![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Only kidding. Boy would it be fun! Maybe just for April 1???? 69.39.49.27 ( talk) 16:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur! Honestly, I'm surprised the history page doesn't show more accounts of vandalism in the first place.
128.237.251.50 (
talk)
17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see the article building up, but it's very biased toward recent events, and not all of those are being updated. I am an AIG employee, but am editing/commenting on the article entirely on my own free time. Corporations are tricky articles to build on Wikipedia, but a robust Wikipedia should definitely have good entries, right? -- 66.65.125.108 17:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Is accounting fraud a bad name for surplus notes which were issued in the early 1990s? Wasn't the deal true or did it niot reaklly shift risk? Who or which party would have been on the hook at the end if the thing went broke? If it was Genn Re, it's truly insurance, Isn't this the difference between pure debt pure equity and hybrid securioties?
Seems to me only a few of the scandals are reresented here. Although not a scandal, it shuld be noted here how AIG spent $6,000,000 lobbying the US government, money talks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.85.48 ( talk) 13:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
AIG has recently acquired Marine Terminals Corporation. MTC is a company in the business of managing stevedores and longshoremen at the various ports they have contracted with.
HM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.139.244 ( talk) 21:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The phrase below doesnt seem to be either grammatically correct or factually correct based on the use of "about 100%." I unfortunately do not know the fact on this matter but hopefully someone with more knowledge can clear this up
"Through various subsidiaries, AIG owns about 100% of 21st Century Insurance Group (see http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=TW)."
66.226.224.176 ( talk) 22:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC) nobesnickr
I read the NYT article more carefully than the preceding editor presumably did.
--
Jerzy•
t
04:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I prefer the numbers. I can give it tone in my head. "almost twice as much" scans in a clunky way and sounds like casual chat. Synonyms for the first and last word would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.233.86 ( talk) 03:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
According to an unnamed source AIG had $550 million to $600 million of preferred shares in the two GSEs [1]. I don't know if we should include mention of this or wait until AIG makes an announcement. __ meco ( talk) 13:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
New York Times [2]
CNN [3]
Bloomberg [4]
Reuters [5]
-- Jóhann Heiðar Árnason ( talk) 00:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
http://www.federalreserve.gov/ -- Jóhann Heiðar Árnason ( talk) 01:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not correct to mention Fed bailing out (read- buying out) AIG as "the biggest government bailout in history". Simple, well known fact is that Federal Reserve Bank is a privatly owned organization and is not a branch of USA government. Thus, it is private bailout - and, in my opinion, is nothing but Fed owners acquiring AIG for pennies on a dollar.
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/federal_reserve.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.185.211 ( talk) 22:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the article should link to their world headquarters in New York, the American International Building in Lower Manhattan. Maybe a pic, maybe not, dunno. I can't think of where to stick in a link. M.Nelson ( talk) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Given that the AIG announcement speaks of a sale of certain of its businesses with "the least possible disruption to the overall economy.", it would be useful to expand out the holdings section and categorize it. Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 04:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
See Nationalization
I think that the term conservatorship should be avoided as it is unclear and ambiguous. The word nationalization has a clear definition which means ownership taken by the government. Thoughts? Cpeter9 ( talk) 14:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I also think that we should scrutinize whether the Federal Reserve's action actually constitutes a loan versus nationalization or government ownership. Reports are saying that the Fed now owns 79.9% of AIG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpeter9 ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
lede states "AIG announced the same day that its board accepted the terms of the Federal Reserve Bank's rescue package, including the issue of equity warrants, and that it is in the best interest of all parties.[5]"
fed bailout section states "AIG's board of directors approved the loan transaction on the same day, without comment about the issuance of warrants amounting to potentially 79.9% of the equity of AIG.[5][2]"
the 2 are not in agreement.
the aig press release referenced by footnote 5 is silent on details of terms...specifically silent on issuance of warrnts."
a better researcher/editor can tackle this one. i'm limited on time at moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.2.68 ( talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tried twice to add this as a "see also" item, only to be twice reverted without substantial rationale. Perhaps someone can advance for me one argument as to why this is inapt? The reasoning all seems quite categorical to me: this was a massive intervention into the economy by the government, using public funds to prop up a private entity, preventing the market from expressing its judgment of AIG and substituting the judgment of the government, insulating AIG from the consequences of its own business decisions, and ultimately assuming a majority equitable stake in the corporation at issue. How can this not indicate some degree of economic planning? Let's review some characteristics of central economic planning. In planned economies, the government frequently intervenes, assumes control of private enterprises, overrides the judgment of consumers, bestows public funds on private entities, etc. This does not seem like a particularly ideological or subjective determination to me. One incident, or even a pattern of them, does not necessarily indicate that the U.S. has a planned economy, but this term is at least relevant enough that the reader might want to be aware of it. That's all a "see also" implies. deranged bulbasaur 10:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) {{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) (Dealbook column) {{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) I disagree with the addition of the planned economy I agree that it is an example of an unplanned economy - Tracer9999 ( talk) 01:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears this has been removed by yet another editor as being irrelevant.. and based on the fact your the only one here that is actually for this being added. It should stay out until consensus sways in your direction. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I would certainly agree that the idea of planned economy is somewhat relevant to the AIG bailout. In a completely pure free market economy/unplanned economy, AIG would be long gone. Probably as a result of poor business practices and extravagance. But the government has decided that we need AIG, so far no matter what the cost to the American people(well more than $100 billion). This is the government deciding what corporations should be allowed to fail and which should not. I wouldn't imagine that's WP:OR, because he wasn't saying that the United States has a planned economy. He was simply saying that this sort of thing - the government interfering in private business - is characteristic of one, which it is. And he has fair reasoning for planned economy being referenced in the See Also section, whereas I'm not sure if some of you know what a planned economy actually is. It certainly has nothing to do with the government actually expecting or foreseeing everything that has to do with the economy, but rather trying to guide it as they see fit. Whether it belongs in the See Also section, I'm not sure. But I would certainly not be opposed to it, and would like to see better reasoning for it not being there. thezirk ( talk) 08:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Right now it is written "The following week, AIG executives participated in a lavish California retreat". I would encourage to change the wording "the following week" to a precise date instead. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 ( talk • contribs) 23:31, October 8, 2008
I created a new page for AIG Financal Products, since it's the piece of this whole operation that lost all the money. Piecing through some details now. The ex CEO, Joseph Cassano, deserves his own wikipedia page too. Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 15:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The loss is the largest in US corporate history. Is it therefore the largest in world history? Fig ( talk) 12:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It would seem that there should be some details as to who the $100B went to. Did the government really just cut a blank check to AIG and AIG then proceeded to make lump sum payments to 3rd parties with no accounting by the US government as to who was being paid? How does anyone know that the payments didn't just go to hedge funds for billionaires that would have otherwise lost significant amounts of their wealth? 69.38.218.221 ( talk) 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If you think about it, the answer is that the payments went to all of AIG's customers (auto, life insurance, etc.) because otherwise if they didn't get the money the entire company would fail. Also, even if the insurance that brought down the company was bad insurance on the bond holdings of billionaire's hedge funds, if Congress was to deny claims to them based on the fact that they are "billionaires", then I would imagine a great many billionaires would stop buying insurance since they would always be afraid that if their insurance company was in trouble that they wouldn't get paid because they are billionaires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.213.112 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 March 2009
Taking over AIG was the biggest mistake Obama ever made. GJCorr ( talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This is really not clear (cut and pasted from the page):
"On October 22, 2008, pdubs and those creditors of Lehman Brothers who bought credit default swaps to hedge them against Lehman bankruptcy settled those accounts. The net payments were $5.2 billion[64] even though initial estimates of the amount of the settlement were between $100 billion and $400 billion.[65]
"By December 2008, AIG had paid at least $18.7 billion to various financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs and Société Générale to retire obligations related to credit default swaps (CDS). As much as $53.5 billion related to swap payouts are part of the bailout.[66]
First of all, how could the initial payments have been a mere $5.2 billion when the estimate was $100-400 billion?
Second, what is the relationship between the $18.7 billion paid "by December 2008" to the "As much as $53.5 billion related to swap payouts"?
Would not everyone who was entitled to collect against the swaps have gone for the money the instant it was available?
It still appears that the payouts were 1/2 to 1/8 of the initially anticipated payouts? How could such an important number have been in very much doubt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.5.223 ( talk) 22:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The current financial crisis has lasted (about) 5 months, and yet that section dominates the article. Please keep the current news in the mindset of the scale of the time AIG has been around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.7.40 ( talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The properly cited information that I added earlier today regarding the identification of CDS counterparties to AIG appears to have been accidentally deleted. I have restored it to the section titled "Settlement of Credit Default Swaps."
I believe this information should remain in place as it is noteworthy news (having been requested for many months by Congress and, once released, demonstrating the global scope of the crisis and subsequent bailout). If the content was deliberately removed I would appreciate a justification. (Rewording or repositioning is welcome and encouraged!) shultzc ( talk) 05:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
J.H. Crawford asks: What is "pdubs" as mentioned in the article? The best guess I can make is Price-Waterhouse Cooper; this information is not easily to be found on the Internet. Since this is a major payout, it's important to clarify.
Are you asking American taxpayers to send them cards and flowers next? Tellya ( talk) 18:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the liberal who wrote this section could add that these were retention bonuses and that they were inked a year ago. Congress knew about them when they started bailing them out in September 2008. The people getting these bonuses were going to be laid off, but AIG still needed them on a temporary basis, hence the bonus incentive to stick around.
I also see elsewhere that all of the executive retreats and other expenditures have been covered in detail. That’s great. How about a section on the billions of U.S. taxpayer bailout money that was sent from AIG to banks in Europe? It may not make as good a class struggle story, but it still dwarfs any executive compensation and resort expenditures.
I accept that Wikipedia has morphed into a free encyclopedia edited and written by liberals, the New York Times of encyclopedias, if you will (“fake, but accurate”). But couldn’t you just once pretend to be fair-minded about something, even if it goes against popular sentiment? It’s not as exciting as quotes of boiling executives in oil or lopping off their heads, but this is still an encyclopedia.
And why the hell this section linked to “Class Struggle”? Are you kidding me? Why not link directly to Marx? It is no wonder that no one from a graduate professor to an elementary school teacher will allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source. This is an encyclopedia? 141.246.2.80 ( talk)Looftie
AIG IS THE BEST COMPANY TO WORK FOR. I WANT TO WORK THERE. --- GFRV ( talk) 20:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this section deserves its own article, its certainly surpassed alot of expectations. ViperSnake151 15:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Most of the money figures are similar to this - $170 billion, but there's an exception - 165 million USD. Please correct this. Thanks Kvsh5 ( talk) 07:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Suggest link change ("Japanese example" quoted by US senator) from Seppuku to Suicide in Japan - more common methods for killing yourself in Japan include hanging (ref Toshikatsu Matsuoka, a former minister) and throwing yourself in front of a train. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rottkapp ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=289004&cl=12573099&src=finance&ch=1316259 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.202.99 ( talk) 06:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
See the Talk page of Coutts, where it is noted that Coutts was involved with AIG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.138 ( talk) 12:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that AIG is the principle sponsor of Manchester United, and has been for the last three years? Conay ( talk) 18:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed the links to AIG's Pakistan, Indonesia, and other overseas operations. AIG has a multitude of subsidiary companies, and there's no point in listing them all in the external links section. I've added somewhat of an archived home page for the old AIG site that lists all of that and more. Also, the links for AIG and "AIG Corporate" link to the exact same site, so there only needs to be one. HR 1586 should probably be incorporated into the article, and then added as a source, but for now, I'm replacing the strange site with a more official Library of Congress link.— DMCer ™ 06:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The following photo request was copied from Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Architecture. Tim Pierce ( talk)
The etymology needs to be discussed. Curb Chain ( talk) 01:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
A representative of AIG noticed that the logo in the article was outdated, and provided an updated image via OTRS to be used under fair use. OTRS agents, see 2012121310015352 -- SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
One editor feels that the logo in the article should be 1. File:Logo used by AIG in 2012.jpg while another feels it should be 2. File:AIG 2012 logo.png The color of the image in #2 doesn't match the color of the official image. I do not see why using an unofficial version, with the wrong color, is superior to the official version. The choices appear to be:
What do others think?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Only kidding. Boy would it be fun! Maybe just for April 1???? 69.39.49.27 ( talk) 16:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur! Honestly, I'm surprised the history page doesn't show more accounts of vandalism in the first place.
128.237.251.50 (
talk)
17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see the article building up, but it's very biased toward recent events, and not all of those are being updated. I am an AIG employee, but am editing/commenting on the article entirely on my own free time. Corporations are tricky articles to build on Wikipedia, but a robust Wikipedia should definitely have good entries, right? -- 66.65.125.108 17:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Is accounting fraud a bad name for surplus notes which were issued in the early 1990s? Wasn't the deal true or did it niot reaklly shift risk? Who or which party would have been on the hook at the end if the thing went broke? If it was Genn Re, it's truly insurance, Isn't this the difference between pure debt pure equity and hybrid securioties?
Seems to me only a few of the scandals are reresented here. Although not a scandal, it shuld be noted here how AIG spent $6,000,000 lobbying the US government, money talks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.85.48 ( talk) 13:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
AIG has recently acquired Marine Terminals Corporation. MTC is a company in the business of managing stevedores and longshoremen at the various ports they have contracted with.
HM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.139.244 ( talk) 21:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The phrase below doesnt seem to be either grammatically correct or factually correct based on the use of "about 100%." I unfortunately do not know the fact on this matter but hopefully someone with more knowledge can clear this up
"Through various subsidiaries, AIG owns about 100% of 21st Century Insurance Group (see http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=TW)."
66.226.224.176 ( talk) 22:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC) nobesnickr
I read the NYT article more carefully than the preceding editor presumably did.
--
Jerzy•
t
04:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I prefer the numbers. I can give it tone in my head. "almost twice as much" scans in a clunky way and sounds like casual chat. Synonyms for the first and last word would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.233.86 ( talk) 03:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
According to an unnamed source AIG had $550 million to $600 million of preferred shares in the two GSEs [1]. I don't know if we should include mention of this or wait until AIG makes an announcement. __ meco ( talk) 13:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
New York Times [2]
CNN [3]
Bloomberg [4]
Reuters [5]
-- Jóhann Heiðar Árnason ( talk) 00:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
http://www.federalreserve.gov/ -- Jóhann Heiðar Árnason ( talk) 01:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not correct to mention Fed bailing out (read- buying out) AIG as "the biggest government bailout in history". Simple, well known fact is that Federal Reserve Bank is a privatly owned organization and is not a branch of USA government. Thus, it is private bailout - and, in my opinion, is nothing but Fed owners acquiring AIG for pennies on a dollar.
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/federal_reserve.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.185.211 ( talk) 22:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the article should link to their world headquarters in New York, the American International Building in Lower Manhattan. Maybe a pic, maybe not, dunno. I can't think of where to stick in a link. M.Nelson ( talk) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Given that the AIG announcement speaks of a sale of certain of its businesses with "the least possible disruption to the overall economy.", it would be useful to expand out the holdings section and categorize it. Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 04:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
See Nationalization
I think that the term conservatorship should be avoided as it is unclear and ambiguous. The word nationalization has a clear definition which means ownership taken by the government. Thoughts? Cpeter9 ( talk) 14:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I also think that we should scrutinize whether the Federal Reserve's action actually constitutes a loan versus nationalization or government ownership. Reports are saying that the Fed now owns 79.9% of AIG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpeter9 ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
lede states "AIG announced the same day that its board accepted the terms of the Federal Reserve Bank's rescue package, including the issue of equity warrants, and that it is in the best interest of all parties.[5]"
fed bailout section states "AIG's board of directors approved the loan transaction on the same day, without comment about the issuance of warrants amounting to potentially 79.9% of the equity of AIG.[5][2]"
the 2 are not in agreement.
the aig press release referenced by footnote 5 is silent on details of terms...specifically silent on issuance of warrnts."
a better researcher/editor can tackle this one. i'm limited on time at moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.2.68 ( talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tried twice to add this as a "see also" item, only to be twice reverted without substantial rationale. Perhaps someone can advance for me one argument as to why this is inapt? The reasoning all seems quite categorical to me: this was a massive intervention into the economy by the government, using public funds to prop up a private entity, preventing the market from expressing its judgment of AIG and substituting the judgment of the government, insulating AIG from the consequences of its own business decisions, and ultimately assuming a majority equitable stake in the corporation at issue. How can this not indicate some degree of economic planning? Let's review some characteristics of central economic planning. In planned economies, the government frequently intervenes, assumes control of private enterprises, overrides the judgment of consumers, bestows public funds on private entities, etc. This does not seem like a particularly ideological or subjective determination to me. One incident, or even a pattern of them, does not necessarily indicate that the U.S. has a planned economy, but this term is at least relevant enough that the reader might want to be aware of it. That's all a "see also" implies. deranged bulbasaur 10:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) {{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) (Dealbook column) {{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) I disagree with the addition of the planned economy I agree that it is an example of an unplanned economy - Tracer9999 ( talk) 01:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears this has been removed by yet another editor as being irrelevant.. and based on the fact your the only one here that is actually for this being added. It should stay out until consensus sways in your direction. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I would certainly agree that the idea of planned economy is somewhat relevant to the AIG bailout. In a completely pure free market economy/unplanned economy, AIG would be long gone. Probably as a result of poor business practices and extravagance. But the government has decided that we need AIG, so far no matter what the cost to the American people(well more than $100 billion). This is the government deciding what corporations should be allowed to fail and which should not. I wouldn't imagine that's WP:OR, because he wasn't saying that the United States has a planned economy. He was simply saying that this sort of thing - the government interfering in private business - is characteristic of one, which it is. And he has fair reasoning for planned economy being referenced in the See Also section, whereas I'm not sure if some of you know what a planned economy actually is. It certainly has nothing to do with the government actually expecting or foreseeing everything that has to do with the economy, but rather trying to guide it as they see fit. Whether it belongs in the See Also section, I'm not sure. But I would certainly not be opposed to it, and would like to see better reasoning for it not being there. thezirk ( talk) 08:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Right now it is written "The following week, AIG executives participated in a lavish California retreat". I would encourage to change the wording "the following week" to a precise date instead. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 ( talk • contribs) 23:31, October 8, 2008
I created a new page for AIG Financal Products, since it's the piece of this whole operation that lost all the money. Piecing through some details now. The ex CEO, Joseph Cassano, deserves his own wikipedia page too. Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 15:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The loss is the largest in US corporate history. Is it therefore the largest in world history? Fig ( talk) 12:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It would seem that there should be some details as to who the $100B went to. Did the government really just cut a blank check to AIG and AIG then proceeded to make lump sum payments to 3rd parties with no accounting by the US government as to who was being paid? How does anyone know that the payments didn't just go to hedge funds for billionaires that would have otherwise lost significant amounts of their wealth? 69.38.218.221 ( talk) 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If you think about it, the answer is that the payments went to all of AIG's customers (auto, life insurance, etc.) because otherwise if they didn't get the money the entire company would fail. Also, even if the insurance that brought down the company was bad insurance on the bond holdings of billionaire's hedge funds, if Congress was to deny claims to them based on the fact that they are "billionaires", then I would imagine a great many billionaires would stop buying insurance since they would always be afraid that if their insurance company was in trouble that they wouldn't get paid because they are billionaires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.213.112 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 March 2009
Taking over AIG was the biggest mistake Obama ever made. GJCorr ( talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This is really not clear (cut and pasted from the page):
"On October 22, 2008, pdubs and those creditors of Lehman Brothers who bought credit default swaps to hedge them against Lehman bankruptcy settled those accounts. The net payments were $5.2 billion[64] even though initial estimates of the amount of the settlement were between $100 billion and $400 billion.[65]
"By December 2008, AIG had paid at least $18.7 billion to various financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs and Société Générale to retire obligations related to credit default swaps (CDS). As much as $53.5 billion related to swap payouts are part of the bailout.[66]
First of all, how could the initial payments have been a mere $5.2 billion when the estimate was $100-400 billion?
Second, what is the relationship between the $18.7 billion paid "by December 2008" to the "As much as $53.5 billion related to swap payouts"?
Would not everyone who was entitled to collect against the swaps have gone for the money the instant it was available?
It still appears that the payouts were 1/2 to 1/8 of the initially anticipated payouts? How could such an important number have been in very much doubt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.5.223 ( talk) 22:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The current financial crisis has lasted (about) 5 months, and yet that section dominates the article. Please keep the current news in the mindset of the scale of the time AIG has been around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.7.40 ( talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The properly cited information that I added earlier today regarding the identification of CDS counterparties to AIG appears to have been accidentally deleted. I have restored it to the section titled "Settlement of Credit Default Swaps."
I believe this information should remain in place as it is noteworthy news (having been requested for many months by Congress and, once released, demonstrating the global scope of the crisis and subsequent bailout). If the content was deliberately removed I would appreciate a justification. (Rewording or repositioning is welcome and encouraged!) shultzc ( talk) 05:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
J.H. Crawford asks: What is "pdubs" as mentioned in the article? The best guess I can make is Price-Waterhouse Cooper; this information is not easily to be found on the Internet. Since this is a major payout, it's important to clarify.
Are you asking American taxpayers to send them cards and flowers next? Tellya ( talk) 18:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the liberal who wrote this section could add that these were retention bonuses and that they were inked a year ago. Congress knew about them when they started bailing them out in September 2008. The people getting these bonuses were going to be laid off, but AIG still needed them on a temporary basis, hence the bonus incentive to stick around.
I also see elsewhere that all of the executive retreats and other expenditures have been covered in detail. That’s great. How about a section on the billions of U.S. taxpayer bailout money that was sent from AIG to banks in Europe? It may not make as good a class struggle story, but it still dwarfs any executive compensation and resort expenditures.
I accept that Wikipedia has morphed into a free encyclopedia edited and written by liberals, the New York Times of encyclopedias, if you will (“fake, but accurate”). But couldn’t you just once pretend to be fair-minded about something, even if it goes against popular sentiment? It’s not as exciting as quotes of boiling executives in oil or lopping off their heads, but this is still an encyclopedia.
And why the hell this section linked to “Class Struggle”? Are you kidding me? Why not link directly to Marx? It is no wonder that no one from a graduate professor to an elementary school teacher will allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source. This is an encyclopedia? 141.246.2.80 ( talk)Looftie
AIG IS THE BEST COMPANY TO WORK FOR. I WANT TO WORK THERE. --- GFRV ( talk) 20:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this section deserves its own article, its certainly surpassed alot of expectations. ViperSnake151 15:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Most of the money figures are similar to this - $170 billion, but there's an exception - 165 million USD. Please correct this. Thanks Kvsh5 ( talk) 07:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Suggest link change ("Japanese example" quoted by US senator) from Seppuku to Suicide in Japan - more common methods for killing yourself in Japan include hanging (ref Toshikatsu Matsuoka, a former minister) and throwing yourself in front of a train. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rottkapp ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=289004&cl=12573099&src=finance&ch=1316259 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.202.99 ( talk) 06:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
See the Talk page of Coutts, where it is noted that Coutts was involved with AIG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.138 ( talk) 12:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that AIG is the principle sponsor of Manchester United, and has been for the last three years? Conay ( talk) 18:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed the links to AIG's Pakistan, Indonesia, and other overseas operations. AIG has a multitude of subsidiary companies, and there's no point in listing them all in the external links section. I've added somewhat of an archived home page for the old AIG site that lists all of that and more. Also, the links for AIG and "AIG Corporate" link to the exact same site, so there only needs to be one. HR 1586 should probably be incorporated into the article, and then added as a source, but for now, I'm replacing the strange site with a more official Library of Congress link.— DMCer ™ 06:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The following photo request was copied from Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Architecture. Tim Pierce ( talk)
The etymology needs to be discussed. Curb Chain ( talk) 01:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
A representative of AIG noticed that the logo in the article was outdated, and provided an updated image via OTRS to be used under fair use. OTRS agents, see 2012121310015352 -- SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
One editor feels that the logo in the article should be 1. File:Logo used by AIG in 2012.jpg while another feels it should be 2. File:AIG 2012 logo.png The color of the image in #2 doesn't match the color of the official image. I do not see why using an unofficial version, with the wrong color, is superior to the official version. The choices appear to be:
What do others think?-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)