Yeah so the big wigs over at AIG celebrated getting bailed out spent over $400k on a little shindig at a Regis.

Any one else thing a big can of "You are Fired" should be opened??

Any one else thing a big can of You are Fire should be opened??
To quote Jules, "English motherfucker, do you speak it?"

Just fucking with you Grey.


edited to fix a stupid error in my quote. Oh the irony...

Actually it was Jules Winnfield that said that quote, not Marsellus.

Yes, in my rush to make a bad joke at Grey's expense, I fucked up big time in quoting my favorite movie.

I'm pretty fucking far from ok.

Yes, in my rush to make a bad joke at Grey's expense, I fucked up big time in quoting my favorite movie.

I'm pretty fucking far from ok.

That movie is one of the all time greats...definately a top 3 for me.

What these guys did was criminal...I want our 400k back!

Aaaaand this would be why we are in the situation we are in right now, and why unchecked capitalism, once it reaches the stage of massive corporations, is not actually a good thing. And, not that I want to validate it at all, but there was a strong statement about this back in 2001 that involved air planes, and we were too busy playing John Wayne to at least consider that there might be some truth to the statement.

This type of event is not uncommon, by the way. A local college received a massive private donation to their performing arts program. They celebrated by throwing a catered $10,000 meal. Hey, it's not their money, it's government money, so it's okay.

I see a need for some sort of oversight but I really really am leary about the same crooks , read politicians, who can't manage to do their jobs being the ones to oversee coorporations.

It's dicey at best ;( Maybe they can set caps and limits on their pay and leave it at that?

I suppose it would be pertinent to find out when the party was planned.

I suppose it would be pertinent to find out when the party was planned.Two thoughts - the first is that even if it was planned prior to the bailout, if money is so tight why was it not canceled? Second, at some point these companies need to at least pretend to be ethical and take the visual high road. If they want the public to take them seriously, they need to conduct themselves in a manner that does not show even a hint of improper conduct. The financial crash is ruining lives, and they have time to party? We could even look past the price tag for the moment, and just examine that aspect.

I'm thinking that something like that was probably planned and paid for at least 6 months in advance. It looks bad for them to party it up now, but the insinuation that they're just running an orgy with taxpayer money is probably a mis-characterization.

I'm thinking that something like that was probably planned and paid for at least 6 months in advance. It looks bad for them to party it up now, but the insinuation that they're just running an orgy with taxpayer money is probably a mis-characterization.


Most likely an accurate scenario. But boy oh boy...how bad it looks now!

Perception is 9/10ths of reality.

I perceive what you just said not to make a bit of sense.

You don't understand a fairly common saying? wow

According to the saying, I just made you 90% nonsensical! It must be correct!

You know exactly what my point was, and you are now being purposefully daft...

Having a $440,000 party AFTER getting $85,000,000,000 in bail out money is going to look horrible to the public regardless if the party was planned before or after the bailout. Even if it was planned and paid for before the bailout, AIG could have probably received some of the $440,000 back and saved 'some' face with the American public. Heck, if they had come out and said, "Due to recent events, we have canceled a previously planned team building retreat. We are going to devote our time and monies to digging our company out of problems," they could have looked like they somewhat cared about the company's and tax payer's financial bottom line. Remember how we reacted positively when the former CEO said he wouldn't take the payout after he was canned? AIG could have had similar positive reaction if they'd canceled the get-together.

Instead, a large portion of this country today questions even further why we bailed them out of the mess into which they got themselves.

The public 'perceives' that AIG did something wrong, and when they just got $85,000,000,000 from the public, that's all that really matters.

Perhaps it was pre-planned, and this is a case where I've only skimmed headlines, and not read the articles fully. Greystone's post implies that the party was to celebrate the bailout.

Maybe it would have cost more to cancel it, if it was planned that far in advance.

I know a lot of companies will make you pay a deposit on certain things.

However, I do agree that perceptually, it isn't good to party after you have been bailed out....

The public 'perceives' that AIG did something wrong, and when they just got $85,000,000,000 from the public, that's all that really matters.

Catering to the mob mentality is myopic. You make yourself no better than Fox News, if you support such superficial thinking.

If you look into the details of the AIG deal, you'll find that it's simply a bridge loan to cover a short-term liquidity problem. Not a "bailout" at all. You didn't give them tax money. They owe you nothing.

AIG wasn't participating in the activities that firms like Lehman and Bear were. AIG mostly got screwed by misleading CDOs and the mob mentality that keeps sinking these companies before they can recover.

People are so busy trying to figure out how to be outraged about the $810+ billion bailout, that they aren't taking time to understand (if they're capable) what's actually going on.

Actually we've skewed away from something rather important.

If you are hemoraging cash you shouldn't be throwing expensive parties. Regardless if it was planned before or after a cash infusion to said faltering enterprise.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/aig-clarifies-agent-meeting/story.aspx?guid={E435AAE7-CB13-4E78-863E-B7E9F77E176B}&dist=hppr

The event, mischaracterized as an "Executive Retreat," was held by one of AIG's insurance subsidiaries for independent life insurance agents, not for AIG employees. These agents were top business producers for the company, and of the more than 100 attendees, only 10 were employees of the AIG subsidiary who were there to represent their company. No AIG executives from headquarters attended. The meeting was planned months before the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's loan to AIG.

Like I said, don't grab your pitchfork and join the mob just yet.

Actually we've skewed away from something rather important.

If you are hemoraging cash you shouldn't be throwing expensive parties. Regardless if it was planned before or after a cash infusion to said faltering enterprise.

That assumes this subsidiary of AIG (American General) was losing money.

Most of AIG was and is still profitable. They just got screwed by CDO insurance on bad paper and this mob panic mentality that took their stock down, leading to a credit rating downgrade.

Guess enjoying the rollercoaster of being public stock has it's ups and downs. Who'd have thunk'd it!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1007083aig2.html

Deposit: 402,701.04

Would you have canceled that?

Guess enjoying the rollercoaster of being public stock has it's ups and downs. Who'd have thunk'd it!

You have to understand that AIG and American General aren't the same company. AIG owns American General, but that doesn't necessarily make American General the beneficiary of AIG's stock ups, nor does it make American General insolvent if AIG were to fail.

American General currently has an A+ "Strong" credit rating from S&P. AIG is actually looking to sell AG, because it's profitable and they need money to pay back the loan.

This snap to judgment mob of public opinion on financials is a huge part of the problem we're facing right now.

No, I wouldn't have planned it in the first place.

It just typical of these asshole big greedy fucking corporation. $400,000 for a party for 100 god damned people. Just add it in to all of the other corporate greed that's been going on....just a sign of how messed up our society is.

Why is our place to judge what a private company does with its private funds?

If it was taxpayer money then by all means find the tallest tree.

I believe it AIG is a public company that was and still is answerable to its stock holders. Oh, and concerning tax payer funds...ahem....

Why is our place to judge what a private company does with its private funds?

I have every right in the world to judge and express an opinion on anything I damn well please....remember the free country thing. :)

How could it possibly have been taxpayer funds?

Suggesting that just isn't taking time to understand any aspect of this, beyond Grey's portrayal of the headline.

So the question is a moral one? Morally I have no problem with any private company doing anything they want with private funds, barring illegal activity.

If I can spend $500,000 on my employees and it generates $10,000,000 profit for me then it was a good decision. Frankly if it meant buying Hummers or giving $500,000 to the American Cancer Society, in the end from a business perspective it matters not.

If I can spend $500,000 on my employees and it generates $10,000,000 profit for me then it was a good decision. Frankly if it meant buying Hummers or giving $500,000 to the American Cancer Society, in the end from a business perspective it matters not.


There were female escorts at the party? :p



Ok, ok, stop throwing things at me.....seriously, the party was the norm for top earning salesmen, and is the kind of reward that generates profits.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27201970/

Sometimes you just want to kick a CEO in the balls, no?

I love the quote at the bottom about how the CEO feels the terms of the loan are too tough.

Regardless of the reasons for these events, or whether or not they were planned in advance of the bailout, one has to wonder how a company who needed federal money can justify planning them in the first place?

The thing is, they didn't need federal money due to a long-term financial weakness. AIG was almost purely the victim of a crisis of confidence, not bad business.

So, when they planned these things, they literally had no credible threat to their solvency.

I don't completely agree. I understand the economics of it, but there are two important aspects. The first is, after the fallout from their party, you'd think they'd cancel this trip immediately (assuming there was time between them? I couldn't find a date for the trip). Time to start at least pretending to be a responsible company.

Secondly, the trip highlights the excessive spending performed by these corporations, especially to the extent where they did not save a warchest for hard times. This is the sort of excessive spending that brought us to where we are now, right along with high CEO salaries and severance packages.

I say this as someone who lost considerable money when WorldCom bit it, and with relatives hurt badly by Enron's similar actions. This is the catch to the free market system.

Keep in mind that they were putting nearly 90% deposits down on these things, about a year in advance. Especially since they were rewards for sales performance, which actually were important in driving overall profitability, what sense would it make to cancel those to save the remaining 10%?

I could understand abandoning the sunk costs, if they were purely recreational, but the things actually had ROI. Companies in every sector throw these sorts of reward parties, and have for decades.

AIG really gets painted unfairly on this one. If it was Lehman or Countrywide, I could understand the bitterness people are taking out on them, but not here.

We're just all furious about the state of things, looking for any tangible target we can find to take it out on.

If I could ask Mc Cain three things right now they would be:

Who is Phil Gramm?

What is a CDS? (credit default swap)

Why is an insurance company at the heart of a subprime mortguage problem?

If I could ask Mc Cain three things right now they would be:

Who is Phil Gramm?

What is a CDS? (credit default swap)

Why is an insurance company at the heart of a subprime mortguage problem?


His answers:

1) Phil Gramm is a good friend of mine that after serving his country for many years retired to a private sector job where he has proven his worth.




2) It doesn't matter, that's why I have Phil Gramm.



3) They are at the core of the problem because they, like many banks, trusted those minorities who they were giving the opportunity of home ownership much like the great Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt had pointed out..