Let's pit AIG's Greenberg et al

During the peak of Wall Street’s Frenzy and Mayhem, some big institutions made gigantic bets while government regulators looked the other way, or rather didn’t look at all. Since the bets were far too huge to be afforded if they failed, they had the character of “Heads we win; tails the American public loses” bets. It was ridiculous that this was ever permitted. When the bets won, Wall Street treated its fair-haired traders to Ferraris and Maseratis. But now they want to be compensated even for the bets they lost. :smack:

Among the giant bettors, perhaps none was as out of line as AIG, whose bets altogether totaled into the tens of trillions of dollars! (They were betting that Wall Street’s house of cards wouldn’t come tumbling done. I’d not be surprised if they knew these were bad bets, but were serving as shills so the other big traders could continue to reap profits.)

Before the bets started failing, AIG reaped many billions of profit from them. But instead of retaining the profits to guard against the coming “rainy day,” most were paid out in bonuses. A small-time burglar can be sent to prison for life for a third offense. Why didn’t we punish the criminals of Wall St.?

I was disappointed to read this news story this morning. It seems the AIG stockholders who were wiped out want their money back. Where they expect the suffering American people to get the money isn’t clear – these are the same assholes opposed to taxing “Job Creators.”

I share the anger of this commentator:

Technical question: When the U.S. took over AIG for some huge sum, should they have allowed others to bid against them? This would have given more legitimacy to the take-over terms.

All previous definitions of chutzpah have been nullified. I propose that the metric unit for *chutzpah *be defined as an aig, where 1.0 is unity and the theoretical limit. Neutron density chutzpah would be about .9 aig, and an event horizon forms at .93.

In perfect fairness, Greenberg isn’t at the head of AIG any more - he was deposed back in '05 over the initial fraud & risks of prosecution. He is now CEO of a different financial & insurance outfit, which I’m sure will go over swimmingly.

With that caveat, I am forced to join '**luci **on this (scooch over, will you ?). There’s balls, and then there’s balls. And then there’s this shit.

He isn’t, but AIG is going to be talking with him since he’s still on the board or an adviser or something, to consider whether they want to join in with the suit. The fact that they’re even considering it makes me want to go slap every single one of them for the sheer gall.

Just as an fyi, the majority of AIG is held by mutual funds:

Top 5 Holders
FAIRHOLME CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC 86,545,718
VANGUARD GROUP INC 48,429,538
WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO LLP 45,123,076
STATE STREET CORP 41,947,592
OZ MANAGEMENT LP 33,199,596

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aig/ownership-summary

So, really - like most giant evil companies - the shareholders are primarily just normal people’s 401k’s, pension funds, and stuff like that.

Of course, there are some super rich dudes who own huge chunks of stock compared to normal individual investors, but that ownership is dwarfed by ownership by ‘normal’ people in the aggregate.

For example, it looks like someone named Robert Benmoshe owns 186,486 shares. That’s a huge amount - worth around 6 or 7 million dollars. But compared to the largest mutual fund - Fairholme - it’s tiny. That mutual fund’s holding is worth about 1.7 billion, which is more than 250 times as much.

It’s possible, and likely, that some super rich people own AIG through mutual funds as well - but the reality is that the vast amount of the company is owned by regular people.

eta: Just to be clear, I have no problem with outrage against Greenberg or his decision to file - but the board weighing whether to join in the action. Well, they kind of have to. And if there is an action - and any money that gets paid out - it will go the general class of shareholders (the normal folks), and to the lawyers of course.

Sure, but clearly it would call for a bit of incentive bonus, the platinum “attaboy!”. To encourage the others, you understand.

I am sympathetic to Greenberg. (Which is not to say I think his lawsuit has merit - I don’t know about that.) Some background:

Greenberg is a legendary figure in the insurance business, having built AIG from a small company to an international financial behemoth over four decades. He was forced out of the company over accounting irregularities, but no charges have been successfully prosecuted against him (some of the initial charges have been dropped and others are still being (civilly) litigated). Under NY State law, the AG has enormous power over financial companies, since he can indict for a very broad variety of issues, and if a financial company is criminally indicted they lose their licenses and go out of business. As a practical matter, this means that if an aggressive AG like Elliot Spitzer says “the CEO goes or I indict” then the CEO goes, guilty or innocent.

Greenberg was not involved in running AIG in the 3 years leading up to their collapse. His involvement with the company was a particularly hostile one, as he was involved in lengthy litigation. The main issue is that he controlled an AIG-affiliated company called CV Starr, which owned many shares of AIG, and AIG’s position was that he had to relinquish this. Greenberg ultimately prevailed, and his standing in the current lawsuit is based in large part on CV Starr’s ownership of a portion of AIG.

Greenberg was very opposed to the bailout at the time. It’s not like he wanted the bailout and is now complaining about it. According to Wikipedia “Just before the bailout by the US Federal Reserve, AIG former CEO Maurice (Hank) Greenberg sent an impassioned letter to AIG CEO Robert B. Willumstad offering his assistance in any way possible, ccing the Board of Directors. His offer was rebuffed.”

So I can see his perspective. As he sees it, he built up this company only to be forced out by aggressive prosecutors, and his successors messed things up to the point where the government was able to force them into a terrible deal under which the government effectively seized much of the company from the shareholders. I don’t think there’s any sort of chutzpah involved here.

Though again, that’s not the same thing as saying he has a legal case. (I cited his legal arguments in a GD thread on the subject.)

I’d also throw in that during WWII, as a US Army officer, Greenberg helped to liberate Dachau.

And in Monopoly that would earn him an extra Get out of Jail Free card.

Meanwhile, the price of Chinese Tea has risen by 5% over the previous quarter.

And in the real world he doesn’t need one because he hasn’t actually broken any laws…

It isn’t Uncle Sam’s job (or ours - tax payers) to guarantee proffits or shares value or anything. The taxpayers whose money bailed them out were not asked. They had no say in the matter. Instead it was their cronies on Capitol Hill. “Too big to fail” and the threat to wreck the global economy were banided about.

Fvck them now. They can take their lawsuit and shove it up their asses. What we could use is a tree and a few ropes instead.
Too big to fail my ass.

We have privatized profits and socialized losses. No risk for fatcats and crooks. Fvck that bullshit.