The latest AIG stunt is that it is refusing to sell its derivatives business. Remember that AIG owes the taxpayers a mind-numbingly large amount of money, but intransigent CEO Robert Benmosche has refused to execute on the agreed-upon plan, and instead is off on his own mission.If a person can die, why can't a company? Just asking the question.
And why might that be? This is yet another, classic management favoring “heads I win, tails you lose” bet that is given more respectful treatment than it deserves by the Financial Times:AIG has shelved plans to sell the whole of its derivatives portfolio, which nearly destroyed the insurer in 2008. It believes that keeping up to $500bn worth of complex positions could help it to survive as an independent entity and repay US taxpayers….
Yves here. Having AIG survive as an independent entity was NEVER an objective of this exercise, never. The fact that that management/company flattering notion is given any credence at all is appalling. Many storied companies are dead or very much diminished due to poor management decisions: A&P, Woolworths, Polaroid, U.S. Steel, Pan Am, TWA. AIG has no God-given right to exist.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Why is the Administration Tolerating AIG Feather-Bedding and Intransigence? � naked capitalism
Why is the Administration Tolerating AIG Feather-Bedding and Intransigence? � naked capitalism:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Not moderated but I do delete spam and I would rather that people not act like assholes.