From the way it is going, the most money to be made with AIG is likely their new CEO and not the shareholders. (i.e. 80%, US taxpayers).
I am still amazed that the folks who costed the US Government $180 Billion have not been found guilty of criminal neglect. By comparison,the captain of Amoco Cadiz was villified and jailed for polluting ocean shores that no one inhabits; in AIG's case, the reckless financial "pollution" is globally toxic and has affected everyone.
Note to Regulators: It's About Capitalization, Not Compensation [View article]
This is completely flawed logic! As long as the Government ( & the taxpayer) has the responsibility to keep national banks from imploding, it also has the duty to control the factors behind that implosion. These banks went onto gambling as gigantic hedge funds with their shareholders money with the tacit understanding that if they run out, there would be more given to them by the government to continue gambling. It almost wrecked the foundation of capitalism and should be reined in. A bank is not a casino and should never have been allowed to become one. Imagine where Vegas would be if all casino employees were compensated without limits on the profits they make : it would cease existence as excessive risk-taking would sweep them away. No, all financial institutions that pose a systemic risk should have caps on the returns they are allowed to make. That would indirectly cap their compensation and control irresponsible risk taking.
Signs of Stability at AIG [View article]
I am still amazed that the folks who costed the US Government $180 Billion have not been found guilty of criminal neglect. By comparison,the captain of Amoco Cadiz was villified and jailed for polluting ocean shores that no one inhabits; in AIG's case, the reckless financial "pollution" is globally toxic and has affected everyone.
Note to Regulators: It's About Capitalization, Not Compensation [View article]
As long as the Government ( & the taxpayer) has the responsibility to keep national banks from imploding, it also has the duty to control the factors behind that implosion.
These banks went onto gambling as gigantic hedge funds with their shareholders money with the tacit understanding that if they run out, there would be more given to them by the government to continue gambling. It almost wrecked the foundation of capitalism and should be reined in.
A bank is not a casino and should never have been allowed to become one. Imagine where Vegas would be if all casino employees were compensated without limits on the profits they make : it would cease existence as excessive risk-taking would sweep them away.
No, all financial institutions that pose a systemic risk should have caps on the returns they are allowed to make. That would indirectly cap their compensation and control irresponsible risk taking.
Boston Fed Head: Ditch the Bad Assets So Banks Can Focus on Future Prospects [View article]
I would try to UNDERSTAND the Boston Fed's view first, instead of dismissing it. Obviously, the author has missed the point.
From an accounting standpoint,all our banks ( including JPM) would be insolvent if they were to purge their troubled assets and declare their losses.