You know, it’s one thing to bail-out (no this is NOT a rescue contrary to McCain’s posturing) failing businesses, it’s completely another thing to bail out AIG, paying for CEO a junket to California, and then give the company some more money.
What is wrong with that picture???
The bailout of A.I.G. has not gone smoothly. Shares were greatly diluted by the Fed’s original move, and investors have been asking why they were not allowed to vote on the terms of the bailout.
Then the company surprised analysts last week by disclosing that it had already drawn down $61 billion of the Fed loan. The speed of the drawdown led credit analysts to downgrade some of its debt and put other types of its debt on negative credit watch, signaling that other downgrades were possible.
This week, former A.I.G. executives were questioned by members of Congress, who wanted to know whether Goldman Sachs and other business partners had benefited from the bailout. Goldman Sachs has said that it had no meaningful exposure to losses from A.I.G.
It’s pretty sad that this NY Times article doesn’t even mention the AIG executives vacationing on bail-out monies to the tune of $440,000
If AIG mismanages the bailout monies they got in the first place (obvious by the vacationing execs) what the hell makes the Fed think they deserve more?
