AIG

[Олег Сах]

Сенатор Грассли из Индианы предложил начальству *AIG публично попросить прощения у американской публики, а затем либо уволиться, либо сделать себе харакири. Экономический обозреватель радио "Дэвидзон" Генрих Шапиро предложил американским политикам сделать тоже самое, в своем вчерашнем выпуске. Его аргумент: банкам годами выкручивали руки заставляя их давать ссуды не подходящим клиентам, используя даже силу судов (CITI). Я с ним согласен, а вы?

[Натан Мэвэ]

Мало того, что я согласен. Я бы за такое зрелище деньги бы заплатил - я имею в виду "харакири". И начал бы ни с кого иного как Barney Frank. What an annoying, despicable slob. Courtesy of "People's Republic of Massachusetts". *:-D

[Флешлер]

Прокурор так же подумывает открыть на них дело по факту хищение и мошенничество. Как то сколько то лет назад был введен закон о беспроцентной ссуде учащимся на лоера, этот закон просуществовал 7 лет и его отменили, а потом оказалось он был издан в то время когда на это самое учился ребенок одного сидящего в правительстве и отменен после окончания учебы. Мне это рассказала сотрудница. Как вам это? :-)

[Славик Саж]

Как не странно я согласен с Олегом
Политикам во главе с Барней Франк и Крис Додд тоже надо харакири сделать, вместе с AIG. Всё это записать на пленку и пустить на pay-per-view. Желащих посмотреть будет много, а прибыль использовать как stimulus package.
A вообще-то, столько шума устроили из за этих 160 мил. как будто президенту больше заняться не чем как об этом говорить. Это всего-лишь одна десятая от одного процента тех денег которых AIG получила как bailout.
P.S. Да, я не согласен что Нью-йоркские экзекютивс должны получить эти деньги, тем более что они наверняка либералы. Но третий день об этом по радио и ТВ??? *(N)

[Славик Саж]

Натан, клянусь здоровьем Барнеу Франк что я свой последний пост оставил до того как Ваш прочитал.
(md) (Y)

[Андрей Шэин]

i m not buying "vykruchivanie ruk" ...
the fact that ceos are scum bags is proven long time ago ...

[Натан Мэвэ]

Proven by whom? Proven how? Some CEO's are scumbags - true enough. As are some people in general. But why paint everyone with a broad brush? There are some great CEOs who created tramendous value for shareholders and employees. Jack Welsh, former CEO of General Electric comes to mind. Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple is another good example.
Бессмерными словами Жванецкого - аргументируете "аргументом", а не голословными выпадами.....

[Анатолий Дкав]

Любопытно было бы знать, в какую сторону изменилось здоровье Барнеу Франк после заявления Славика!

[Натан Мэвэ]

Specifically CEO of AIG - the one that was replaced last year, is a scumbag - agreed. The current one is probably not much better. I wouldn't say the same thing about the one that was ousted several years ago, Hank Greenberg. He was (and probably still is) the guy to run that place. But thanks to "client number 9" Elliot Spitzer, he is no longer there....

[Андрей Шэин]

i m glad we have agreement ...
and so are ceos of all the co's that demended bailout ... agree???

[Натан Мэвэ]

Spitzer in the attempt to boost his own career (he was NYS AG at the time and was aiming for Governorship) ousted Hank Greenberg - the guy who founded AIG over 40 years ago and was the only guy who could run that company. After that the whole thing went south - I am not sure when they started selling those morgage default swaps, but it certainly accelarated after Greenberg was gone.

[Светлана Хаву]

Greenberg is not a founder of AIG, he became a head of AIG after AIG founder retired. He was CEOof AIG for 40 years.

[Славик Саж]

Говорят некоторые уже отказались от своих бонусов. Понимают что им эти деньги боком выйдут.

[Светлана Хаву]

Except for AIG FP, it is a profitable company. Probably in a couple of weeks AIG will be separated in 2 parts. And not all people at AIG are croocks.

[Славик Саж]

I was talking about those who get $165 mil. In the begining of this tema I said that I don't care if they get those bonuses.
No, you definately should not refuse your bonuses. I am sure you worked hard and deserve rewards irespective of poor desicions made by your CEOs

[Светлана Хаву]

It is very sad that the whole company is under attack now. I work for data center and have no connection to any insurance business but now I am scared even to say that I work for AIG *-)

[Славик Саж]

Thank Oleg for the spot light :-D
We should open new tema - Светлана Хавуля - место ли ей среди нас?
(fr)

[Aslavinskaya]

i work for AIGCI - AIG Comercial Insurance, this is the core business of AIG and the one who is going to be separated from AIG Parent and we'll have totally different name which excludes the word "AIG"; our AIGCI did not have anything to do with the bonuses, its the AIG Parent who is responsible for everything
we dont even know anything about the bonuses
it is scary, we got e-mails today saying not to show AIG ID cards on the streets, it's insane :-S

[Aslavinskaya]

Svetlama, raise is a different from the bonus; raise you get annualy based on your anniversary and its probably only about 3%, not like millions of dollars for bonuses

[Андрей Шэин]

sveta, nobody is talking about u or other aig employees ... its all about ceos ...
u shouldnt worry ...

[Андрей Шэин]

and let me guys tell u about "bad mortgages" ... nobody held a gun to the heads of underwriters ... i was in real estate and i know how those mortgages were ibtained ... "at all costs" ... underwriters worked for commissions ... many mortgages were written without proper background investigation ...
so dont give me this BS about "vykruchivanie ruk" ... i hate liars 8oI

[Олег Сах]

Андрей Шеин, откопайте декабрьский номер Atlantic, прочитайте статью того самого Henry Blodget, и, я надеюсь мы станем видеть все одними глазами. Да, люди хотели "покупать" дома, банки хотели зарабатывать на ипотеках, RE agents хотели зарабатывать на Harvard или Corvette для своих детей. Но для того чтобы останавливать людей в их порочных желаниях и существует правительство. Многие хотят водить машину в нетрезвом виде или спать с 15 летними девочками. Государство заставляло банки давать ссуды хотевшим. С этого все и пошло.

[Андрей Шэин]

dont believe what newspapers tell u ... v gazete mozhno napisat mnogo BS ... i was there ... i am the "insider" ... (v)
gosudarstvo ne mozhet nikogo "zastavit" ... its free enterprise here in the US ... ono dazhe ne mozhet nichego sdelat against those ass-holes that paying themselves bonuses ... 8oI

[Славик Саж]

gosudarstvo ne mozhet nikogo "zastavit" ... its free enterprise here in the US
Есть такая поговорка - "можно подвести лошадь к воде но нельзя заставить её пить". Это всё правильно конечно, но ещё можно лошадь утомить солидно, чтоб у неё жажда появилась.
По-поводу "заставить" это спорный вопрос. Если я не ошибаюсь то Citi Bank судили за то что они не давали ссуды.
Заставлять никого не надо. Государству достаточно гарантировать ссуды на дома и банки перестанут проверять кредитно-способность покупателя.
В 2002 году я продал свой дом матери одиночке которая зарабатывала $12 в час. Её loan был получен через US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Кто в здравом уме даёт ссуду с таким доходом?

[Славик Саж]

Мы уж совсем от AIG темы отходим, но, по поводу "заставить".
Google "Communtiy Reinvestment Act"

The Community Reinvestment Act is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Community activists had lobbied the US Congress to pass the Act in order to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods.
The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation. To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions

[Олег Сах]

Да Славик, использование слова encourage тут мне напоминает старую историю о хоккейном тренере Тарасове. Однажды, в ночь перед ответственным матчем, после сытного ужина он предложил команде ЦСК: *"- ребята, озеро за нашим коттеджем замерзло, может покатаетесь перед сном, если хотите конечно." Все за исключением одного пошли на лед. На следующее утро этот игророк был вызван в Спорткомитет, за столом сидел Тарасов и все начальство. Вопрос был задан один: "Почему не выполнили приказ, лейтенант?"
Same type of "encouragement".

[Андрей Шэин]

guys u r mising the point ... when i saw what kind of pressure the underwriters applied to home buyers - ja ponjal chto rano ili pozdno eto vse "vyljetsa" ... vot ono i "vylilos" ...
tak chto zdes vse naoborot ...
ne nuzhno banki zhalet ... mortgage predusmatrivaet ogromnye %%% ... u pay 3 times the cost of your home ... tak chto oni sdelali prilichnye $$$ ...
victims here not the banks ...
but those morons who were pushed so sign mortgages ... 8oI

[Славик Саж]

Андрей, так мы банки и не жалеем. Ниже сказанное было по отношению к тому что государство не имеет никакого влияния на политику банков. Просто показали что как раз имеет.
А mortgage brokers, loan officers, underwriters, and real estate agents (yes, don't forget them, please) это совсем другая история. Ими овладел greed. НО!!!! банк бы не дал им сильно разбежаться еслиб не подстраховка от Фэни, Фрэди, и других членов Мэй семейства.

[Натан Мэвэ]

Well, did you expect anything else from these morons? When your goverment can RETROACTIVELY change tax laws and practically confiscate money from certain people they don't like (whether these people deserve this bonus or not is not an issue here) - this is truly beginning of the end of this once great republic.
In one fell swoop they destroyed the entire concept of a "binding contract". Remarkable..... :-S :-S :-S

[Славик Саж]

Натан, вопрос: Если мне дают премию / бонус в размере $1 мил., а потом снимают 90% налогов, то получается что я в казну заплатил $900,000. Значит когда я буду заполнять таксы, то возможно мне положен возврат??? Так что-ли? Получается я деньги отмыл раз возврат налогом не облагается?

[Натан Мэвэ]

I think our "esteemed" lawmakers have thought of this scenario. But maybe not, who knows? Anyway, this is really a case of legalized extortion andI hope at least one of these people - those who got the bonus, have balls and challenges this in court. I just can't see how this is constitutional.

[Славик Саж]

Maybe they did think of it, maybe they didn't. Ведь таксы будут заполнять только в следующем году, а к тому времени все про это забудут.

[Светлана Хаву]

If these payments were called as "deffered payroll payments" nobody would say a word. But the word BONUS drives everybody crazy.

[Алексей Дак]

Из конституции:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises

Какой максимальный процент допустим конституция не оговаривает. При Рузвельте (тот который FDR) максимальная ставка подоходного налога была 92%

[Андрей Шэин]

Natan - whether these people deserve this bonus or not is is exactly the issue here...
every contract can be renegotiated ...

[Андрей Шэин]

these aig ceos / ass-holes needed to be pubished ... congress found the way to do it ...
not a big deal ...

[Олег Сах]

Славик, так конгресс может сохранить еще больше денег, если остановит программы дкя ветеранов. Не конгресса это дело, отнимать деньги у работников частных (все еще) компаний.

[Олег Сах]

its confidential ...
my ne obsuzhdaem menja ...
dont go there ...
Хорошо, уважаю. Тогда разрешите рассказать о себе. Я ценю букву закона. Checks and balances. Презумпцию невиновности. Индивидуализм. Свободу предпринимательства. Когда конгресс решает что и у кого отбирать, потому что газетенки были натравлены за взятки темными силами, мне становится не по себе. И хотя я понимаю, что база крепка, но мы уже на своей шкуре испытали потерю свобод гарантированых конституцией, не хочется чтобы наши дети потеряли все эти свободы.

[Славик Саж]

Олег, а почему нет??? Если могут то пусть забирают. Всё, у всех, и побольше. Мы за них голосовали, мы их выбрали, значит доверяем им принимать правильное решение.
Наверняка те из AIG у которых бонусы забрали нью-йоркские либералы. В NY каждый второй либерал. Пусть получают удовольствие от социальной справедливости

[Андрей Шэин]

oleg agree with everything u said ...
here we have moral issue ...
ppl who brought down economy r getting rewarded ... not fair ... not right ...
any law can be changed ... this act of congress is one time only ... and only against sertain group of ppl ... we all know whom ...
slavik - whats the difference - liberals, conservatives? ... crooks are crooks ...

[Резникова]

ну хорошо, и к чему эта справедливость приведет? народ и так обозленный до предела. *i'm all about going by the rules... but trusting politicians is a bit of misnomer, don't you agree? *i love this country, but i have a feeling, something is not right in the system of checks and balances.

[Андрей Шэин]

narod raduetsa chto u nih otnjali $$$ ... uzhe horosho :-D ...
u have 2 understand that ppl dont like crooks ...
except of "russian republicans" ... no vy rebjata v menshinstve ... (v)... i dont think checks and balances ot etogo postradali ... and majority of americans share this with me ... (Y)

[Натан Мэвэ]

"this act of congress is one time only ... and only against sertain group of ppl "
This is in fact unconstitutional. Whether most people agree with it or not. This is either a country of laws (as oppose to popular centiment) or it isn't!
I sencerely hope this law (if it passes) gets challenged in courts. It is unconstitutional on at least two counts:
1. You can not change the law retroactively (ex post facto)
2. You can not change a law so that it applies only to a certain group of people - it violates "equal protection" clause.
Again, I am just as upset about these bonuses as the next guy. But in this case the "cure" is worse than the "desease".

[Натан Мэвэ]

The Congress, in its true form, is trying to cover up their own screw-up, when they gave AIG billions without actually reading what was in the agreement. Worse then that. Chris Dodd (D-CT) actually inserted the language exempting these bonuses. And now they have a nerve to complain????

[Натан Мэвэ]

And BTW, I take back what I said yesterday about current AIG CIO, Edward Liddy. As oppose to the guy who was removed last September, who is a dirtbag, here is a guy, who came out of retirement, at the request of the Treasury department and took this thankless job for a huge annual salary of $1. On top of that he goes to the Capitol Hill and has to listen to the likes of Barney Frank bloviating about the problems that this moron helped to create in the first place. How rich is that?

[Натан Мэвэ]

Between AIG, Treasury department, Federal Reserve and various banking committees on the Hill, Liddy appears to be the only guy with any credibility and integrity left.

[Андрей Шэин]

natan u r doing "mnogo shuma iz nichego" ...
constitution menjalas uzhe stolko raz! ... ant law can be changed! ...
nobody is equal ... dont worry ... take it easy ... nobody's going to take your $$$ ... u r not a crook ... r u? :-) (fr) :-D

[Резникова]

Natan - so, what would you do in there place? everyone screwed up big time. the choice are: throw everything in the trash and start brand new, or try to fix things. as fun as it sounds, the first option is not very realistic.

[Андрей Шэин]

Liddy appears to be the only guy with any credibility and integrity left.
znachit pravilno congress sdelal? ...

[Славик Саж]

В Коннектикуте организовывают автобусные экскурсии для "рабочего класса" к домам где живут AIG executives с заездом в Вилимантик, где у них headquarter. Это по вашему нормально? Что за witch hunt? Кто доказал кто из них виноват и в чём конкретно?
8oI

[Натан Мэвэ]

Андрей,
You're missing the point. "constitution menjalas uzhe stolko raz".
To write a law that is unconstitutional is NOT the same as to actually change the Constitution. If Congress wants to change the Constituion - it should in fact initiate a very well defined process to do so.
And we are not talking here about a particular case - there are important constitutional principles at stake here. And simply trivializing what has taken place in Congress and saying "don't worry, be happy" is very misguided.
"nobody is going to take your money". I wish I had your confidence. But I don't.
"The government big enough to give you anything you want is the government big enough to take away everything you have" -- Gerald Ford, 1975.

[Олег Сах]

"The government big enough to give you anything you want is the government big enough to take away everything you have" -- Gerald Ford, 1975.
(Y) (Y) (Y) (Y) (Y) (Y)

[Натан Мэвэ]

Зоя
This is what SHOULD be done, which will never happen.
1. Congress appoints an independent panel (or a special prossecutor) to investigate how, when and by whom a special provision was written into the AIG takeover agreement last fall. My bet is that Chris Dodd would on the top of that list.
2. Congress, if so desires, writes a law to affect any FUTURE (not past) bonuses for companies that received taxpayer's $$.
3. Relatively speaking $165M is a drop in a bucket compared with billions that have went into sinkholes called AIG, CITI, BOA and others. How about revieing all of those agreements?
And BTW, people are outraged at $165M? Why aren't they outraged that at least $58B of our money went over to foreign banks, such as Barclay's and UBS to cover credit default swaps issued by AIG???

[Натан Мэвэ]

And you know why this will never happen? Because this investigation will undoubtedly reveal that the people sitting on the Banking and Financial Services Committees (both republicans and democrats) - are in fact responsible for this debacle. And they certainly do not deserve to sit in judgement of others. More appropriatly, it should be them who should be sitting in the other, opposite chairs and answering questions.

[Резникова]

Natan,

i agree, but that's is normal. there are not that many people that can be impartial and have no personal interests. it is unwise of us to think otherwise.

[Натан Мэвэ]

That's part of the problem, Зоя. We, for the sake of this country and our children, should not allow ourselves to think that this is "normal". It is NOT normal. When people on Wall street rob you blind and people in Congress scream bloody murder and then turn around and rob you many times over - it is not "normal"
THROW THE BUMS OUT !!!!!

[Натан Мэвэ]

I am sorry, if I come across angry. I am not angry at you. But I am mad as hell at these goniffs.

[Резникова]

Natan - agree... playing devil's advocate for a minute, and how many people do we have that are going to apply for those jobs? you? me? unlikely.....

[Натан Мэвэ]

I agree with you. Integrity, honesty, decency, responsibility is in short supply in our government these days. Maybe what we need is term limits for Congress. For example, how can anyone justify someone like Robert Byrd (D-WV) in the Senate? The guy is 94 years old. There are plenty of other examples. There should be at least a mandatory retirement age, around 75 - most corporations have it for their top management. But Congress wants to live by different rules.
I am ashamed to say, but our Senate reminds me of the Soviet Politbureau. 8oI 8oI 8oI 8oI

[Резникова]

Natan - the principals upon this country was built are still here. Greed is universal.

[Лина]

The Community Reinvestment Act is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.

"The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA."

[Лина]

" University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. "

[Лина]

"Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley"

[Лина]

"
"
Finally, keep in mind that the Bush administration has been weakening CRA enforcement and the law’s reach since the day it took office. The CRA was at its strongest in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, a period when subprime loans performed quite well. It was only after the Bush administration cut back on CRA enforcement that problems arose, a timing issue which should stop those blaming the law dead in their tracks. The Federal Reserve, too, did nothing but encourage the wild west of lending in recent years. It wasn’t until the middle of 2007 that the Fed decided it was time to crack down on abusive pratices in the subprime lending market."

[Лина]

Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt"

[Лина]

"upwards of 35% of all subprime lending went to housing speculators. Speculators who expected rising values to continue indefinitely. Once again not the purview of the Community Reinvestment Act, more the purview of greedy house traders."

[Лина]

This is in fact unconstitutional.
I sencerely hope this law (if it passes) gets challenged in courts. It is unconstitutional on at least two counts:
1. You can not change the law retroactively (ex post facto)

"A large "exception" to the ex post facto prohibition can be found in administrative law, as federal agencies may apply their rules retroactively if Congress has authorized them to do so. Retroactive application is disfavored by the courts for a number of reasons,[4] but Congress may grant agencies this authority through express statutory provision. Furthermore, when an agency engages in adjudication, it may apply its own policy goals and interpretation of statutes retroactively, even if it has not formally promulgated a rule on a subject."

[Андрей Шэин]

Banks were given 100s of billions of $$$ without questions asked. Automaker's CEOs were "grilled" in the Senat and still didn't get any $$$. Why not "grill" Bank's CEOs? ... Why not make them accountable? ... Why not appoint "Bank's Czar" to look after them? ...
Why different aproach to these 2 branches of economy? ...
Will anyone ever go to jail for issuing "bad mortgages"? ...
Any thoughts? ...
I wrote this dec 15th ... since then nobody could answer this topic ...
any thoughts, my Republican friends? :-) (fr)

[Славик Саж]

Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA.

Лина, а где я сказал что сегоднешний кризис это результат CRA???
Пример с CRA был приведен в ответ Андрею на то что государство не влияет на банковскую систему.

Андрей, многих в тюрьму сажать придется, начиная с Wall Street. Всёравно ничего конкретно не докажите. Все будут друг на друга стрелки переводить. Wall Street скажeт что у нас никогда проблем с mortgage-backed securities небыло и поэтому мы не знали. Bank CEOs скажут что underwriters виноваты, те в свою очередь свалят на брокеров, брокеры на reals estate agents, и т.д.
В итоге, виноват будет тот, кто с доходом $5000/мес. берет $4000/мес. mortgage

[Резникова]

i'm sorry, i don't have time to read all of this, but i see that everyone is still arguing. what's the problem now?

[Лина]

Slavik, that was more of an FYI... just in case I didn't make it clear, I was quoting an article...

[Андрей Шэин]

Slava, nu ... eto ne otvet :-) ... "otpiska" ... isn't it consider to be a fraud - to issue morgtage to a person who cant afford it? ... without proper investigation of his income ... isn't it a fraud to push borrowers into signing these mortgages ...
we have Dep-t of Justice ... they didn't do their job then - why don't they do it now?? ... i komu nado raskoljatsa :-) ... Americans vse "sdajut" drug druga :-) ... tak chto eto budet legche chem Vy eto sebe predstvljaete :-) ... (v)

[Славик Саж]

Андрей, опять же таки - многих садить придется.

without proper investigation of his income - Define proper? Here in America we trust each other. ;-)
isn't it a fraud to push borrowers into signing these mortgages - Who says they were PUSHED? Every single one of them left bank happy. They couldn't wait to move into their new house
:-)
Being a devils advocate here.
Upset? U should be, we paying for it now.

[Андрей Шэин]

of course they were pushed ... they were deceived ... it's a fraud ...
criminal offence ...
nobody is going to trust you when you apply for mortgage ... the problem is - underwriters knew that borrowers couldn't afford loans ... but told them to sign anyway ...
the problem - those "deals" were never properly investigated ...

[Славик Саж]

So should we jail all underwriters?
Andrei, what about those people (borrowers) that signed? Was a meaning of 3 year ARM not explained to them? Or maybe some of them lied about income, used fake paystubs, s.s. #'s, etc. Should they go to jail? There was a good epsiode about them on Dateline NBC with Chris Hansen this weekend
What about Barney Franks and Chris Dodd? Wasn't it their job to monitor?
Like I said before, too many people to investigate

[Андрей Шэин]

hwy Mr Madoff got investigated? ... the same law should apply to ANYONE ... dont u agree? ... or u think if its small crime - lets just look another way? ...
there's no big or small crimes ...
crime is crime ...
we have dep-t of justice to take care of that ...

[Славик Саж]

Hmm... outside of Madoff vs Mortgage crisis I think I already answered your question. It might not be an answer you want to hear but......
Maybe someone else can shrae their opinions.

[Олег Сах]

Олег, спасибо за инфо. Полезно и коротко. Андрей, я понимаю что в Вашем понимании все банкиры нелюди, но Мэдофф крал деньги у людей, здесь речь идет об ошибочной стратегии, почему за это должны расчитываться наши дети - мне не понять. Представьте что Вы одолжили у тещи 25 тысяч на открытие кафе, все правильно расчитали рай он хороший, офисное здание напротив, вдруг - кризис, всех увольняют, к вам в кафе больше никто не заходит, бизнес прогорел. Вам нечем расплатиться с тещей. Она потеряла деньги, вы вор после этого?

[Андрей Шэин]

Олег, если после того как мой бизнесс прогорел я приду к теще и скажу ей что мне нужно еше 25 000, чтобы поднять мой бизнесс, и вместо того чтобы этим заниматьса заплачу себе бонус, съезжу в отпуск, потрачу там тещины $$$ ... и вдобавок куплю себе личный самолет (без которого мог бы запросто обойтись) - то кто я после этого? ... самый настоящий ВОР ... спасибо за удачный пример ... именно так поступили CEOs of AIG, Lehman Bro, Citi Bank, etc ... Список можно продолжить ... Все компании которые попросили $$$ у "тещи" (государство) - продолжают тратить направо и налево ... как будто ничего не случилось ... как будто люди не потеряли работу ... как будто это не они привели свои компании к банкротству ...
В етом случае нормальная "теща" начала бы расследование ... К сожалению Democrats don't have guts for that ... *8oI

[Лина]

"Bloomberg News reporter Mark Pittman did a 5 part series of on the subprime mortgage crisis chronicling the Wall Street cowboys creation of subprime mortgage derivatives."
"The new standardized contracts they created would allow firms to protect themselves from the risks of subprime mortgages, enable speculators to bet against the U.S. housing market, and help meet demand from institutional investors for the high yields of loans to homeowners with poor credit."
"The tools also magnified losses so much that a small number of defaulting subprime borrowers could devastate securities held by banks and pension funds globally, freeze corporate lending and bring the world's credit markets to a standstill."

[Лина]

"The goal of Lippmann's group on that winter evening in 2005: to design a new financial product that would standardize mortgage-backed securities, including those based on high-yield subprime loans, paving the way for their rapid growth."
"The trouble was that most creditworthy borrowers had already refinanced their houses at 2003's record-low mortgage rates. To meet demand for mortgage-backed securities, Wall Street had to find a new source of loans. Those still available mainly involved subprime borrowers, who paid higher rates because they were seen as credit risks."

[Алексей Дака]

Бонусовый "скандал" вокруг AIG тщательно отрежиссирован чтобы американские обыватели "смотрели в другую сторону"

В самом деле: пресловутые бонусы - это 0.1% от байлаута, прораченного на AIG. Куда же ушли 99.9%, а точнее кому?
Главным образом - Goldman Sachs, а так же европейским банкам Deutche Bank, RBS, HSBC и некоторым другим.

Citi только сейчас разделяется на good bank and bad bank, а талантливые ребята из Голдмана придумали этот трюк ещё в 2007 г., на роль bad bank определили AIG. Просто - как всё гениальное: прибыль - нам, убытки - американским налогоплательщикам. А будут возмущаться - вот вам в качестве мишени AIG. Быть может они эти бонусы и замутили, чтобы вызвать псевдонегодование.

[Лина]

В самом деле: пресловутые бонусы - это 0.1% от байлаута, прораченного на AIG. Куда же ушли 99.9%, а точнее кому?


A chto, kto to skazal chto eti den'gi ischezli?