Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

MetLife, Inc. Message Board

  • alpal1642 alpal1642 Jun 15, 2004 12:23 PM Flag

    Going Public was a Good Idea

    Gee, thanks for the vote of confidence, snoopy.(?)

    Let me say as I've said before, I think the purpose for going public was a good one. The only reason I mention the Mutual Co aspects is because yakmar keeps saying things like - Met didn't really have a plan only a wish list, or Met had only one plan and it fell through, or its plans fell through because of something that was going to happen sometime in the future. On that basis, the question of Why did Met Go Public becomes plausible.

    But let's look at it a different way. Forget about expansion for the moment.

    1) Met raised substantial capital via the IPO (even using yakmar's numbers). $$$

    2) Met's sales force has gotten rid of the amateurs, they're all pros now. $$$

    3) Met's admin & sales force is more efficient. $$$$

    4) Met has downsized its staff size and outsourced other jobs offshore. $$$

    5) Met has reduced retiree benefits and/or raised retiree costs. $$$

    6) Met has sold substantial amounts of real estate, including the Sears Tower and part of its former Home Office complex. $$$

    7) Met has sold some subsidiaries. $$$

    8) Met has raised rents in its huge compex in Peter Cooper/ Stuy Town. $$$

    9) Met has moved its home office staff to less expensive quarters (in LIC). $$$

    10) Met has reduced its advertising and got rid of its Wonders of Life Pavillion in Disney World. $$$

    So, to paraphrase a movie script, "Show me the money!" With all that dough, seeme to me Met should have bought a bank just to have someplace to store all this capital. Oh, that's right. Met owns a bank (with no branches and maybe 3 customers. So I exagerate - maybe.)

    And, yeah, I know, yakmar, what if ....

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • 'I misread your post. I thought you had said it was obvious he works in the PR department. I stand corrected on the technical fact.' Technical Fact!? You misread the focus of the entire point I was making! And you want to cover it up with that 'technical fact' comment? Tsk Tsk. Why not admit it. You thought you saw an opening to take a run at me and blow me out of the water. But in your haste and excitement, you misread my post to say what you wanted it to say. And consequently you blew it. But don't feel bad. Better men than you have tried over the years and I'm still here. But now you've lost your cover of pretending to be a factual commentator with no axe to grind. And YOU ask can't we all just get along. First, look in the mirror.
      And what claim are we making at this time. Do you or don't you work for Met this week?

    • Love that dar accent lol or dar slang ? LMAO

    • Ah askd mah wife ifn she new snoopy an she answrd tha same way as he done did. She done said she wuz glad she didnt no him neethr. Ahm wundrin if thit is susspishus. Dont let me see em beagle eyes down these hear parts ya mangy critter. An aint them werds priceles.

      Ah be funnin ya snoopy. Ya kin cum down hearabouts. Butt stays away frum mah wife. Yah hear. An Mr. flootysnooty ya also be welcumd. An wit thit name ah may also let ya meet mah wife. Thit there be more funnin.

    • As oxnard pointed out "it seems everyone's trying to become the primary advisor to the public for all matters financial." It seems to me that these "primary financial advisors" like to tell (suggest? advise?) people how to put their money at risk - with little risk to the advisor. Wouldn't it make more sense if they offered some form of guarantee with their "advice"? After all, even a used car salesman will give you some sort of guarantee. Might even call it the "We put our money where our mouth is guarantee." At the moment, it's more like "You put YOUR money where OUR mouth is non-guarantee."

    • Words may be cheap, reb, but what they can say about a person may be priceless. Those who use words cheaply can destroy their credibility. Those who don't understand that will pay a hefty price.

      Oh, and I'm awfully glad I don't know your wife!

    • Mr flootsnoot, ah be thinkin ya be eggsageratin when ya say thit there alpal fella says thit there yakmar fella said he said it be 3:15, but it be reely 3:17.
      Ya says we aint in court an anythin we says shouldnt be held gainst us. Butt evn if thit alpal said the 315 and 317 thing witch he done didnt do thems to minutes cood make an awfull diffrnce ifn it cauzs ya ta miss ya train. Ifn sumone tells me ma wife be foolin round, it wood make a damn big diffrnce ifn he new thit fer a fact or ifn he wuz just tellin tails outta skool. Itd make a diffrence in whoos head ahda blowed off. Now son ya gotta pantywaste name butt ah dont think ya got a pantywaste brain. Butt ah dont kno thit fer shure. Thit there Rodny King fella said thit there lets get along thing an then went out an commitd some more truble. Werds is cheep son.

    • Oh, oxnard! You're so, so, so ... so-so.

      I"ve also heard that "she's really good at what she does." Let's hope some of that involves the sales and retention of insurance.
      The General Auditor was a potential "loose canon" (or "tattletale" as he used to like to say). One could speculate that it was no accident that she was put in charge of Auditing (as well as Ethics & Compliance). He's retiring, so one can also speculate that it's now safe for her to move to Individual Business. Of course all that speculation may reveal one of MY biases - not that I have any you understand.

      And speaking of my biases, when you say "if it's true that she slept with Bob and isn't anymore, I'm impressed that she could get promoted instead of marginalized. Call me naive..." let me give you another possible interpretation. Maybe she has something on him!

      Maybe you're naive - or maybe I'm just overly suspicious. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

    • WHAT other poster?

    • Oh, Snoop!

      I never claimed to be unbiased. I'm FILLED with biases...some by choice, some not. The best I can hope for is to be objective, though I think my biases frequently interfere with that.

      So, being as objective as I can be at the moment, I wait to see what Lisa will bring to individual business. She seems to have done a good job with branding Met and seems to understand as well as any other non-sales executive I've seen what our business is about. And, (this may kill you guys) I don't really care who she's sleeping with, though I hear any close personal relationship with Bob is over.

      In fact, if it's true that she slept with Bob and isn't anymore, I'm impressed that she could get promoted instead of marginalized. Call me naive (I might even plead guilty to that on business political issues...I find it's really enhanced my quality of life), but I take that as a sign that she's really good at what she does.

      I've been impressed by Rob's understanding of our industry. I'm a little wary of his institutional background, but that could be because I don't understand what that world is like and so fear that it's very different. I'm hoping it's much more similar than different. This business (and most businesses) is ultimately about dealing with people.

    • oxnard - If you're going to be an unbiased arbiter, don't you think you should call the fouls on ALL players?

    • View More Messages
 
MET
45.77+0.69(+1.53%)May 27 4:01 PMEDT