AIG. Conspiracy Theories of the World Unite

page: 1
47
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+19 more 
posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
American International Group (AIG) was rescued by the Fed yesterday with a $85 Billion loan. As always, when you're talking about conspiracy theories, follow the money. While looking into exactly what AIG was I ran into some pretty shocking accusations.

It started with a news article from back in 2000 that appeared in the Los Angeles Times. Read the full article below for a better picture, but here are a few highlights from the story.


The Secret (Insurance) Agent Men

They knew which factories to burn, which bridges to blow up, which cargo ships could be sunk in good conscience. They had pothole counts for roads used for invasion and head counts for city blocks marked for incineration.

They weren’t just secret agents. They were secret insurance agents. These undercover underwriters gave their World War II spymasters access to a global industry that both bankrolled and, ultimately, helped bring down Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich.

The men behind the insurance unit were OSS head William “Wild Bill” Donovan and California-born insurance magnate Cornelius V. Starr.

Starr died in 1968, but his empire endures. AIG is the biggest foreign insurance company in Japan. More than a third of its $40 billion in revenue last year came from the Far East theater that Starr helped carpet bomb and liberate.

Funny I never thought of insurance companies making money from war, but it really does make sense. The higher the risk of things being blown to little bits, the higher the insurance premium paid. Also, it's obvious that insurance companies might know war strategy ahead of time if they're asked to increase insurance or shift policy detials to cover a new suspected risk.

Just to show you how central that AIG is to the U.S. government look no further than former AIG Board Chairman Maurice Greenberg who was hand-picked by AIG founder Cornelius Starr to run the North American portion of AIG. What else did Greenberg have his hands in. He was on the Board of Directors of the New York Stock Exchange, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and was offered the job of Deputy Director of the CIA during the Reagan administration. (Which he turned down) That's a lot of pull for just one individual to have.

Looking further I found hints of AIG's involvement in the Arkansas Whitewater scandal that involved the Clintons. I'm sure an entire series or rabbit trails exist if you followed that path. Some of this is speculation but it's probably worth reading and looking into.


Whitewater, The Federal Reserve, and The C.I.A.

Arkansas Development Finance Authority and Sanwa Bank shared a deal
with Coral Reinsurance of the Barbados. Coral's main customer was
American International Group AIG.

In just a few weeks, AIG reportedly ran 450 million dollars through the
Barbados front.


Now for my favorite little piece of information (if it's true). Let's go back to the first summary where I stated that insurance companies stand to make barrels of money during war time and their fore-knowledge of information in what's going on. At Online Journal Jerry Mazza's discussion of his entry 9/11 and the Greenberg Familia where he points out that AIG's (possible) involvement in the 9/11 attacks is quite interesting. The first point I noticed was that AIG had sold off the majority of their risk in the World Trade Centers to their competition before 9/11.


Answering the mail re: Greenberg & AIG

"(4) AIG was NOT the main insurer of the WTC. Chubb, Zurich Swiss re., St Paul and CAN were."

Ah yes, Mr. Smith, but only because AIG/Marsh sold the risk and reinsurance to their competition. Take a look at pages 5-6 from the 30-page Morgan Stanley Special Report on 9/11 (September 17, 2001), that proves Buffett et al stood to gain . . .

"Even [after losses of $800 million] A.I.G. would turn a profit of several hundred million dollars for the quarter"


I thought that this was odd at first. AIG actually made a large profit after 9/11? Then my mind flashed back to the La Times article and it fit together. If the world was a terrible place full of terrorism and war it would be much more profitable for an insurance company than a peaceful world. AIG could now charge higher rates for insurance and the masses would come crawling to them begging to be insured. Step 1. Create the problem. Step 2. Create the solution. Step 3. Profit.

Since 9/11 there have been a few major attacks such as in Spain and London. Not so much that AIG would have to pay out billions and billions in settlements, but enough to keep premiums up and enough to keep a line of people at their door begging for insurance.

Of course some of this appears to be pure speculation, but is it really? It's not an impossible scenario is it? AIG tied to the CIA, drug money, terrorism, and greedy politicians. That's quite a tale. As for why they're in the tank right now. I suppose someone got greedy. We already know that Greenberg was forced out of the company and 3 other top execs. were canned after they took the Fifth during questioning.

So the Fed lets Lehman collapse, but bails out AIG. Is AIG an intelligence front, a war chest revenue stream, or maybe just controlled by bureaucrats? Who knows. I just wondered if anyone else was curious about all of this.



[edit on 17-9-2008 by dbates]




posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
My dad owns an insurance agency and writes auto insurance with AIG. He said the main reason for the bailout was because they wrote a lot of $$$$$$'s worth of insurance policies on the loans the banks were making to people for houses. When the housing market crashed aig had to dish out a lot of money in claims and that is why they are in the boat they are in.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
That explains why they're getting into trouble financially. For a while there after 9/11 they were pulling in the money hand over fist. I'm sure they thought that the housing market was a broad based general risk that wouldn't cash in. So why wasn't the buy out of Fannie Mae and Freddie enough to shore up the housing market issues? I still think there's more to AIG than just making people feel secure.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Great post dbates!!!

I was thinking along the same lines today.

Why was Lehman allowed to go under but AIG rescued? (Well... at least for now.) Simple, AIG is one of the main players for the "powers that be".

Right up there with Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan.

All three of these players are rumoured to be the financial arm of the real rulers behind the facade we call government.
.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
We all know now that that the federal reserve is a farce. Now that the reserve controls 80% of AIG, they now will have a controlling interest in that particular market. Just another step in the eventual control of the money systems worldwide.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Props dude. Yes AIG is a huge conglomerate with close knit ties with the PTB. This is why they got the bailout. The ties if you look deeper between AIG and the FED are astounding. The FED really does own this country. For those who ever questioned this "Conspiracy" it should be as plain as day now. Look at all the bailouts and taxpayer money spent with NOT ONE VOTE. Not one person ASKING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE what WE feel should happen. Nope this is all done and alls we can do is sit back and complain.

The sad part to the sad story which was America is people had a chance. They had a chance in a politician who has seen this and warned us. But people disregarded him as a loon. I dont think I need to mention names.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
We all know now that that the federal reserve is a farce. Now that the reserve controls 80% of AIG, they now will have a controlling interest in that particular market. Just another step in the eventual control of the money systems worldwide.


This makes my jaw drop every single time I hear it on the news: the government now owns 80% of a private company!!!!


Would someone here with a better grip of economics please explain or speculate in an educated fashion what exactly that will mean for the customers of this company? It sounds dangerously close to the type of government control we fight other countries for having, carrying the "we bring you democracy-- you're welcome" flag.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alora

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
We all know now that that the federal reserve is a farce. Now that the reserve controls 80% of AIG, they now will have a controlling interest in that particular market. Just another step in the eventual control of the money systems worldwide.


This makes my jaw drop every single time I hear it on the news: the government now owns 80% of a private company!!!!


Would someone here with a better grip of economics please explain or speculate in an educated fashion what exactly that will mean for the customers of this company? It sounds dangerously close to the type of government control we fight other countries for having, carrying the "we bring you democracy-- you're welcome" flag.


Ill make it very simple to you. You are now paying your mortgage payments to the government. You are now paying your insurance payment to the government. Sounds almost like the Soviet Union of old doesnt it?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I think a big part of the conspiracy is the Fed (as in the private corporation) and the engineering of the market from years back. As we should know, the Fed is not government but instead a private company that literally creates currency for the nation and uses government to collect interest on it and circulate it.

The link in the OP about the bailout makes sense if they are getting something for nothing.

(the something for nothing comes from the two points in the excerpt when they refer to the "government"; should read "private corp.")



money.cnn.com...
In an unprecedented move, the Federal Reserve Board is lending as much as $85 billion to rescue crumbling insurer American International Group, officials announced Tuesday evening.

The Fed authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to lend AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) the funds. In return, the federal government will receive a 79.9% stake in the company.

Officials decided they had to act lest the nation's largest insurer file bankruptcy. Such a move would roil world markets since AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) has $1.1 trillion in assets and 74 million clients in 130 countries.

An eventual liquidation of the company is most likely, senior Fed officials said. But with the government loan, the company won't have to go through a tumultuous fire sale.


To me, that means the Fed (a private corporation) gave $85 billion (free currency they create and collect interest on) to AIG for an 80% piece of $1.1 trillion in real assets.

Sounds like a steal.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Reply to above post

Its should show you who owns who. Its obvious the government has no say or the people or taxpayer have no say in all these bailouts. It was the FEDS policies that caused this and now the people have to bail them out. All of this communism from an unelected private company known as the FED.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Gools
 


Or, it goes like this. Over the weekend AIG asked the Fed to loan them the money they needed. The Fed flat out refused. On monday Lehman Brothers goes bankrupt, the largest bankruptcy in history, and suddenly AIG would be next if it didn't raise serious captial in a matter of a couple days.

Tuesday we find that AIG could not find a lender, and has at best a day before they are forced to file. AIG is not an investment bank, its the worlds largest insurer. Lehman Brothers bankruptcy was bad, but would pale in comparison to a bankruptcy of AIG.

Tuesday night, the Fed completely reverses it's decisions, only because there is no other real option. Mondays bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers completely changed the situation we faced.

Wednesday you see short term selling going on because of fears that WaMu banking will seek out aid from the Fed next. The loan to AIG should have comforted investors, but short term selling resulted because FEARS that WaMu might follow the same path AIG did in the coming weeks.

I am relatively certain that these short term sellers are misrepresenting the market right now. JPmorgans stock dropped significantly today, as did goldman sachs. That is odd considering JPmorgan posted better than expected third quater results. The only real explaination for that is that FEAR and SPECULATION is swaying the short term investing.

That is why it is a perfect time to buy stock, so long as you are looking at long term investments. And by long term, it may be as short as a year or two from now. There is money to be made if you are sensible about it.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Alora
 


This is a misunderstanding that seems to be popular on this site. They don't own 80% of AIG. They received warrants from AIG, not the stock itself. This is basically the governments insurance that the loan will get paid back.

So you get a better idea, this 85 billion dollar loan takes place over the course of 2 years. AIG must pay back what they are borrowing. The Fed doesn't own AIG. They have warrants.

This means that should AIG not live up to the agreement, the government can take over. SHOULD the government take over, this is what would happen.

seekingalpha.com...


Let's deal with AIG valuation. Since the government provides $85 billion for potential 80% ownership, the remaining 20% should be worth $21.25 billion. Yahoo finance shows the total number of shares outstanding is 2.69 billion. Therefore, the current 2.69 billion shares should worth about $7.90 per share. This valuation method is a simple comparable sales technique, nothing fancy at all. If this makes sense, then you should buy AIG for long-term investment.


Basically, like I have been saying, if you are sensible enough to see the opportunity of long term investing, even if its only one to two year down the road, there is money to be made.

Furthermore, AIG, as stated in the article, is a solvent company. That means that they DO have the ability to raise capital, they just didn't have the time they needed to do so. With this loan, AIG will have the time to sell some of their assets at a reasonable price and raise the capital they needed to raise.

What I personally think may have been going on was another repeat of what happen over the weekend between Lehman Brothers and Barclays Capital. Barclays Capital refused to make a deal with Lehman Brothers over the weekend, and they ended up making the perfect move. They didn't make a deal, Lehman Brothers tanked, and now they are buying the parts of the company they want for rock bottom prices. As one article said earlier today, "it is the opportunity of a lifetime" for Bob Diamonds company.

I think that there may have been a similiar situation going on with AIG. They wanted to see AIG go into a fire sale to raise capital and buy them up cheap. The Fed stepped in and saved us alot of potential problems from that.

Like I said, because of this loan, AIG doesn't have to fire sale to raise capital, and that is good news for people looking to make some long term investments. I would say the government loan is without a doubt great news for people that have investments in this company.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
Ill make it very simple to you. You are now paying your mortgage payments to the government. You are now paying your insurance payment to the government. Sounds almost like the Soviet Union of old doesnt it?


That isn't even remotely true. The government hasn't taken control of AIG or anybody. They merely required warrants before they gave the loan. This is to insure that they don't get screwed out of 85 billion dollars, should AIG not live up to their end of the agreement.

AIG is a solvent company and has the ability to raise the capital it needed to raise. The issue was being able to raise it fast enough, which it wouldn't have been able to do without a loan. They would have had to engage in a fire sale, which would have been incredibly bad for people invested in AIG and would have lost ALOT of money.

The Fed just saved anyone invested in AIG a great deal of money by giving AIG the time to raise the capital they need to pay off the loan. AIG is a great long term investment as it stands.

Your assessment was completely and 100% inaccurate.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
seekingalpha.com...


This is from the same source, but posted on August 15th, 2008.

Consider the case of American International Group (AIG), the once great insurance behemoth. It's now, in my opinion, been reduced to a company that is spinning out of control, unable to determine how bad its credit portfolio is and how bad its investment portfolio is. Mind you, this is a company with $1 trillion in assets, but bonds that are going down in price quickly and probably not coming back anytime soon. I have been contemplating ever since Stage 2 of the Credit Crisis began what company would be first to not be able to finance themselves

No one knows exactly what will happen. Telling people that AIG is a good long term stock is also inaccurate. You have to take into consideration the panic of the people ( which is unpredictable ) the recent hurricane that effectively drowned the entire Galveston Island, and unrest continuing in the middle east which we have a large part of.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by becomingaware
 


That article went under the assumption that the Fed would not bail it out. It did. As a result the advice changes. Two days ago, I wouldn't touch AIG with a 10 foot pole. Today, I have ample reason to believe that AIG won't go bankrupt in the next year or so and it may even bounce back and survive. If not, it will be a prolonged bankruptcy. I think its a long term investment that is worth the risk. Prices being what they are, there are good odds that long term risk in AIG will pay off.

Is it certain? Of course not. Are the odds in favor of AIG turning long term profits, definately.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 



yep..and who knows more about peoples lives than the worlds biggest insurance company?

this knowledge is now in the hands of the government..

scary



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   
People see only the very lowest point we can reach, because we are still looking down on this mess. Of course once we reach that lowest point there will be nowhere to look but up. And it will be all of us, AIG included.

What we don't need is more centralization of power. Any outside involvement in a 'Free Market' capitalistic system is detrimental to the end cause.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Its the same old top banking cartel tactics. They sit down together and decide its time to decrease the number of banks yet further, by shorting shares and putting out rumours, which results in them being able to buy out these banks on the cheap. A lot of the big banks are in trouble, yet others arent even mentioned, look to these and you quickly see the big picture. Don't forget, for their plan of complete financial domination (due to their unquenchable greed) to work, eventually there must only be a handful of banks in the world, all controlled by the same group of men.

The pattern is so obvious its ridiculous and yet supposedly intelligent people don't notice it. Most of the big banks are now at least 2 former banks that have merged or produced a buyout. JP Morgan Chase, already a merged company just bought Bear Stearns, Lloyds Tsb (already merged) is about to buy HBOS (already merged Halifax and Bank of Scotland), Barclays - Lehman Brothers, it goes on and on. The bankers are allowed far too much power, the ability they have to control world affairs is ridiculously potent.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

That isn't even remotely true. The government hasn't taken control of AIG or anybody. They merely required warrants before they gave the loan. This is to insure that they don't get screwed out of 85 billion dollars, should AIG not live up to their end of the agreement.

AIG is a solvent company and has the ability to raise the capital it needed to raise. The issue was being able to raise it fast enough, which it wouldn't have been able to do without a loan. They would have had to engage in a fire sale, which would have been incredibly bad for people invested in AIG and would have lost ALOT of money.

The Fed just saved anyone invested in AIG a great deal of money by giving AIG the time to raise the capital they need to pay off the loan. AIG is a great long term investment as it stands.

Your assessment was completely and 100% inaccurate.


Hmm is it? The fact is the government owns 80% equity in AIG. So yes they DO own AIG as of now. You can slice it any way you want but as Obama says you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig and guy ... this is an 85 billion dollar pig.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmanuva
Its the same old top banking cartel tactics. They sit down together and decide its time to decrease the number of banks yet further, by shorting shares and putting out rumours, which results in them being able to buy out these banks on the cheap. A lot of the big banks are in trouble, yet others arent even mentioned, look to these and you quickly see the big picture. Don't forget, for their plan of complete financial domination (due to their unquenchable greed) to work, eventually there must only be a handful of banks in the world, all controlled by the same group of men.

The pattern is so obvious its ridiculous and yet supposedly intelligent people don't notice it. Most of the big banks are now at least 2 former banks that have merged or produced a buyout. JP Morgan Chase, already a merged company just bought Bear Stearns, Lloyds Tsb (already merged) is about to buy HBOS (already merged Halifax and Bank of Scotland), Barclays - Lehman Brothers, it goes on and on. The bankers are allowed far too much power, the ability they have to control world affairs is ridiculously potent.


the boss of Lloyds has just admitted that he and the boss of hbos sat together 6 weeks ago with the aim of one taking over the other..but knew they would have problem due to competition laws...seems they came up with a plan...hes just admitted that very fact...INCREDIBLE!!!..





new topics
top topics
 
47
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join