• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Fed Sells Last of AIG Bonds, at a Profit (How about that!) [W: 39]

mbig

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
One of the most controversial and 'expensive' Bailout components ... wasn't expensive at all.
And, of course, the vast majority of the Bailout(s) wasn't/weren't Optional.. it/they saved all the banks, brokers, and our financial and economic infrastructure contrary to what some on the Far Right and Far Left say.

New York Fed Sells Last of AIG Bonds, at a Profit - WSJ.com
By ERIK HOLM, SERENA NG and AL YOON
August 23, 2012

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York on Thursday sold the last toxic assets it acquired from the bailout of American International Group Inc. closing the book on its most controversial intervention during the financial crisis with a large gain to taxpayers.

The regional Fed bank said it reaped $6.6 billion in profits from selling complex mortgage securities that it took on in late 2008 to stem AIG's cash bleed. The securities, known as collateralized debt obligations, were chiefly responsible for the New York-based insurer's near-collapse and government bailout after their market values plunged during the financial crisis. The sales end one of the most contentious elements of the government's efforts to stabilize the financial system as markets were seizing up and banks and other financial institutions were collapsing. The rescue of AIG and the New York Fed's purchases of mortgage securities that AIG previously owned or insured saw tens of billions of taxpayer aid flow from the insurer to banks in the U.S. and overseas.

The Fed's moves were criticized from some quarters as a back-door bailout for banks that exposed U.S. taxpayers to undue risks. But from the outset, Fed officials including Chairman Ben Bernanke said they were acting to protect the country from financial meltdown and expected to be fully repaid on loans provided to support AIG.

"It's a happy ending with the Fed making a handsome profit—but the purpose of the purchases was to stabilize the financial system and not to make money," said Sung-Won Sohn, an economics professor at California State University, Channel Islands.

The U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve together committed up to $182.3 billion to support AIG at the height of the crisis, and at its peak the New York Fed lent over $90 billion to the company and investment vehicles that purchased AIG-linked assets. The regional Fed bank has been fully repaid on its various loans.

With the wind-down of Maiden Lane III, the government's remaining tie to AIG is a $24.2 billion investment under the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program. Treasury expects to recoup that amount and more by selling the 53% stake it still holds in the insurance company.

All told, the bailout of AIG has yielded over $18 billion in interest, fees and profits."....
Click to expand...
 
274ina said:
They still owe USA about $170B. And only make $1-2B per year.........

They will NEVER pay USA back.......
The AIG Bailout Scandal | The Nation
Click to expand...
Uh.. Your article is from 2010. (and the Leftist 'Nation')
Mine from 2012/Today/WSJ.
You're trying to refute a Current Valid News (Fact) article from THE Business publication of record with a 2 year OLD (Opinion) piece from The Nation.
Numbing.

It Doesn't matter what they make per year, it matters much more what they got for all the paper they took from AIG.
With rates so low now people are chasing yield and paying up for distressed debt.
It was explained in the article.
 
Last edited:
The more interesting story would be the artificial housing market and the fact that those are still toxic assets. I guess that all depends on if you think housing hit bottom, and I don't. I wonder how many retirement funds have bought in. Just becuase it wasn't expensive for the NY FED doesn't mean it won't be expensive for someone.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
One of the most controversial and 'expensive' Bailout components ... wasn't expensive at all.
And, of course, the vast majority of the Bailout(s) wasn't/weren't Optional.. it/they saved all the banks, brokers, and our financial and economic infrastructure contrary to what some on the Far Right and Far Left say.

New York Fed Sells Last of AIG Bonds, at a Profit - WSJ.com
By ERIK HOLM, SERENA NG and AL YOON
August 23, 2012
Click to expand...

Whats the point of this?

Is it to make everyone forget that AIG played a major role in the Global Financial Crisis, and that no one ever went to jail for it?
 
pimptight said:
Whats the point of this?

Is it to make everyone forget that AIG played a major role in the Global Financial Crisis, and that no one ever went to jail for it?
Click to expand...
What an asinine reply.
It's anything BUT making people forget AIG played a major Role.
What's Stunning (and the point) is that after laying out so Much money, $182 Billion, then got that and more back.

If I wanted people to "forget" I wouldn't have posted it.
Stick to [other] conspiracies.

As to JRSaindo, if you think there's a more interesting topic.. please post it instead of wasting space here on what is Certainly a worthy story on it's own.

So far it's an utter wash-out: 3 replies, 3 stupid/hostile posts.
 
Last edited:
The conspiracy is that you didn't answer my question.

What is the point of posting this?

Are we supposed to feel good that after being forced to give this company money at gun point(Threat of economic meltdown), that we should feel good we got it back with interest?
 
pimptight said:
The conspiracy is that you didn't answer my question.

What is the point of posting this?

Are we supposed to feel good that after being forced to give this company money at gun point (Threat of economic meltdown), that we should feel good we got it back with interest?
Click to expand...
I posted the "point" in my preface to the article in the OP and in my last post to you.
WSJ, CNN, and others also though this as worthy and almost anyone would think it was a Stunning outcome.
I also mentioned that the bailout wasn't optional in the OP. So there is some satisfaction as well.
But that is obvious to anyone but you.
Do I feel good about it? That AIG and others Failed, No.
Am I happy/Surprised saving it turned out better than anyone could have expected? Yes.

I am now done with you aptly named pimptight.. except to hold this and other of your inane posts up to ridicule and make an effort to stop it from continuing here and elsewhere.
String tally is now 4 replies = 4 stupid/hostile posts.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
I posted the "point" in my preface to the article in the OP and in my last post to you.
WSJ, CNN, and others also though this as worthy and almost anyone would think it was a Stunning outcome.
I also mentioned that the bailout wasn't optional in the OP. So there is some satisfaction as well.
But that is obvious to anyone but you.
Do I feel good about it? That AIG and others Failed, No.
Am I happy/Surprised saving it turned out better than anyone could have expected? Yes.

I am now done with you aptly named pimptight.. except to hold this and other of your inane posts up to ridicule and make an effort to stop it from continuing here and elsewhere.
String tally is now 4 replies = 4 stupid/hostile posts.
Click to expand...

Naw man, you don't want to get chippy with me, this board is kiddy land to me when it comes to being chippy and putting people on blast.

Here is what you said in the op:

mbig said:
One of the most controversial and 'expensive' Bailout components ... wasn't expensive at all.
And, of course, the vast majority of the Bailout(s) wasn't/weren't Optional.. it/they saved all the banks, brokers, and our financial and economic infrastructure contrary to what some on the Far Right and Far Left say.
Click to expand...

Explain how the whole tone of your op, isn't making excuses for this bailout?

here specifically this:

One of the most controversial and 'expensive' Bailout components ... wasn't expensive at all.
Click to expand...

and this:

it/they saved all the banks, brokers, and our financial and economic infrastructure contrary to what some on the Far Right and Far Left say.
Click to expand...

Got quiet like a church around here huh?
 
pimptight said:
Naw man, you don't want to get chippy with me, this board is kiddy land to me when it comes to being chippy and putting people on blast.
Click to expand...
I've probably posted on over 100 message boards of every stripe (over 13 years), many intentionally going looking for the toughest/nastiest fight possible.
People on White Supremacist, Muslim/Arab/Islamist boards who hold views 100% opposite of mine and who have full mod one-sided backing. Economic boards, Conservative boads, liberal boards, etc.
I'm not impressed you just came from 1 wild one.


pimptight said:
Here is what you said in the op:
Explain how the whole tone of your op, isn't making excuses for this bailout?
Click to expand...
I don't have to make "Excuses" for the Bail out.
I said several times it was NOT optional, it was Necessary to save the financial and Economic Infrastructure.
And in my last saying I Indeed took "satisfaction" that it didn't end up costing as much as I thought.. or in this case.. nothing at all.
Thinking I need to make "excuses" only shows you have No idea what you're talking about.. nor can you read as I already said why.

Other/previious justifications for the clueLess:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-news-2-0/65032-obama-state-union-52.html#post1058561105
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ists-raise-top-tax-rate-8.html#post1060427980
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...s/118206-class-warfare-82.html#post1060207062
http://www.debatepolitics.com/econo...ing-never-answer-crisis-8.html#post1059569419
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-news-2-0/65032-obama-state-union-52.html#post1058561105

Step right up pimptight

I read your posts in "come in and say hi" and others in the Conspiracy section.
Your posts a Counter-culture, anti-govt/anti-establishment Conspiracist Jokes. Atimes, 9/11, Illuminati, Assange, etc.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...i-training-video-leaked-2.html#post1060826778

another
pimptight said:
"...Am i in the wrong web site if I want to discuss Trapwire, the LIBOR scandal, NSA Whistle blowers, The false left vs right paradigm..
Click to expand...
Not the wrong website necessarily but hopefully you'll keep most of it in the conspiracy section. Dozens of those posters gone by.

pimptight said:
Got quiet like a church around here huh?
Click to expand...
I'm a Financial Professional Twice your age with 10x your knowledge and 10x your posting experience on boards of every possible stripe.

You want to see silence? Ask pimptight to explain to everyone what would have happened without the Bailouts that He is sure needs "excuses".
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Uh.. Your article is from 2010. (and the Leftist 'Nation')
Mine from 2012/Today/WSJ.
You're trying to refute a Current Valid News (Fact) article from THE Business publication of record with a 2 year OLD (Opinion) piece from The Nation.
Numbing.

It Doesn't matter what they make per year, it matters much more what they got for all the paper they took from AIG.
With rates so low now people are chasing yield and paying up for distressed debt.
It was explained in the article.
Click to expand...

Now or later the facts are the same.

paper is worthless, do you see union workers getting paid in stock???? (at least not the fooled ones)
 
274ina said:
Now or later the facts are the same.

paper is worthless, do you see union workers getting paid in stock???? (at least not the fooled ones)
Click to expand...
Wrong.
I cant believe you even have the guts to show your face in this string again after trying to Pass off a 2 year old opinion piece vs a DONE deal fact of Today from the WSJ.

NO one could buy Tens of Billions of third rate paper in 2008. There as No liquidity. Only the Govt could and Did.
Now, as explained, the system is flooded with Liquidity, (also thx to the Fed and ongoing help) and people chasing low grade paper for Yields they can't get elsewhere.\
Thus AIG low-grade holdings sold very well over the last few months

Your first post was DISHONESTLY Dated 2 YEARS before the Facts Changed.
This one even more Grotesquely Dishonest.. not to mention transparently Obtuse and gratuitous last-wording.

I've never seen a string go this long with only hostile young turk contraries.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Wrong.
I cant believe you even have the guts to show your face in this string again after trying to Pass off a 2 year old opinion piece vs a DONE deal fact of Today from the WSJ.
Click to expand...
And I can't believe you are getting so emotional about this.

'the guts'?!?

Okaaaaaaay.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
I don't have to make "Excuses" for the Bail out.
I said several times it was NOT optional, it was Necessary to save the financial and Economic Infrastructure.
Click to expand...

And your links to unbiased factual proof that it was are what?

And not links to opinions - that means nothing to me.

I mean links to actually unbiased, proven statistics/facts that prove that the bailout was necessary to save the financial and economic infrastructure.
 
da60 said:
And I can't believe you are getting so emotional about this.
'the guts'?!?
Okaaaaaaay.
Click to expand...
The guy tried to pass off 2 Year old article as 'proof' TODAY'S article didn't happen.
I see your standards for proof are unbelievably Hypocritical.
The WSJ, The Govt, and others said the Govt made a profit.
It's a Fact.
Why aren't you going after not only 274ina's first dishonest post but is persistent Lying/denial with the second? ?

DA60 said:
And your links to unbiased factual proof that it was are what?
And not links to opinions - that means nothing to me.
I mean links to actually unbiased, proven statistics/facts that prove that the bailout was necessary to save the financial and economic infrastructure.
Click to expand...
They would only mean nothing because you know Nothing.
Citibank was given $30 Billion .. didn't work.
They had to give em Another $30 Billion and gaurantee $270 BILLON more to save them.. even then they were 97c a share. (down from 55.)
Citbank [alone] (and there were many more) has 200 Million accounts worldwide and interbank obligations that would have caved everyone.

No one was taking anyone else's paper or able to issue it. Everyone was at the Fed window to finance day to day operations. The whole Commercial Paper market collapsed for almost everyone including Giants like GE.
Merrill Lynch was stuffed into Bankamerca, Lehman Failed, Wachovia Failed, WAMU failed, and were merged, etc, etc, etc
It's in my links.

I make you the same challenge I gave pimptights, debate them if you can/make a case otherwise.
It's not enough to say "it's not proof".
It's fallacious/juvenile Burden shifting Fallacy. Hollow bluffing protest betraying -0- knowledge.
If you are involved in the markets as I am daily, this is beyond elementary and beyond obvious.
But go ahead,.. Make my day.
I gave you alot to shoot at.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Citbank was $30 Billion .. didn't work.
They had to give em Another $30 Billion and gaurantee $270 BILLON more to save them.. even then they were 97c a share.
Citbank has 200 Million account world wide and interbank obligations that would have caved everyone.

No one was taking anyone else's paper or able to issue it. Everyone was at the Fed window t finance day to day operations. The whole Commercial Paper market collapsed for almost everyone including Giants like GE.
Merrill Lynch was stuffed into Bankamerca, Lehman Failed, Wachovia Failed and was merged, etc, etc, etc
It's in my links.

I make you the same challenge I gave pimptights, debate them if you can/make a case otherwise.
It's not enough to say "it's not proof".
Its's fallacious/juvenile Burden shifting Fallacy.
If you are involved in the markets as I am daily, this is beyond elementary and beyond obvious.
But go ahead,.. Make my day.
I gave you alot to shoot at.
Click to expand...

None of the above proves that 'the bailout was necessary to save the financial and economic infrastructure'.

All it proves is that you believe it was.

Big difference.


And I am not the slightest bit interested in debating something like this.

I highly doubt you are going to change your mind. And I incredibly strongly doubt I will. So what's the point?

What I am interested in is/are LINKS to facts/data from unbiased sources.

And so far, you have presented none in answer to my request.


Of course, you should realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to factually prove your point. One cannot prove what would have happened to a situation had a different course been taken...it is not possible (without a time machine).

So to say that the bailout was - stated in a matter of fact manner - 'necessary' is a statement that you can never prove.

You can believe, hope, think, guess that it was necessary.

But you can never know that it was necessary.


Have a nice day.
 
DA60 said:
None of the above proves that 'the bailout was necessary to save the financial and economic infrastructure'.
All it proves is that you believe it was.
Big difference.
Click to expand...
Again, "proof" as one can prove 2 + 2 = 4 is Fallacious BS/Burden shifting, proving only you Can't debate me.
Many Facts are not Provable just back-able with Evidence; Gravity, evolution, etc.
I presented hard evidence, you.. NOTHING.

DA60 said:
And I am Not the slightest bit Interested in Debating something like this....
Click to expand...
DA60 takes the necessary powder.
Surprise!
You know Nothing and are not even remotely able to debate me.
If you can't debate me, you can't legitimately disagree with me on a common sense/common knowledge point.
This IS DEBATEPolitcs.com where one IS expected to back his opinions. I did. You did NOT.
Saying "I don't think so" or "no" doesn't cut it.

and btw, you also dropped my other point abut 247ina's Dishonest posts and why you Hypocritically didn't go after him for "proof" even though he had been DISproven BY Me.
Showing you have heavy political/personal bias and absurd double standard. And of course don't know what this board is for.


EDIT:
Note more EMPTY Last-wording Below.
I backed my opinion. DA60.. ZERO.
247ina LIED Twice.

Many have previously called for a singular knowledgeable moderator for this section alone. I now agree.
We simply can't have strings like this with only empty token childish replies.
This string is an abomination.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Wrong.
I cant believe you even have the guts to show your face in this string again after trying to Pass off a 2 year old opinion piece vs a DONE deal fact of Today from the WSJ.

NO one could buy Tens of Billions of third rate paper in 2008. There as No liquidity. Only the Govt could and Did.
Now, as explained, the system is flooded with Liquidity, (also thx to the Fed and ongoing help) and people chasing low grade paper for Yields they can't get elsewhere.\
Thus AIG low-grade holdings sold very well over the last few months

Your first post was DISHONESTLY Dated 2 YEARS before the Facts Changed.
This one even more Grotesquely Dishonest.. not to mention transparently Obtuse and gratuitous last-wording.

I've never seen a string go this long with only hostile young turk contraries.
Click to expand...

Your fantasy land of "liquidity" and all other BS wall street terms are THE PROBLEM. SO I dont care what you spout to justify it.
facts have not changed, the "richest" CAPITALISTS demanded and got a bailout that they will NEVER pay back so they can buy another Bently and BMW.
 
mbig said:
Again, "proof" as one can prove 2 + 2 = 4 is Fallacious BS/Burden shifting, proving only you Can't debate me.

DA60 takes the necessary powder.
Surprise!
You know Nothing and are not even remotely able to debate me.
If you can't debate me, you can't legitimately disagree with me on a common sense/common knowledge point.
BTW, this IS DEBATEPolitcs.com where one IS expected to back his opinions.
Saying "I don't think so" or "no" doesn't cut it.

and btw, you also dropped my other point abut 247ina's Dishonest posts and why you Hypocritically didn't go after him for "proof" even though he had been DISproven BY Me.
Showing you have heavy political/personal bias and absurd double standard. And of course don't know what this board is for.
Game over.
Click to expand...
Lol....okaaaaaaay.

Come here to blow off a little stress do you?


Anyways....when you come up with some links to unbiased stats/facts that prove that the bailout 'was Necessary to save the financial and Economic Infrastructure', let me know please.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
274ina said:
Your fantasy land of "liquidity" and all other BS wall street terms are THE PROBLEM. SO I dont care what you spout to justify it.
facts have not changed, the "richest" CAPITALISTS demanded and got a bailout that they will NEVER pay back so they can buy another Bently and BMW.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I think that is pretty much true.
 
this was a telling excerpt from the 2010 article:
Timothy Geithner told panel members he does not think it is the Federal Reserve’s role to use the tools at its disposal to induce the banks it regulates to do something they do not want to do. That posture implicitly gives the high ground to the regulated banks—their choice, not the government’s.
Click to expand...
that appears to indicate the bank regulators - in reality - are toothless
which may partially explain why those too-big-to-fail banks have only gotten bigger since the meltdown

the WSJ article points to the sale of the final AIG bonds at a profit
had the banks have had to sustain a haircut when those bonds were acquired, it appears the profit realized by the fed would have been larger

but what about the remaining unsecured debt - that outside the maiden lane securities - owed to the fed by AIG; does anyone know the status of that obligation and/or its projected repayment?
... During the financial crisis, the U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) provided about $182 billion in support to AIG. How much of that has AIG repaid? The answer may be surprising.

It turns out that a substantial portion of that amount has already been repaid. Most recently, AIG repaid taxpayers another $1.5 billion. The result of that payment: Treasury’s preferred equity investment related to AIG has now been repaid in full – more than one year ahead of schedule.

With the $1.5 billion repayment, the government’s remaining outstanding investment in AIG is now $45 billion, which represents a more than 75 percent reduction from the original commitment.

The remaining $45 billion investment consists of:

-Treasury’s investment ($35.7 billion) for which it holds 1.248 billion shares of AIG common stock (70 percent of outstanding common stock).

-The FRBNY’s loan to Maiden Lane III ($9 billion), which is collateralized by assets that Treasury says has a current value well in excess of the outstanding loan value. [bubba's interjection: this appears to be the assets sold for profit as mentioned in the OP's cite]

“In the dark days of the financial crisis, when commitments to AIG totaled $182 billion, few would have believed that we’d already be able to reduce that amount by more than 75 percent, or that we may be able to recover every single dollar invested in the company,” said Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Tim Massad. “This demonstrates the significant progress that AIG and the government have made in restructuring the company’s business so that it can repay taxpayers.”

The most recent $1.5 billion repayment fully retires the government’s remaining preferred equity investment in the AIG-owned entity AIA Aurora LLC (AIA SPV) – a special purpose vehicle that holds ordinary shares in AIA Group Limited (AIA). Under a previous agreement between AIG and Treasury, AIG was not required to repay this preferred equity investment until May 2013.

In March 2012 alone, Treasury has recovered more than $14.6 billion on its investment in AIG. That includes $6 billion in proceeds from the sale of common stock and $8.6 billion in repayments of the preferred equity interests. ...
Click to expand...
How Much Does AIG Still Owe The U.S. Government? | CommercialLawWebAdvisor
 
mbig said:
I've probably posted on over 100 message boards of every stripe (over 13 years), many intentionally going looking for the toughest/nastiest fight possible.
People on White Supremacist, Muslim/Arab/Islamist boards who hold views 100% opposite of mine and who have full mod one-sided backing. Economic boards, Conservative boads, liberal boards, etc.
I'm not impressed you just came from 1 wild one.
Click to expand...

LOL, and on all of those boards i bet flaming wasn't protected by the board rules was it guy?

I'm having a real hard problem not cussing you out right now, as that was acceptable where I come from.

BTW, I once climbed MT. Everest, and flew to the moon in the same day. You see how easy it is to say stuff on the interwebs?



I don't have to make "Excuses" for the Bail out.
I said several times it was NOT optional, it was Necessary to save the financial and Economic Infrastructure.
And in my last saying I Indeed took "satisfaction" that it didn't end up costing as much as I thought.. or in this case.. nothing at all.
Thinking I need to make "excuses" only shows you have No idea what you're talking about.. nor can you read as I already said why.
Click to expand...

Accept for when you did, when 2 out of the 3 sentences you posted in the OP, so obviously was creating a tone. Ammiright?


Other/previious justifications for the clueLess:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-news-2-0/65032-obama-state-union-52.html#post1058561105
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ists-raise-top-tax-rate-8.html#post1060427980
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...s/118206-class-warfare-82.html#post1060207062
http://www.debatepolitics.com/econo...ing-never-answer-crisis-8.html#post1059569419
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-news-2-0/65032-obama-state-union-52.html#post1058561105
Click to expand...


Uh, stopped reading when you said Bernanke saved the economy, and didn't follow it up with, "You know cleaning up the mess he played a major role in creating."

Love to see this logic applied elsewhere, "Yeah the guy is a pedophile and rapes children, but he saved a school bus, so that makes it OK". GTFO!!

Step right up pimptight
Click to expand...

Sit right down mbig.

I read your posts in "come in and say hi" and others in the Conspiracy section.
Your posts a Counter-culture, anti-govt/anti-establishment Conspiracist Jokes. Atimes, 9/11, Illuminati, Assange, etc.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...i-training-video-leaked-2.html#post1060826778

anotherNot the wrong website necessarily but hopefully you'll keep most of it in the conspiracy section. Dozens of those posters gone by.
Click to expand...

So I post a story from the Asia times that documents how people made money the morning of 9-11 in the markets, and I am a 9-11 nutter huh?

I clearly state that I don't see supporting evidence for the Illuminati, and I'm a Illuminati nutter huh?

Trapwire, LIBOR, these aren't CT's guy, they are facts.

Here, i know what you are doing right now, but just in case others don't:

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Click to expand...

The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies

Sound familiar?



I'm a Financial Professional Twice your age with 10x your knowledge and 10x your posting experience on boards of every possible stripe.
Click to expand...

I'm a superhuman with a radioactive, hypnotizing, penis, sent to infiltrate you.

You want to see silence? Ask pimptight to explain to everyone what would have happened without the Bailouts that He is sure needs "excuses".
Click to expand...

You will have created a false dichotomy?

Wierd huh, didn't get quiet like a church did it?
 
mbig said:
The guy tried to pass off 2 Year old article as 'proof' TODAY'S article didn't happen.
I see your standards for proof are unbelievably Hypocritical.
The WSJ, The Govt, and others said the Govt made a profit.
It's a Fact.
Why aren't you going after not only 274ina's first dishonest post but is persistent Lying/denial with the second? ?

They would only mean nothing because you know Nothing.
Citibank was given $30 Billion .. didn't work.
They had to give em Another $30 Billion and gaurantee $270 BILLON more to save them.. even then they were 97c a share. (down from 55.)
Citbank [alone] (and there were many more) has 200 Million accounts worldwide and interbank obligations that would have caved everyone.

No one was taking anyone else's paper or able to issue it. Everyone was at the Fed window to finance day to day operations. The whole Commercial Paper market collapsed for almost everyone including Giants like GE.
Merrill Lynch was stuffed into Bankamerca, Lehman Failed, Wachovia Failed, WAMU failed, and were merged, etc, etc, etc
It's in my links.

I make you the same challenge I gave pimptights, debate them if you can/make a case otherwise.
It's not enough to say "it's not proof".
It's fallacious/juvenile Burden shifting Fallacy. Hollow bluffing protest betraying -0- knowledge.
If you are involved in the markets as I am daily, this is beyond elementary and beyond obvious.
But go ahead,.. Make my day.
I gave you alot to shoot at.
Click to expand...

Why do you overlook the fact that there are lots of toxic assets still out there and someone, somewhere, owns them? You are involved in these manipulated markets? Hopefully front running. Asshole bankers hedged bets with other peoples' money and lost, so now OPM has to take the loss. Good for the gov't. They unloaded them, now where are they?

And for the love of God, call it a thread.
 
pimptight said:
Whats the point of this?

Is it to make everyone forget that AIG played a major role in the Global Financial Crisis, and that no one ever went to jail for it?
Click to expand...

Granted though, there wasn't anything illegal in what AIG did. Supremely idiotic that even first year business students would never do? Absolutely. Illegal? No. ]

What kind of jacked up firm issues CDS in amounts that if even 10% came up they couldn't cover?

Idiots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom