AIG posts $4.1 billion loss

Dec 8, 2004
49,846
21,451
763
Maine
#1
American International Group is back in the red. Way in the red. The bailed out insurer posted a net loss of $4.1 billion on Thursday, a loss per share of $2.16 for the third quarter. While analysts hadn't expected the company to post a profit, the size of the loss exceeded expectation

The outsized loss sent AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) shares lower after the closing bell, with prices dropping more than 1% to $24.35.

And that's bad news for taxpayers, since the U.S. Treasury still owns a substantial chunk of AIG.

Back in 2008, the government agreed to help the giant insurer get back on its feet with a $180 billion lifeline. AIG has been slowly working toward paying back that loan.

But declining profits, and a recent drop in share price make that a much tougher task.

If the government is to be made whole, AIG will have to find a way to boost its share price. Shares now sit well below $28.72 -- the breakeven point for Treasury's investment.

Separately, AIG announced Thursday that its board of directors had authorized a $1 billion share buyback, a sign the company views its stock as undervalued.

AIG stock's slide may hurt taxpayers

AIG CEO Robert Benmosche attributed the loss to a tough business environment.

"AIG continues to navigate a challenging global economic environment, and our results for the quarter were adversely affected by equity market declines, widening credit spreads, and declining interest rates, as well as property catastrophe losses," Benmosche said in a statement.

The company's bottom line suffered from a $1.5 billion impairment charge in its aircraft leasing division, and AIG was hit by the declining value of its stake in Asian insurer AIA.

Last quarter, the company reported net income of $1.8 billion -- a rare profit.


Link

Well at least their bonuses are frozen to 2010 levels...

AIG, Ally, GM CEO compensation will not increase

Compensation packages for the chief executives of bailed-out firms American International Group (AIG.N), Ally Financial and General Motors (GM.N) will not increase in 2011, the Treasury Department said late on Friday.

The Obama administration's pay czar has reviewed the packages for the top 25 executives at the four remaining companies that have received exceptional government assistance and has found that overall, their cash compensation has decreased 18.2 percent, treasury said.

To ensure that taxpayers were not rewarding executives at companies that received the most government help, the law required that their pay packages be subject to restrictions and approved by Patricia Geoghegan, who is special master for executive compensation for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The cash component of the pay packages for the CEOs of Ally, GM and AIG is frozen at 2010 levels, Treasury said in a statement. Chrysler's top 25 executives were also reviewed. But since the auto maker is under management control of Italy's Fiat SpA (FIA.MI), its CEO is compensated by Fiat.

Geoghegan took issue with a few of the proposals. In a letter to Ally Financial, she said that in certain cases the proposed stock salary was not justified and must be reduced. The top paid executive at Ally, CEO Michael Carpenter, will make $9.5 million in 2011, according to the Treasury letter that did not identify Carpenter by name.

AIG's top earner, CEO Bob Benmosche, will make $10.5 million, according to Treasury's letter to the insurer. Geoghegan said that an AIG employee's cash salary should not exceed $500,000 other than in "exceptional cases for good cause."

The highest paid executive at GM, CEO Dan Akerson, will get $9 million this year, according to Treasury's letter to the automaker.

Originally the pay czar oversaw seven companies, but institutions such as Bank of America (BAC.N) and Citigroup (C.N) were released from its jurisdiction after repaying taxpayer money.
Link
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#2
Not good for Warren Buffet and his reputation for fortune telling.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,712
22,328
398
Northern California
#6
A government bailout is the opposite of capitalism. The government robbed us by betting our money on a bad investment (like they have many times). The corporation did what it's suppose to... try to turn a profit using whatever means are available. It should have been allowed to fail.

Saying AIG robbed us is like being mugged on the street and then blaming the bar where the criminal spent the money.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#8
A government bailout is the opposite of capitalism. The government robbed us by betting our money on a bad investment (like they have many times). The corporation did what it's suppose to... try to turn a profit using whatever means are available. It should have been allowed to fail.

Saying AIG robbed us is like being mugged on the street and then blaming the bar where the criminal spent the money.
This is what I hate about these OWS faggots. "The bankers stole our money maaaaaaaannnnnnn!!!!" No they didn't fuckwad, our politicians stole our money and GAVE it to the bankers with basically no strings attached maaaaaaannnnnn!!!!
 

JoeyDVDZ

Well-Known Member
Donator
Aug 20, 2004
30,166
6,043
763
#10
I would still like to know how, in a world where I do my job right & don't cost anyone any money, I can get paid approx. $50k per year, and these fucktards, losing $4-fucking-billion, can take home a yearly 9 mil? HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL?!?!?!? Fuck is this world bent.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#11
I would still like to know how, in a world where I do my job right & don't cost anyone any money, I can get paid approx. $50k per year, and these fucktards, losing $4-fucking-billion, can take home a yearly 9 mil? HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL?!?!?!? Fuck is this world bent.

because they kick back a portion of that to the politicians
 

Motor Head

HIGHWAY TRASH REMOVAL
Jan 23, 2006
10,385
419
243
Land of hicks and rubes.
#12
This is what I hate about these OWS faggots. "The bankers stole our money maaaaaaaannnnnnn!!!!" No they didn't fuckwad, our politicians stole our money and GAVE it to the bankers with basically no strings attached maaaaaaannnnnn!!!!
What! and the corporation had nothing to do with it? They bought and paid for every politician they needed for this sort of bullshit to happen and so much more. Fuck the banks AND the dirty politicians.....Obama=Bush.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,712
22,328
398
Northern California
#14
What! and the corporation had nothing to do with it? They bought and paid for every politician they needed for this sort of bullshit to happen and so much more. Fuck the banks AND the dirty politicians.....Obama=Bush.
Corporations are just entities that function to the best of their ability in the environment they operate in. The government shouldn't have the power to give bailouts to these banks, or have obnoxious power over any other aspect of the market... then there would be no reason to buy and sell politicians.

You'll see much better results by limiting the government than depending on the people who run it to do the right thing.
 

mascan42

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
19,234
5,952
848
Ronkonkoma, Long Island
#15
I would still like to know how, in a world where I do my job right & don't cost anyone any money, I can get paid approx. $50k per year, and these fucktards, losing $4-fucking-billion, can take home a yearly 9 mil? HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL?!?!?!? Fuck is this world bent.
But see, they need to pay their CEOs that much, because how else will they attract the best people to run their company into the ground?
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#16
What! and the corporation had nothing to do with it? They bought and paid for every politician they needed for this sort of bullshit to happen and so much more. Fuck the banks AND the dirty politicians.....Obama=Bush.
Every corporation has the right, and in fact, the obligation to use any LEGAL means necessary to make money for their share holders. (Hell, most people cast their votes for whomever they feel will benefit them most, right?) If that means donating to politicians, so be it. All any politician has to do is grow a pair of balls and say "NO". There is nothing wrong with trying to (legally) buy someone off, there is everything wrong with having no integrity and allowing yourself to be bought like a fucking whore.


Corporations are just entities that function to the best of their ability in the environment they operate in. The government shouldn't have the power to give bailouts to these banks, or have obnoxious power over any other aspect of the market... then there would be no reason to buy and sell politicians.

You'll see much better results by limiting the government than depending on the people who run it to do the right thing.
Great point. If the government wasn't so powerful, the scumbag banks wouldn't have had anyone to buy off or bail them out. Yet another unintended consequence of big government.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have". - Gerald Ford
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,923
8,997
763
Loveland, CO
#17
Corporations are just entities that function to the best of their ability in the environment they operate in. The government shouldn't have the power to give bailouts to these banks, or have obnoxious power over any other aspect of the market... then there would be no reason to buy and sell politicians.

You'll see much better results by limiting the government than depending on the people who run it to do the right thing.
And if that whore cheerleader didn't wear such a short skirt, the football team wouldn't have any reason to raype her.
 

Motor Head

HIGHWAY TRASH REMOVAL
Jan 23, 2006
10,385
419
243
Land of hicks and rubes.
#18
Corporations are just entities that function to the best of their ability in the environment they operate in. The government shouldn't have the power to give bailouts to these banks, or have obnoxious power over any other aspect of the market... then there would be no reason to buy and sell politicians.

You'll see much better results by limiting the government than depending on the people who run it to do the right thing.
Exactly, sir. I also realize that because of big government corporations are obligated to do whatever it takes to survive, buying off politicians is par for the course. This government stinks on ice.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#19
Exactly, sir. I also realize that because of big government corporations are obligated to do whatever it takes to survive, buying off politicians is par for the course. This government stinks on ice.
I'm glad you agree but there are tons of dummies who think the answer is more and stronger government. People really are complete shit.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,712
22,328
398
Northern California
#20
And if that whore cheerleader didn't wear such a short skirt, the football team wouldn't have any reason to raype her.
So who is who is your analogy? Are you saying the corporations are rayping the innocent little government :)rotf:), or is the government rayping the people (I agree). If you're saying the corporation is rayping the people through bailouts than the government is the one holding the cheerleader (people) down and egging them on.

How you cannot put most of the blame on government is beyond me... and this is no party-line thing, it applies to the Bush bailouts also. Corporations cannot take money from the people through threat of incarceration, the government can. Which is more like raype?
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,923
8,997
763
Loveland, CO
#21
So who is who is your analogy? Are you saying the corporations are rayping the innocent little government :)rotf:), or is the government rayping the people (I agree). If you're saying the corporation is rayping the people through bailouts than the government is the one holding the cheerleader (people) down and egging them on.

How you cannot put most of the blame on government is beyond me... and this is no party-line thing, it applies to the Bush bailouts also. Corporations cannot take money from the people through threat of incarceration, the government can. Which is more like raype?
Not saying it's a direct analogy, just showing that merely making an analogy doesn't make your argument any better.
 

Sunsetspawn

Registered User
Dec 5, 2005
2,955
410
328
#22
I would still like to know how, in a world where I do my job right & don't cost anyone any money, I can get paid approx. $50k per year, and these fucktards, losing $4-fucking-billion, can take home a yearly 9 mil? HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL?!?!?!? Fuck is this world bent.
Starting to sound like a socialist.
 

Your_Moms_Box

Free Shit / Socialism 2016
Dec 20, 2004
5,755
468
628
Dover, Delaware
#23
What! and the corporation had nothing to do with it? They bought and paid for every politician they needed for this sort of bullshit to happen and so much more. Fuck the banks AND the dirty politicians.....Obama=Bush.
Ummm... Bush was the one who did the AIG bailout, fuckwad.