The "up-to-the-minute Market Data" thread

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


I don't understand.

Is the feeling "horrible" or is he "feeling" horrible?

Happy St.Patrick Day from Dow, Jones, Russell, and Craig Bonus to you all.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb95d35ed5cb.jpg[/atsimg]


(St. Ander Day is coming up later in the year with all the festivities under the magenta sky.)

AIG Ex CEO in an interview said that AIG will fail, when asked if the tax payer money will be given back he said no.

At least was been honest.

reply to post by marg6043
What. where, when and Why????

We need details!!!

Give it up!!!

Data....stories...links...!!!

reply to post by Hx3_1963


This was in CNBC interviews today, live, I will have a hard time find it because I will have to look into the site interviews and I didn't took the name of which news woman was under.

Occurs this his opinion, while the other two persons in the interviews were debating why AIG should not fail.

This stuck with me as the ex CEO knows more of the company that the other two persons that were just debating why it should not.

Sorry.

Got it!!!!!!!

Debating whether we can let AIG fail, with Charles E. F. Millard, Pension Benefits Guaranty Corp.; Ron Shelp, former AIG V.P.; Peter Wallison, American Enterprise Institute fellow; and CNBC's Erin Burnett.

www.cnbc.com...

Actually he said that is going to fail and that it may be broken out into more than one group.

He said is already talk about.

Thank you marg!

I'm predicting Alec Baldwin will play the tortured head of AIG in the made for TV movie titled "AIG: An American Horor Story" coming soon to a rec-room near you.

This is just sooooooo scroowed.

reply to post by marg6043


That's actually pretty freakin scary... I don't want to see it fail out right, especially after how much we put into it (we own 80+%) ..

As it is, if we want a healthy economy we will suffer the pain .. if only our children don't have to.

Do y'all think they will DARE ask for yet more money in the form of another bailout once they "fail,re-organize,breakup,or otherwise?"

(Ducks the beer mugs and hot-wings being hurled at me...)

It's clear in this video that some feel that CANNOT let AIG fail no matter what.
"Arguments are still valid and can't allow a cascading situation..."

Announced as marg says they WILL be broken up...

So,let me get this straight: they knew they would break up/fail but they still got bailouts,bonuses,and all that jazz?

M2M may play a roll in this,the new rules announced yesterday...isn't all that just a re-adjustment of the f-ing paper?

And the Big O backs Timmy Boy 100% in the way he's handled it.




[edit on 17-3-2009 by irishchic]

...And as a side story to this unfolding debacle...

AIG: Failure To Pay Bonuses Would Destroy The World Economy (AIG)
www.businessinsider.com...

This is what AIG would say in response to John Carney's argument for ripping up the bonus contracts: If the retention bonuses aren't made, the world economy would go into meltdown.

Hard as that is to believe, that's their argument.

In an internal memo, which was posted over at Firedoglake, the insurance firm argues that failure to pay the bonuses would essentially be a form of default, which could trigger massive payments to the company's existing counterparties.

For example, AIGFP is a party to derivative and structured transactions, guaranteed by AIG, that allow counterparties to terminate in the event of a “cross default” by AIGFP or AIG. A cross default in many of these transactions is defined as a failure by AIGFP to make one or more payments in an amount that exceeds a threshold of $25 million. In the event a counterparty elects to terminate a transaction early, such transaction will be terminated at its replacement value, less any previously posted collateral. Due to current market conditions, it is not possible to reliably estimate the replacement cost of these transactions. However, the size of the portfolio with these types of provisions is in the several hundreds of billions of dollars and a cross-default in this portfolio could trigger other cross-defaults over the entire portfolio of AIGFP.

And there's this:

Departures also have regulatory ramifications. As an example, the resignation of the senior managers of AIGFP’s Banque AIG subsidiary would allow the Commission Bancaire, the French banking regulator, to appoint its own designee to step in and manage Banque AIG. Such an appointment would constitute an event of default under Banque AIG’s derivative and structured transactions, including the regulatory capital CDS book ($234 billion notional amount as of December 31, 2008), and potentially cost tens of billions of dollars in unwind costs. Although it is difficult to assess the likelihood of such regulatory action, at a minimum the disruption associated with significant departures related to a failure to honor contractual obligations would require intensive interactions with regulators and other constituents (rating agencies, counterparties, etc.) to assure them of the ongoing viability of AIGFP as well its commitment to honoring counterparty contracts and claims.

What a lovely mess. We believe these things could be worked out, so that they could break certain contracts without automatically triggering this chain reaction -- especially since for all intents and purposes AIG is basically in bankruptcy. At a minimum, just this example is a great glimpse into the financial and regulatory ball of yarn that we're now trying to undo. Again, what a mess.

AIG Retention Memo
Here's the full memo:

The Semtex in the AIG Retention Contracts
emptywheel.firedoglake.com...

(Notice High-Lighted Sections)

Here's how I understand the white paper AIG just used to convince Tim Geithner that, while the US government can force car companies to cut the wages of line workers, the US government cannot force banksters to cut the wages of the thugs who broke the global financial system. There's a lot of mumbo jumbo about contract law, but that's not the real reason AIG is arguing Geithner can't strip the bonuses. It's the "business reasons" that amount to a deliberate threat:

For example, AIGFP is a party to derivative and structured transactions, guaranteed by AIG, that allow counterparties to terminate in the event of a “cross default” by AIGFP or AIG. A cross default in many of these transactions is defined as a failure by AIGFP to make one or more payments in an amount that exceeds a threshold of $25 million.

In the event a counterparty elects to terminate a transaction early, such transaction will be terminated at its replacement value, less any previously posted collateral. Due to current market conditions, it is not possible to reliably estimate the replacement cost of these transactions. However, the size of the portfolio with these types of provisions is in the several hundreds of billions of dollars and a cross-default in this portfolio could trigger other cross-defaults over the entire portfolio of AIGFP.

Translated, I take that to mean that AIGFP is a party to a bunch of contracts insured by AIG the US government. And if AIGFP somehow does something that equates to a default on those contracts, then AIG the US government is on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars.

The white paper goes on to explain just one scenario that might trigger a default in terms of these contracts.

Departures also have regulatory ramifications. As an example, the resignation of the senior managers of AIGFP’s Banque AIG subsidiary would allow the Commission Bancaire, the French banking regulator, to appoint its own designee to step in and manage Banque AIG. Such an appointment would constitute an event of default under Banque AIG’s derivative and structured transactions, including the regulatory capital CDS book ($234 billion notional amount as of December 31, 2008), and potentially cost tens of billions of dollars in unwind costs. Although it is difficult to assess the likelihood of such regulatory action, at a minimum the disruption associated with significant departures related to a failure to honor contractual obligations would require intensive interactions with regulators and other constituents (rating agencies, counterparties, etc.) to assure them of the ongoing viability of AIGFP as well its commitment to honoring counterparty contracts and claims.

I take this to mean that if a bunch of AIGFP managers quit because they didn't receive bonuses promised in their contracts, then France could, if it wanted, to appoint its own designee. And if that happened, then it would equate to a default and those contracts would kick in, at a cost to AIG the US government of at least tens of billions.

In other words, I take this to be a threat: "if you don't give us our bonuses, we'll trigger a default event that will cost AIG the US government tens of billions of dollars." It's just a polite way of saying, "Pay us the $100 million ransom or we start exploding the suicide bomber vests we're wearing."

Frankly, I have no idea whether this particular threat--France responding in a way that would set off a default--is real, or whether there are similar events that those AIGFP managers demanding their ransom could easily trigger.

But what they're doing is pointing to one relatively preventable area, noting that we might be able to defuse the explosion before it went off if we worked hard enough with the French, but saying that that, in general, is the kind of thing the AIGFP managers might contemplate if they don't get their bonuses.

AIG agreed to pay the guys whose gambling AIG the US government insures hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses. And the gamblers are now saying they would be willing to blow their own gambles--ignite their semtex vests--if we refuse to pay up.

Marvelous...Great...Fantastic...got a lite kid? (Burns AIG down...)

@ Stander: Not Spinning Wheel...Emptywheel...

still nasty though...can cause watery eyes also...


[edit on 3/17/2009 by Hx3_1963]

I'm bringin' sticks and marshmallows and will help you hide the evidence Hx3!

Seriously...I am betting that the "news" of all this will fade to grey within a number of days and againlet us not forget that our Leader will be on Leno this Thurs. to certainly reassure us all that it was done for the good of the people of this country.

I cannot believe someone somewhere hasn't taken this issue to violence: not wishing for it mind you but it's just so blatant when I hear the other side of the story:all the people in my hometown losing jobs due to factories closing,my Mom losing what's left of my Dad's Teamster pension,(another juicy bunch of bandits!),my "older and wiser) friends who are retired military having their benefits CUT in a HUGE way,on and on.

This has to be one of the most defining and pathetic chapters in the failed American Dream EVER!

The sad thing IS,I still believe in it...




[edit on 17-3-2009 by irishchic]

reply to post by irishchic


It is hard to say. Even if they do get get broken down into smaller companies AIG is so far in debt it isn't possible for them to recover. AIG is the insurer that BofA, Citi, etc used to insure all the CDS's.

So really AIG needs somewhere around 90 trillion in capital or more to stay "solvent". When AIG goes down Citi, BofA, etc will all be right behind it.

I think the main reasons for these bailouts is that if AIG would have failed they would have entered into Chap. 11 and would have been liquidated. BofA, Citi, etc. would have had to file Chap. 11 and liquidated themselves.

Well seeing how all these banks are hold toxic assets all the assets would have been liquidated for penny's on the dollar.

Well the Special Interest couldn't have that because all there mega-millionaire and billionaire friends would be underwater on their loans and would have lost probably 3/4 of their wealth.

Us on the other hand and the people that managed their finances wisely would have been fine. Smaller banks would have been able to liquidate their toxic assets take a loss and still loan money.

I'm under the impression that the "catastrophic" outcome of lettings these institutions that are "to big to fail" was nothing but a bunch of hype. Because within a few months the bottom of the market would have been found and we would know what these assets are now worth so people could start planning for the future.

The robber-barons would have been reduced to being no better than a small time millionaire and all their wealth would be dispersed over a wide area.

If we would have let them fail this "rally" that we are seeing in the market would be stability and people just hoping the worse is over.

That is my .02 cents.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Your .02 is pretty valuable.True words.

"Too big to fail..." How did the balance of power (as I remember it,the foundations of our country are based on checks and balances?) get SO out of hand that it's even a consideration?

Can I tell you that the small chit-kickin' bank out here is still very much alive and well and that people here DO have every confidence in them and continue to deposit daily?

I totally agree: let these institutions of abuse fail and LET the markets find their true worth and value.





[edit on 17-3-2009 by irishchic]

reply to post by irishchic


Most people who are laid off get unemployment for several months... so, if the lay offs began in October full scale (where we started setting records) .. they have unemployment benefits for 6 months. That means err.. by May-June we will see hundreds of thousands of people fall off their benefits (I know they extended, I am not sure by how long, either way it only pushes back the inevitable).

When people are homeless, jobless, no funds, no food, desperation creates irrational actions from seemingly rational people. Only until THAT happens, will you see violence, crime, protest, etc. Right now, they collect their checks, apply for the most demeaning jobs, and wallow in depression.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Again,your opinion is very valid to me.

With the job losses of last month? You are right: they will have to continue to extend those benefits or all hell will be breaking loose at the assistance offices.

Has anyone been following the alcohol-related stocks ?
I bet they are up.


[edit on 17-3-2009 by irishchic]

reply to post by irishchic


The total US financial CDS obligation stood at $56 trillion dollars in 2008 before the collapse. Not all of these where obligations that had to be paid, but outstanding policies that have not expired. AIG has paid out something like $90 billion in CDS obligations, and more on various other failed securities. If I remember correctly from an long article I read somewhere, CDS obligations that where "subprime" or at high risk was something like 30% of all CDS (various levels of risks). Essentially the entire market was set and hedged that someone would fail. Ultimately that was Bear Sterns.

People the more I read on the AIG fraud the more I see the scam, the truth is that our own government is in it.

AIG fails as obviously it will not matter what, the tax payer can not afford more trillions of more debt that AIG still holds!!!!!!!!!!

This fat rats took the bail out to keep afloat enough so they could pay themselves before jumping the boat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And now because of Public outrage they are already doing that.

They committed fraud against the tax payer.

Now they want to keep using the tax payer bail out to finish paying out the people oversea.

Because they know they are going to fail anyways.

Darn it I want my money too, I want one of those juicy 1 million dollar bonuses they are giving away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have been told how bad this is going to be, but guess what people we are going to survive and surviving is what we the regular people are good at.

But can the fat rats survive this?

Do you think I care?

The hell with them.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by marg6043]

Yeow...here comes the news from the casinos/these stocks will no doubt be dropping like rocks soon as well:

MGM/Mirage Says Auditors Question Ability To Continue:

www.bloomberg.com...

PLEASE tell me that they won't be issuing bailouts to the casinos???

Things must be sour for the "organized" criminal elements as well?

As opposed to the "un-organized" ones we're dealing with currently.

reply to post by marg6043



Marg...I'm sending you that Jamison's Hon!!! CATCH!

I totally understand and feel your outrage and fear there will be more to come.

reply to post by irishchic


Yes is a coming interview with Donald Trump on how he is going down also.

It was on CNN, what happen to his fortune?