3 ms·
The ending was disappointing and a shallow conclusion. To me, it seems clear in hindsight that Geithner, Paulson, and Bernanke, et al, were in uncharted waters
by spinchange 11y ago
The ending was disappointing and a shallow conclusion. To me, it seems clear in hindsight that Geithner, Paulson, and Bernanke, et al, were in uncharted waters trying to manage a banking crisis. Did they overreach and force AIG to take more of the fall than was on them? I think there's a case to be made. So, the motive is the Government was trying to save the financial system. They scapegoated the insurer. Someone had to hold the bag, less they all go down.
- k9quaint 11y agoThe article also glossed over the fact that AIG waited until there was an $85 billion dollar hole in their balance sheet to contact the Treasury/Fed about it. The article describes this as "In fact, the relative health of its business may have fucked it harder than all those credit-default swaps—as one of the last institutions to run out of cash, it was also one of the last to start seeking a lifeline from foreign wealth funds. " The size of that hole and the fact that it was needed in a few days time ruled out any merger/acquisition or selling off assets (which could take weeks to price). Also, Vice should probably not treat Hank Greenbergs lawyer as the source of truth since he has a very clear economic bias to paint AIG in the very best of light. He stands to gain a percentage of a massive settlement if he wins.