Hey dummy. we understand what a loan is. However, our government should not be in the business of giving loans. That’s what banks are for. And if AIG has such a good plan to pay back this “loan” then why won’t any bank take them? hmmmmmmmmm Get a clue dum dum. When a company is run as greedy and maybe even dishonest, do you think it will survive? Do you think it really deserves to survive? Another, honest, profitable company, with a good business plan will take it’s place and maybe even pay their employees better salaries instead of just the CEO, CFO, etc… I say let the whole AIG fail, which I said from day one. However, now we’re stuck. I don’t think we’ll ever get all of our money back with interest, but what’s done is done. I really think Paulson should be fired for starting this whole bailout crap in the firstplace, but then again, he’s helping out all his friends.
“The Fed doesn’t believe it will suffer losses because it is hopeful the market for such distressed investments will recover ”
We switched from all Fed funds to part Fed, part Treasury funds, lowered the interest rate, & lengthened the term of the loan.
But, when all is said and done, what we truly did was double down on our bet that housing prices will recover. The problem is, peak values were a direct result of exotic mortgage programs, no-doc loans, & allowing neg. amortization through “Pay Option (“pick-a-pay”) ARMs” and interest-only loans. People on $50,000 incomes were in $500,000 houses. People on $80,000 incomes were in $800,000 houses. The market will never and more importantly should never return to such ridiculously inflated values.
I think in many years when we look back on this, we will find major problems in 1) the undying assumption that housing prices always go up, and 2) valuations Treasury & Fed puts on the assets they’re buying–in some cases they’re paying 50 cents on the dollar for assets which were marked by other banks at 10 cents on the dollar — this is a gift, not a bail out.
My, my, a bit too busy putting others down to focus. I am impressed by your expansive vocabulary (systemic risk is really cerebral) but not so impressed with your inability to respond to my question. I didn’t ask WHAT happened at AIG. I asked you to explain what the ramifications of not bailing them would be. You simply give a generalization it would ruin the world not to bail them out. How? Since you have such a firm grasp on the mysteries of systemic risk, please outline why the market will be unable to adjust to their failure. We understand there will be pain involved in the failure, but why are you so opposed to letting the market make the adjustments? How does the massive bailout package really solve the problems we have? It seems to me we are only delaying the inevitable correction every bubble market must make. It looks like you are backing the idea of a “central planner” in the government to make everything ok? That solution sounds like the Eastern Europe of old….and we all know how that turned out.
been to Sweden idiot….I would prefer gov’t intervention vs. a world depression…yourself? Not all gov’t intervention is socialism…but with your grasp of the international scenario and worldly events I guess you already knew that…keep reading…your getting warmer!
Still no answer from you.
There will be consequences from letting them fail. Explain what they would be in detail. Also, please let us know how exactly this government intervention is going to make the problem magically go away instead of just prolonging the inevitable and/or creating new problems the government hasn’t had the foresight to see.
The CEO from Liberty said what everyone else knew. AIG is hurting the market now with their irresponsible underwriting. They don’t have to worry about underwriting for a profit. They just want to bring premium in the door. They have a free pass from the government to continue to conduct bad business.
It’s unfortunate that the government does not just shut them down and run off their claims. That would be the best for everyone in the long run.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Okay Bill, you say that every day. Enough already.
Hey dummy. we understand what a loan is. However, our government should not be in the business of giving loans. That’s what banks are for. And if AIG has such a good plan to pay back this “loan” then why won’t any bank take them? hmmmmmmmmm Get a clue dum dum. When a company is run as greedy and maybe even dishonest, do you think it will survive? Do you think it really deserves to survive? Another, honest, profitable company, with a good business plan will take it’s place and maybe even pay their employees better salaries instead of just the CEO, CFO, etc… I say let the whole AIG fail, which I said from day one. However, now we’re stuck. I don’t think we’ll ever get all of our money back with interest, but what’s done is done. I really think Paulson should be fired for starting this whole bailout crap in the firstplace, but then again, he’s helping out all his friends.
Two very critical excerpts from this article:
“It’s a $150 billion gamble”
and
“The Fed doesn’t believe it will suffer losses because it is hopeful the market for such distressed investments will recover ”
We switched from all Fed funds to part Fed, part Treasury funds, lowered the interest rate, & lengthened the term of the loan.
But, when all is said and done, what we truly did was double down on our bet that housing prices will recover. The problem is, peak values were a direct result of exotic mortgage programs, no-doc loans, & allowing neg. amortization through “Pay Option (“pick-a-pay”) ARMs” and interest-only loans. People on $50,000 incomes were in $500,000 houses. People on $80,000 incomes were in $800,000 houses. The market will never and more importantly should never return to such ridiculously inflated values.
I think in many years when we look back on this, we will find major problems in 1) the undying assumption that housing prices always go up, and 2) valuations Treasury & Fed puts on the assets they’re buying–in some cases they’re paying 50 cents on the dollar for assets which were marked by other banks at 10 cents on the dollar — this is a gift, not a bail out.
dum dum,
My, my, a bit too busy putting others down to focus. I am impressed by your expansive vocabulary (systemic risk is really cerebral) but not so impressed with your inability to respond to my question. I didn’t ask WHAT happened at AIG. I asked you to explain what the ramifications of not bailing them would be. You simply give a generalization it would ruin the world not to bail them out. How? Since you have such a firm grasp on the mysteries of systemic risk, please outline why the market will be unable to adjust to their failure. We understand there will be pain involved in the failure, but why are you so opposed to letting the market make the adjustments? How does the massive bailout package really solve the problems we have? It seems to me we are only delaying the inevitable correction every bubble market must make. It looks like you are backing the idea of a “central planner” in the government to make everything ok? That solution sounds like the Eastern Europe of old….and we all know how that turned out.
been to Sweden idiot….I would prefer gov’t intervention vs. a world depression…yourself? Not all gov’t intervention is socialism…but with your grasp of the international scenario and worldly events I guess you already knew that…keep reading…your getting warmer!
Ralph, you took phonetics…sound it out…not hostile just tired of warfped opinions based in conjecture…keep readin!!
Still no answer from you.
There will be consequences from letting them fail. Explain what they would be in detail. Also, please let us know how exactly this government intervention is going to make the problem magically go away instead of just prolonging the inevitable and/or creating new problems the government hasn’t had the foresight to see.
Flat out, you are just a jerk. Do you act like this without the shelter of the keyboard?
The CEO from Liberty said what everyone else knew. AIG is hurting the market now with their irresponsible underwriting. They don’t have to worry about underwriting for a profit. They just want to bring premium in the door. They have a free pass from the government to continue to conduct bad business.
It’s unfortunate that the government does not just shut them down and run off their claims. That would be the best for everyone in the long run.
Zurich reported good results – they would probably acquire some bolt on P+C components from a dismantled AIG.