Actually, this is low on my list of government fraud. remember, we have all just been grubered. The Liberal elitist snobs honestly do believe the American people are stupid.
Can you stomach the truth? Few can boast the awesome track record of Ultimate Stock
Alerts (look them up in google)
No, the BK will not cure it, however, UST was DIP and they knowingly sold a lemon, and they don't have a problem with doing things like that, which the poster believes that they will not do in case of AIG (i.e. go back to AIG and try to demand compensation for the lost case in court. It's totally acceptable behavior by the UST.
I haven't been following GM lately. I only owned a little back in the 1980's. If what you say is true, somebody is asleep at the switch. I expect to earn 10%, but am willing to take risks (mostly in AIG warrants) that no pension fund could/should be allowed. I have to assume, they didn't have the guts to cut existing pensions to a more sustainable level and hoped (against reason) that ballooning profits would allow GM to step up at a later date with more funding. It's not a good sign if they're in denial even bankruptcy can't cure.
I don't know, UST has shown a complete disregard for any law. Their word is the law, that's why the case is there to begin with. It was not enough for them to be above the law, they had to start punishing shareholders. These people are psychopaths.
Speaking of illegal acts by the UST. GM has pension liabilities that assumed market will go up 10% a year. The gifted PMs in GM's pension fund rolled over into the Treasuries (surprise, Timmay needed to sell some bonds), and now they really stand no chance of staying solvent. In a couple of years there will be another GM Chapter 11 filing, and the Treasury will be beating themselves on the chest screaming about evil shareholders, but the statute of limitation will be passed.
Which brings me to the next point, why would people ever deal with the government again after what they've pulled in 2008? They are disturbingly fixated on ripping off people with no regard for the laws, oh, yes, I forgot, SEC has no authority over their actions, so they can freely engage in securities fraud all they want. Look at GSE's, AIG & GM. Those three are blatant, I bet you banks are also interesting.
dishonest need to be proven dishonest and put behind bars,even if it is treasury secretary.for prez it is impeachment and disbarment-nobody is above the law.not enough prisons-built more.for white collars specifically.
Fox news just had two attorneys discussing the trial . The gov't. is not going to have Greenberg testify , could be a problem for their defense . Indemnification was only mentioned in one sentence and the attorney stated that was a whole other issue . Fox news stated Greenberg seems to be doing better than expected and the judge has a sympathetic ear . Everybody knows AIG was done , but the terms , interest rates may get this old geezer a few bucks . Two weeks ago , Bloomberg news stated Boies was possibly hoping for a partial settlement . I can't see any how any crazy settlement of 40 billion or whatever will take place . That said , I'm a BAC stockholder so I never say never . Still loaded in warrants , sold the common about a month ago . Looking for a market pullback to reenter the stock.
I've been at this too long to be outraged. Dishonest people will always find a way. Their ability to "spin" their larceny is what bothers me most. Like mosquitoes and flies, you can control them at some tolerable level, but they will always be with us.
It's about the word "indemnification". If that stands, while the rest of the deal falls apart, AIG would be liable. The government would pay up front, then file a claim against AIG. I conceded that is unlikely, but still not impossible. Common sense has nothing to do with it. Read the article. Why people get defensive about matters of record and fact is beyond me. Challenge the journalists if you disagree. I'm not the guy who needs convincing. I'm fully vested.
You have a GOV that is using selective cronyism to reward their supporters....the banks who perpetrated the Fraudulent mortgages received 0-4% interest and did NOT have to give up SHAREs..... and you guys???? 14% and almost 80% of your shares ... SELECTIVE CRONYISM? ILLEGAL for GOV to do this.... YOU BET!
There is an indemnity clause - it is extremely unlikely that it is would be used against current shareholders - the Treasury sold 92% of this company back to the American people - should they try to enforce the indemnity clause - all that invested in those shares would have one hell of a case against the treasury - anyway, my shares will be in my portfolio - likely to pass into my estate - this company will once again pay out terrific dividends, growing rapidly once this all moves on - in the meantime the share buybacks at this PPS level just make the future that much more profitable!!
I think you need to reconsider. Kind of with jon here that the chances are remote, but they are non-zero. Stranger things have happened.
I think it is you, who is losing logic and ethic here. Is AIG listed as a defendant in this trial? If no, then what the hell are you talking about...it is not about rose glasses. It is about common sense...
Logically you are correct. But again, the law sometimes strays from both logic and ethics. I agree the chance that AIG pays is remote, but that's not the same as zero. The article I presumed you referenced made that very clear- even its title. I expect AIG to make me rich. But that doesn't mean I have to wear rose colored glasses- or worse- blinders.
Agreed - add to that - the treasury then sold the 92% stake they held to the public - if AIG ever were on the hook the Treasury would be sued again - this time by all the shareholders that purchased the government shares!!
$1.5B this quarter under $55/share. This is great. Lets keep the price around here for a bit longer. I don't plan on selling in the next 5 years anyway.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
If it is demonstrated the Government acted illegally, which I do not think is going to happen anyhow, then the provision of AIG indemnifying the government against loss is also based on an illegal act. This was spelled out in a recent article