Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATE - U.S. Made $22.7 Billion Profit As Last AIG Stock Sold (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The use of the term net profit (5+ / 0-)

    would seem to indicate that the initial outlay of $182B was recovered plus $22.7B.  I don't know what else net profit could mean here.

    A petty criminal is someone with predatory instincts but insufficient capital to form a corporation. --Clarence Darrow

    by stlsophos on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:43:30 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, from the link given in the diary (0+ / 0-)

      it appears that in addition to the $22.7 billion from selling stock, the Treasury * might * have gotten an additional $65 billion:

      The Treasury Department is selling 234.2 million shares at $32.50 each in the sixth offering since the 2008 rescue. The proceeds boost the U.S. profit on the rescue that began in 2008 to $22.7 billion, according to a statement today from the Treasury, which injected capital through the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

      The U.S. took over the New York-based company in a 2008 bailout that swelled to $182.3 billion to save the global economy from collapse. AIG has sold more than $65 billion of assets to help repay the rescue, while Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche scaled back from the derivative bets that almost destroyed the firm. He’s focusing on property-casualty coverage globally and life and retirement products in the U.S.

      But still ( $182.3 minus $22.7 minus $65, all in billions) is still a $94.6 billion LOSS (not PROFIT!!!!).
      •  You're wrong. (3+ / 0-)

        $182B plus $22.7B.

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:53:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong how? (0+ / 0-)

          maybe I should have stated the bailout in negative $ figures:

          Bailout, we're at -$182.3 B

          Selling assets: we're at -$182.3 B + $65 B = - $117.3B

          "profits" from selling stocks: we're now at -$117.3B + $22.7B = -$94.6B

          That is, 94.6 billion dollars in the hole.

          •  Your assumption that (7+ / 0-)

            182B was not paid back is incorrect.  It was.  Then there was an additional 22.7B profit.   You are misreading a story to arrive at your conclusion.  It is erroneous.  Since your premise is wrong, you math is irrelvant.

            So you can repeat it over and over, but it is incorrect.

            Facts matter.  

            You can be for or agaisnt the bailout, but the fact is that AIG mader its money back plus a profit.  You can still think it was wrong and that a financial crash and depression was better.  

            But the fact is that there was no loss.  That is a fact.  The rest is open to argument.

            Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

            by TomP on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:17:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am going by the information linked to in the (0+ / 0-)


              If a diary is incorrect, why is the onus on me to search the internet for the correct information?

            •  OK, here's another description of the situation (0+ / 0-)
              AIG stock has traded between $22.19 and a high of $37.67 the past 52 weeks.

              Proceeds from the final stock sale are expected to total approximately $7.6 billion.

              Treasury said with the stock sale it has realized a positive return of $5 billion, while the Federal Reserve received a positive return of $17.7 billion.

              Treasury conducted six public offerings of AIG stock the past 19 months, selling a total of 1.66 billion shares of the company. At the start of the sales, Treasury had owned 92% of AIG's outstanding common stock.


              So, the Government sold 1.66 billion shares at a maximum of $37.67 - that's $62.43 billion, still considerably short of the $182.3 billion in bailout funds thrown their way.

              If it's so crystal clear where the other tens of billions of dollars have come from, why hasn't (can't!) anybody summarize this information a handy table?  You know, so the average American like myself  - as opposed to somebody with an advanced degree in financial chicanery -  can understand?  

            •  Tom. Thanks. I posted the update, including (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              a link to the Forbes article that breaks it all down, to help you bring an end to this discussion.

              What you and I thought was pretty clear in the original article and to people who have followed this, was , well, not so clear to others.

              Further, affiant sayeth not.

              by Gary Norton on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 08:47:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Details (4+ / 0-)
            The revised bailout included a $60 billion credit line from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a Treasury investment of as much as $69.8 billion and up to $52.5 billion from the Fed to buy mortgage-linked assets once owned or backed by AIG.

            The Treasury acquired AIG common stock at a cost of about $47.5 billion, and the department’s profit on the share sales was about $4.1 billion. Most of the total $22.7 billion profit was recorded by the Fed, fueled by gains in mortgage-linked securities assumed in the rescue. The U.S. still holds warrants to buy about 2.7 million shares of AIG stock.


            Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

            by TomP on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:18:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You are confusing AIG's selling assets with the (4+ / 0-)

            government's assets in AIG stock (and warrants).  

            It's really pretty simple: the govt laid out less to buy AIG stock and save the company than it got back in selling that stock.

            The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

            by accumbens on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:20:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site