks. OK, I'm with you. He'll sue, he should lose. I hate greed, it's one of the seven deadly sins. He might win, because our legal system has strange twists in it, as you say, hot coffee. It's a face palm of a suit, like the coffee, but Judges sometimes make really odd calls.

But one thing for sure, the government is going to have a tough time explaining what their thinking was with AIG. If you suspect, a desire to control private business, an attempt to buy loyalty and influence with it's loan, I'll go along with that. Makes as much sense as anything else I've heard.

AIG should have failed, the government should have let it, it's a tangled mess, and any result is going to be ridiculous. I agree.

Sorry about the barking. Sometimes, this place, well, you know.

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

If you thought my post was petty, then you didn't read it.

This was a New York Times editorial asking who got the money given to AIG. It didn't go into AIG pockets exclusively, most of it went to other large banks to whom AIG owed money. The Times wants to know who got the money. Since it went to large institutions who had, presumably, carefully investigated AIG, the taxpayers were really bailing out companies you don't even know. Why shouldn't they pay some of the cost of the bailout.

Not sure where the 'petty' accusation came from SLs, but I thought you provided some rather informative and worthwhile input.

From memory though... Goldman Sachs was the Counter Party carrying the most risk exposure to AIG's 'troubled' CDF's (likely MBS and CDO assets too, but I'm not certain); to the tune of $100M or so, likely more. Technically, as AIG was 'coding' at the time, all their obligations on every single contract/position/deal/asset etc was either worth $ZERO or contractually 'null' and 'defaulting' at that moment in time. Goldman were looking at the very real prospect of carrying the entire 's**t bucket full of financial feces' themselves and they weren't about to let that happen. Probably not 'illegal', though unethical at the very least, they ensured they were at the front of the 'creditors queue' when their old CEO Hank Paulson rode in with all the bailout funds... to the tune of 100% on every dollar owed. No wonder the average guy in the street just deems these soulless, self-serving, sociopathic scumbags as the parasites they truly are on modern American society.

But the other thing I found curios about this recent lawsuit being taken against your government by this horror of a human being and another who's just as deserving of society's disdain and loathing in my opinion, this Subhuman Hank Greenberg 'Day Walker'... is the fact that the US govt was only into the bail of AIG for $40 billion in preferred shares as part of a Capital Repurchase. The Fed on the other hand, purchased $52.5 billion (made up of the toxic assets it was carrying). The government's now sold its stake and doesn't own anything in AIG anymore, but the Fed still owns 79.9% of AIG's equity.

Now correct me if I'm wrong... why is the Greenberg suing the US taxpayer/government for the 'unfair terms of the bailout' and not the privately owned Federal Reserve as well?? Why only the US government?? Nothing has been mentioned as to why this is the case... surely the Fed are as liable, joint and several, as the US government/taxpayer should this case succeed no??

Just wondering.