It sounds like two hurricanes racing to make landfall but it’s really two opinions on what should be done with AIG. Hank got in first with this CNBC interview with Maria Bartiromo on Friday.
In it Greenberg makes the case that the government’s terms were too onerous. AIG would go out of business with the loss of livelihood and invested capital among many undeserving folks. Now that TARP is available, Greenberg reasons, shouldn’t AIG be allowed the same support other financial firms have benefited from? (Tell that to the folks at Bear and Lehman.)
For extra points, can anyone figure out what Greenberg is after? Is it simply protecting what little is left of CV Starr’s mammoth holding in AIG? An attempt to insinuate himself back into the company? A chance to prove that he was wronged and the company would have been fine if he had been left in charge? (Take that Elliott Spitzer.)
On the other hand, Floyd Norris has a bone to pick with way AIG is pretending that the new $150 billion loan is just a business transaction:
Does he want us to believe that there was anyone in the private sector that would have financed A.I.G. on these terms? Does he really think we will believe there is anyone in the private sector who would have financed this company on any terms?
It is sad to see that the plan is for A.I.G. to stay in business forever. This is a company that should be wound down. Instead, it appears that the government will remain an investor for years and years, helping one insurance company compete with others that are not government-subsidized.
Unbelievable Words from A.I.G.
FLOYD NORRIS
NYT Blog, November 10, 2008
http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/unbelievable-words-from-aig/
