WSJ ARTICLE SUGGESTS TO CHANGE AIG AGREEMENT (link)
Forbes new artile agrees with WSJ
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ First, while the government has its 80% equity stake in AIG, its motivations to exercise those warrants are quite different from those of a normal investor. The ideal outcome for the government is that AIG would be able to dispose of its toxic holdings and obligations while keeping core insurance business intact. Along the way, AIG would be able to service its debt and in the end emerge intact, with the warrant position remaining on the shelf. In a normal situation, the warrant holder would want to exercise the warrants for a profit. If the best-case scenario proves true, the potentially massive dilution does not occur and AIG shares are enormously undervalued (assuming our rough operating and net-income estimates).
Its a little old news but is a valid argument. Government wants its money back and AIG to be successful American company. after the election they likely change the agreement to make easier it for AIg to survive. they cant change before the election because of negative public opinion.