Early on, I had hoped Greenberg would make a play to help AIG out of this mess. Now, frankly, I wish he'd just shut the fk up. Seriously, he seems to think he's the only one with a plan. Liddy is no fool - he knows what he's doing, and things are going fine. Maybe not as fast as we'd all like, but he's doing the right things - and Greenberg spouting off this crud about AIG going under soon if people don't listen to him is BS. It's conceited... what an arrogant man - and he's severely hurting the company he spent a lifetime building.
I own a $100 million midwestern company, and I would hope that when I retire from it, it would be a legacy for me... but honestly, I hope I'd be smart enough to know when my participation was only hurting things, be a man - and step away.
Greenberg - either do something helpful, or go away. You're further damaging your legacy, and hurting shareholders and employees.
Here's a plan to Greenberg to help. He should settle his case with the feds in AIG stock payable to them at the end of September 2010. Share value high -- feds win and Greenberg wins. Share value low -- feds lose, no big deal to Greenberg.
In this case you have what I call the Payola issues. This time around the feds have looked the other way.... Payola, Look it up instead of music it's our money. The fed's should have cracked down harder on those who are still beyond reproach. These fat, greedy, self-fellatio thieves, will be be tared and feathered. All there I'll gotten wealth will be taken from them and given back to bewildered share holders.
The decade of greed was a double edged sward.
Only time will tell if the poorest of the poor in this world were were helped by our prosperity.
Not sure why I mentioned how many shares I own - other than to illustrate that a fall from $1.60, depending upon how many shares you own, is just as bad as a fall from $50. Regardless, I wasn't intending to boast or brag.
As far as the reference to my company, again, only to illustrate a point.
No offense or bragging intended.
I have to disagree with your assessment. Mr. Greenberg is serving a good purpose by sticking up for the shareholders. Ask yourself this - If AIG had its last days at the end of this month vs the beginning of the crisis, do you think these prohibitive terms would be made? I certainly don't. When the banks are getting a complete pass @ 5% interest and preferred shares that can be retired without govt interference - I think ALL of the AIG shareholders need to speak up AND LOUDLY! We are getting screwed vis a vis everybody else. Go Mr. Greenberg!
All very good replies, and good points made.
OK, having taken into consideration some intelligent feedback from other posters, I'll revise my statement a little, to simply say: Greenberg, please, oh please, be careful what you say to the very nervous public. Frankly, I think BK is about as probable as Angelina stopping by this evening and saying she's always had a crush on me... but the public clearly thinks AIG is teetering on the edge, and the way he states his opinion could scare the heck out of people.
So, ok... Greenberg - feel free to try your level best to convince the powers that be that AIG got a bum deal, and better options are available, but do it in a manner that doesn't cause mass panic.
Fair? OK, great... Good luck guys.
Congrats on your company's success. But, you seem to not know what you are talking about regarding AIG. Liddy has said publicly that his #1 priority is paying back the loan through asset sales. He is CEO appointed by Fed to ensure that business interests don't interfere with the primary objective. IF, after asset sales, there is a viable core P&C biz, then he'll nurture that.
As things are going in the credit marekts, both buyers and sellers are being squeezed resulting in no asset sales to date. AIG prefers not sell at fire sale prices and buyers cannot get financing. The buyers prefer to wait and buy lower as the crushing loan terms exhaust the company's effort to survive.
MRG, by contrast, has a reasonable "win win" plan in which the company gets reasonable loan terms to right the ship. Surely a successful biz man like yourself can see the wisdom of that plan.
That's a fair reply, and I agree with most of what you said, truly...
I don't think the AIG deal is favorable, to be candid, but I also don't believe Liddy is just a goverment stooge. He's an accomplished, sharp CEO, and he's handling this fine. Would I prefer a different plan? Sure I would... but the bottom line is that AIG should indeed be selling some non-core assets, regardless of the government terms. This company got out of control and lost sight of their core competencies. When they reign that back in, they'll be left with a very strong core brand worth tens of billions - and the shareholders will do fine.
My concern about Greenberg is that his comments come off like "AIG has only weeks to live", and it's going to tank the company before anything good can be allowed to happen.
IS THAT HOW CARL ICAHN GETS A STOCKS PRICE UP--BY SHUTTING UP? THIS JUST OF FORBES NEWSWIRE--THE FIRST FRUIT'S OF GREENBERG'S LABORS
The most recent bout of just-to-get-by borrowing is at much sweeter terms than the draconian 12.0% or so interest AIG pays on its original $85.0 billion credit facility from the Federal Reserve. The plan is for the insurer to pare down its business and use the proceeds to settle its debt to America. But staying solvent while the deals get done is proving to be the hard part. (See “AIG's Play For Time")
Nick Ashooh, a spokesperson for AIG, said some of the cash the insurer has borrowed through the commerical paper facility has been used to pay down AIG’s original borrowing from the government. As of Thursday afternoon, the balance on the initial loan had fallen by $6.5 billion, to $65.5 billion, from $72.0 billion a week ago. Meaning, government-owned AIG is essentially paying off one government loan with another.