Talk:American International Group/Archives/2012

Special Exception Suspending all Wikipedia Rules For This Article Only
Only kidding. Boy would it be fun! Maybe just for April 1???? 69.39.49.27 (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur! Honestly, I'm surprised the history page doesn't show more accounts of vandalism in the first place. 128.237.251.50 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

initial comment
Glad to see the article building up, but it's very biased toward recent events, and not all of those are being updated. I am an AIG employee, but am editing/commenting on the article entirely on my own free time. Corporations are tricky articles to build on Wikipedia, but a robust Wikipedia should definitely have good entries, right? --66.65.125.108 17:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Not wanting to censor
Is accounting fraud a bad name for surplus notes which were issued in the early 1990s? Wasn't the deal true or did it niot reaklly shift risk? Who or which party would have been on the hook at the end if the thing went broke? If it was Genn Re, it's truly insurance, Isn't this the difference between pure debt pure equity and hybrid securioties?

Seems to me only a few of the scandals are reresented here. Although not a scandal, it shuld be noted here how AIG spent $6,000,000 lobbying the US government, money talks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.85.48 (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Marine Terminals Corporation
AIG has recently acquired Marine Terminals Corporation. MTC is a company in the business of managing stevedores and longshoremen at the various ports they have contracted with.

HM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.139.244 (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The phrase below doesnt seem to be either grammatically correct or factually correct based on the use of "about 100%." I unfortunately do not know the fact on this matter but hopefully someone with more knowledge can clear this up

"Through various subsidiaries, AIG owns about 100% of 21st Century Insurance Group (see http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=TW)."

66.226.224.176 (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC) nobesnickr

AIG vs Lehmann
I read the NYT article more carefully than the preceding editor presumably did. --Jerzy•t 04:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) As i summarized, "... all anyone knows is the *valuing*, while the value and thus overvaluing are unknowable."
 * 2) "Almost twice" almost certainly doesn't mean "4/7 of the way from the same to twice", and thus misrepresents the numbers, in the absence of information on how the mixes of sub-p and Alt-A compare between the two companies. For Sub-p, 69%/34% = 2.03, with 2.0 significant. For Alt-A, 67%/39% = 1.72, with 1.7 signif. So we need to include a source on the mix before saying what i found in the article.
 * 3) As to "similar", the reporters may have sound evidence that each type was "similar", but they failed to communicate more than Lehman finding them similar, in saying Lehman said that
 * Lehman was valuing similar subprime mortgage securities to those held by A.I.G. [at such-and-such level]
 * So we should have had a separate source to say what we said, and not attributed to the Times what Lehman said.
 * 1) BTW, even if we could quantify how similar, no one knows for sure how to harness degrees of similarity in finding how close in value "similar" securities are.
 * Well I certainly appreciate your faith in my reading abilities. I phrased it the way I did because it sounds better than the way you wrote it. The New York Times didn't say "Lehman said these are valued similarly" it said "these stocks are valued similarly to what Lehman had." Saying "1.7 to 2.0" looks and reads poorly so "almost twice as much" was substituted since it adequately conveys the point that was being made in the article. We're not writing a textbook on AIG's balance sheet so we don't need to go into a whole lot of details on the specific types of loans that are being affected here, only the major points about why the company is collapsing. The manual of style details what is needed a summary and what isn't. If and when this section is broken out into its own article, then we may begin to split hairs over what loans are being devalued, but for the time being, it looks fine to list them as "mortgage backed securities". Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer the numbers. I can give it tone in my head. "almost twice as much" scans in a clunky way and sounds like casual chat. Synonyms for the first and last word would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.233.86 (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Shares in Freddie and Fannie
According to an unnamed source AIG had $550 million to $600 million of preferred shares in the two GSEs. I don't know if we should include mention of this or wait until AIG makes an announcement. __meco (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AIG Bailout near?
New York Times

CNN

Bloomberg

Reuters

--Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fed bails out AIG
http://www.federalreserve.gov/ --Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not correct to mention Fed bailing out (read- buying out) AIG as "the biggest government bailout in history". Simple, well known fact is that Federal Reserve Bank is a privatly owned organization and is not a branch of USA government. Thus, it is private bailout - and, in my opinion, is nothing but Fed owners acquiring AIG for pennies on a dollar.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/federal_reserve.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.185.211 (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is true that the regional Federal reserve banks' stock is owned by banks, and this is old news, and for various purposes, depending on the statute at issue the Federal Reserve banks are considered Federal Agencies, non government entities, corporations, and a variety of other hybrid categories. Its structure and ownership is a historical fact, coming from bitterly arrived at consensus about public and private direction of the central bank. That the shares may be held by banks.  The governing body, the Board of Governors is all appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. As independent federal agency the Federal Reserve Board of Governors delegated to the New York Federal Reserve Bank the authority to undertake the credit-liquidity facility with AIG, and as the agent of the FRB board of governors,  it is fair to call the acccomplished action "government intervention"-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

New York HQ
I think the article should link to their world headquarters in New York, the American International Building in Lower Manhattan. Maybe a pic, maybe not, dunno. I can't think of where to stick in a link. M.Nelson (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Holdings
Given that the AIG announcement speaks of a sale of certain of its businesses with "the least possible disruption to the overall economy.", it would be useful to expand out the holdings section and categorize it. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See Nationalization

Conservatorship vs. Nationalization
I think that the term conservatorship should be avoided as it is unclear and ambiguous. The word nationalization has a clear definition which means ownership taken by the government. Thoughts? Cpeter9 (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No equity transaction has occurred. Issuance of warrants for equity. Not nationalized. Warrants are options for equity--a fee for service. No source has described any conservatorship structure. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe "nationalization" is too strong a word, and maybe "conservatorship" is too. But the federal bailerouters are firing the executives, and will have the power to over-ride the board of directors, so, clearly there's more going on here than just a loan. They could have gotten that last week, if they'd had any collateral. What will you call it when those warrants are exercised? They will be. --99.163.50.12 (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See below section. IAG is a weakling at the moment. Any port in a storm. They could have avoided this if they had proper capital reserved for the actual insurance they issued called "CDS" Credit Default Swaps. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Loan vs. Nationalization
I also think that we should scrutinize whether the Federal Reserve's action actually constitutes a loan versus nationalization or government ownership. Reports are saying that the Fed now owns 79.9% of AIG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpeter9 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The citations state that warrants were issued, not actual equity. No equity transaction has transpired. Therefore no equity/ownership transaction has taken place, merely the option for ownership. Not nationalization. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe "nationalization" is too strong a word, and maybe "conservatorship" is too. But the federal bailerouters are firing the executives, and will have the power to over-ride the board of directors, so, clearly there's more going on here than just a loan. They could have gotten that last week, if they'd had any collateral. What will you call it when those warrants are exercised? They will be. --99.163.50.12 (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Find me a citation to a reliable source that explains conservatorship. You'll find none. Only contractual authority of the FRB in exchange for the credit-liquidity facility of $85 billion. I'd call those excercised warrants fee for service. And they're not excercised yet. IAG is on its knees avoiding a filing with the bankruptcy court. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a Reuters article quoting unnamed sources asserting that "no federal agency has legal authority to place AIG under conservatorship" because insurance companies are regulated by the states. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be why AIG only pledged the stock it owned of such regulated corporate subsidiaries in its collateralized loan agreement with the FED, and why there's no conservatorship claimed in any reliable source. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All (or most) newspaper in Argentina talks about "nationalization". In this newspaper, http://criticadigital.com/index.php?secc=nota&nid=11093 and this one: http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/ultimas/subnotas/111886-35388-2008-09-19.html ("A la quiebra de Lehman Brothers la semana pasada siguió la nacionalización del grupo de seguros estadounidense AIG por 85.000 millones de dólares") and this one: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1051566 ("La nacionalización de la deuda tóxica que merma el capital de los principales bancos de inversión"). If the state has the control of almost 80%, why this is not a nationalization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbassi (talk • contribs) 07:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the Federal Reserve Board of Governors received (or demanded) a warrant (option)_ for 79.9% share of the common, not actual ownership of that portion of the company. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

lede language and fed bailout language not in agreement
lede states "AIG announced the same day that its board accepted the terms of the Federal Reserve Bank's rescue package, including the issue of equity warrants, and that it is in the best interest of all parties.[5]" fed bailout section states "AIG's board of directors approved the loan transaction on the same day, without comment about the issuance of warrants amounting to potentially 79.9% of the equity of AIG.[5][2]" the 2 are not in agreement. the aig press release referenced by footnote 5 is silent on details of terms...specifically silent on issuance of warrnts."	 a better researcher/editor can tackle this one. i'm limited on time at moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.2.68 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Press release is silent. In any case, if AIG didn't agree to terms announced by FED, there would be no deal, so implied in the credit facility are the warrants for 79.9% of AIG. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Planned economy
I've tried twice to add this as a "see also" item, only to be twice reverted without substantial rationale. Perhaps someone can advance for me one argument as to why this is inapt? The reasoning all seems quite categorical to me: this was a massive intervention into the economy by the government, using public funds to prop up a private entity, preventing the market from expressing its judgment of AIG and substituting the judgment of the government, insulating AIG from the consequences of its own business decisions, and ultimately assuming a majority equitable stake in the corporation at issue. How can this not indicate some degree of economic planning? Let's review some characteristics of central economic planning. In planned economies, the government frequently intervenes, assumes control of private enterprises, overrides the judgment of consumers, bestows public funds on private entities, etc. This does not seem like a particularly ideological or subjective determination to me. One incident, or even a pattern of them, does not necessarily indicate that the U.S. has a planned economy, but this term is at least relevant enough that the reader might want to be aware of it. That's all a "see also" implies. deranged bulbasaur 10:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I did not remove the link, I think that the recent events are an example of an unplanned economy and unplanned intervention. Bankruptcy is not a planned event either. There are many kinds of pseudo-bankruptcies, such as conservatorship, and then there's the impression a rescued company has when merging into a not so white knight.  That said, I'm sure the board of AIG feels like they are wondering if  bankruptcy would be much worse: they lost most of their control to events, lost most of their equity, their CEO, and ability to issue dividends, and probably undisclosed other powers in signing the contract for the credit facility with the Fed.  See for example:   Here is an item indicating that the Federal Reserve is not that interested in managing the concern, or participating in owning it, hence another unplanned activity, although authorized by the Bank's its enabling laws.   And another indicating that the Fed and AIG haven't settled what has just happened.    (Dealbook column)  I think you would need to persuade a lot of people it is otherwise (than unplanned) for the link to survive. Given that the government has a secured lending facility, and warrants for 79.9% of the company, there's a speculative  likelihood that a number of parts of the company will be broken off and become free standing. By the terms of your argument, the existence of the Federal Reserve Bank and the interventions it may take to keep ordinary banks solvent in crisis amounts to a planned economy, which I also think many would differ on. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to consist of removing one word of a two word term that has its own meaning apart from the two constituent words, then arguing against the term based on one word apart from its context. If applied in other situations, this would be clearly ridiculous. It's akin to saying something isn't a jellyfish because you can't spread it on toast. That is not the only absurdity, however, because you then posit a meaning for "planned" that would render it inapplicable to all conceivable economies. Even in the strictest command economies (a stronger term than planned) I hardly expect the powers that be have managed to anticipate the advent of all future events touching the economy in order that they may have a plan for them. Clearly, the plan consists not in a pre-formulated response to events that have not yet occurred, but simply in having some operative design for the economy which can be applied to situations as they arise. The links you give ostensibly in support of your own proposition in fact support the existence of a plan. The federal regulators' own pattern of activity makes that clear enough, unless you're going to seriously suggest that they decide whether or not to intervene at their own caprice and the recent pattern of bailouts is only a chance phenomenon. deranged bulbasaur  03:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume then that the existence of the Federal Reserve Bank amounts to a planned economy. On that basis, all economies are planned, and there's no basis to reject such a link. Any how, here's a description of the lack of enthusiasm and last-day-or-two decision by the Fed on AIG. Not capricious, but certainly discretionary. The FED had desired to let AIG go flat, or survive without them.   -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may of course presume that the mere existence of a Federal Reserve Bank amounts to planned economy, if you so wish. I will, however, abstain from any such presumption. Furthermore, since your presumption is not in any way derivable from any claim which I have advanced, attempting to wield language of your own design against me would be a straw man fallacy. Since you would surely not engage in such faulty argumentation, I am amused to note the consequences of your intriguing hypothetical aside but wonder what relevance it might have to the present discussion. deranged bulbasaur  04:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the addition of the planned economy I agree that it is an example of an unplanned economy -Tracer9999 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I surmised as much when you reverted me, but do you have anything for it other than a mere assertion? I've had two of those from you so far and I don't count myself the wiser on their account. deranged bulbasaur  03:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is your own mere assertion more authoritative than the ones you are dismissing? That's all you're making, so, don't WP:POINT. It's rude. --99.163.50.12 (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have advanced an argument, which is fundamentally different from mere assertion. Anyone actually reading and comprehending this discussion would appreciate that. Perhaps after doing these things yourself, you could retract your falsehood and explain how discussing an editorial decision on a talk page is the same as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? If it is, I would quite like to know what other recourse I have when people revert my edits. deranged bulbasaur  04:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears this has been removed by yet another editor as being irrelevant.. and based on the fact your the only one here that is actually for this being added. It should stay out until consensus sways in your direction. -Tracer9999 (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "I have advanced an argument, which is fundamentally different from mere assertion." Advancing an argument, rather than documenting one, is WP:OR. And your (mere, yes) argument is disruptive for reasons that should be obvious by now, and it introduces unbalanced WP:POV for the sake of making a WP:POINT. Now, you're perfectly right that a Talk: page isn't what those policies cover. But, by your own admission, you didn't just Talk:, did you? --99.163.50.12 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that the idea of planned economy is somewhat relevant to the AIG bailout. In a completely pure free market economy/unplanned economy, AIG would be long gone. Probably as a result of poor business practices and extravagance. But the government has decided that we need AIG, so far no matter what the cost to the American people(well more than $100 billion). This is the government deciding what corporations should be allowed to fail and which should not. I wouldn't imagine that's WP:OR, because he wasn't saying that the United States has a planned economy. He was simply saying that this sort of thing - the government interfering in private business - is characteristic of one, which it is. And he has fair reasoning for planned economy being referenced in the See Also section, whereas I'm not sure if some of you know what a planned economy actually is. It certainly has nothing to do with the government actually expecting or foreseeing everything that has to do with the economy, but rather trying to guide it as they see fit. Whether it belongs in the See Also section, I'm not sure. But I would certainly not be opposed to it, and would like to see better reasoning for it not being there. thezirk (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Does a regulated market (See: Securities Exchange Commission) and regulated monetary and banking system (see: Federal Reserve Bank) make for a planned economy? Rather doubtful. The intent of such regulatory activities is to make it possible to avoid government participation in the ownership of key companies when there is a crisis. The failure of regulation points to the participation of the Federal Government in the ownership via the warrant issued for 79.9% of AIG when the September 2008 credit facility was instituted to keep AIG out of bankruptcy. Crisis? Yes. Ad-hoc response? Yes. Planned Economy? Hardly. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Historic Accuracy
Right now it is written "The following week, AIG executives participated in a lavish California retreat". I would encourage to change the wording "the following week" to a precise date instead. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk • contribs) 23:31, October 8, 2008

AIGFP
I created a new page for AIG Financal Products, since it's the piece of this whole operation that lost all the money. Piecing through some details now. The ex CEO, Joseph Cassano, deserves his own wikipedia page too. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Record losses
The loss is the largest in US corporate history. Is it therefore the largest in world history? Fig (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Who did the money go to?
It would seem that there should be some details as to who the $100B went to. Did the government really just cut a blank check to AIG and AIG then proceeded to make lump sum payments to 3rd parties with no accounting by the US government as to who was being paid? How does anyone know that the payments didn't just go to hedge funds for billionaires that would have otherwise lost significant amounts of their wealth? 69.38.218.221 (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think about it, the answer is that the payments went to all of AIG's customers (auto, life insurance, etc.) because otherwise if they didn't get the money the entire company would fail. Also, even if the insurance that brought down the company was bad insurance on the bond holdings of billionaire's hedge funds, if Congress was to deny claims to them based on the fact that they are "billionaires", then I would imagine a great many billionaires would stop buying insurance since they would always be afraid that if their insurance company was in trouble that they wouldn't get paid because they are billionaires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.213.112 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 March 2009

Taking over AIG was the biggest mistake Obama ever made.GJCorr (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Obama's biggest mistake was one he didn't do? Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, the warrant permitting a new financial participant to own (at its option) 79.9% of the equity of AIG was issued in September 2008, and occurred during the Bush presidency, under the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank's Board of Governors, which the then-president had no influence over, and which occurred nearly two months before the election determining the next U.S. President. Yellowdesk (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is really not clear (cut and pasted from the page):

"On October 22, 2008, pdubs and those creditors of Lehman Brothers who bought credit default swaps to hedge them against Lehman bankruptcy settled those accounts. The net payments were $5.2 billion[64] even though initial estimates of the amount of the settlement were between $100 billion and $400 billion.[65]

"By December 2008, AIG had paid at least $18.7 billion to various financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs and Société Générale to retire obligations related to credit default swaps (CDS). As much as $53.5 billion related to swap payouts are part of the bailout.[66]

First of all, how could the initial payments have been a mere $5.2 billion when the estimate was $100-400 billion?

Second, what is the relationship between the $18.7 billion paid "by December 2008" to the "As much as $53.5 billion related to swap payouts"?

Would not everyone who was entitled to collect against the swaps have gone for the money the instant it was available?

It still appears that the payouts were 1/2 to 1/8 of the initially anticipated payouts? How could such an important number have been in very much doubt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.5.223 (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Focuses too much on the present
The current financial crisis has lasted (about) 5 months, and yet that section dominates the article. Please keep the current news in the mindset of the scale of the time AIG has been around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.7.40 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it you're enjoying your bonus, and would like it to be discussed less?RevelationDirect (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Credit Default Swap settlement
The properly cited information that I added earlier today regarding the identification of CDS counterparties to AIG appears to have been accidentally deleted. I have restored it to the section titled "Settlement of Credit Default Swaps."

I believe this information should remain in place as it is noteworthy news (having been requested for many months by Congress and, once released, demonstrating the global scope of the crisis and subsequent bailout). If the content was deliberately removed I would appreciate a justification. (Rewording or repositioning is welcome and encouraged!) shultzc (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

J.H. Crawford asks: What is "pdubs" as mentioned in the article? The best guess I can make is Price-Waterhouse Cooper; this information is not easily to be found on the Internet. Since this is a major payout, it's important to clarify.

JCDenton2052: Why are you portraying AIG bonus recipients as victims?
Are you asking American taxpayers to send them cards and flowers next? Tellya (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 bonus payments
Perhaps the liberal who wrote this section could add that these were retention bonuses and that they were inked a year ago. Congress knew about them when they started bailing them out in September 2008. The people getting these bonuses were going to be laid off, but AIG still needed them on a temporary basis, hence the bonus incentive to stick around.

I also see elsewhere that all of the executive retreats and other expenditures have been covered in detail. That’s great. How about a section on the billions of U.S. taxpayer bailout money that was sent from AIG to banks in Europe? It may not make as good a class struggle story, but it still dwarfs any executive compensation and resort expenditures.

I accept that Wikipedia has morphed into a free encyclopedia edited and written by liberals, the New York Times of encyclopedias, if you will (“fake, but accurate”). But couldn’t you just once pretend to be fair-minded about something, even if it goes against popular sentiment? It’s not as exciting as quotes of boiling executives in oil or lopping off their heads, but this is still an encyclopedia.

And why the hell this section linked to “Class Struggle”? Are you kidding me? Why not link directly to Marx? It is no wonder that no one from a graduate professor to an elementary school teacher will allow Wikipedia to be cited as a source. This is an encyclopedia? 141.246.2.80 (talk)Looftie


 * Yeah, all those liberals like Chuck Grassley and Charles Krauthammer attacking AIG...


 * What about the UAW workers who had to renegotiate to lower salaries? I suppose contractual salary obligations don't apply to the proles. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As in so many matters in life, it's helpful to actually read what you're criticising before criticising. This section has been there since 4th March UTC. I guess the trouble is we try to be fair and balanced, how bad of use liberals, that's so unfair to the people who want to criticise us but can't be arsed (or are too stupid) to read... Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

AIG IS THE BEST COMPANY TO WORK FOR. I WANT TO WORK THERE. --- GFRV (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of that
I think this section deserves its own article, its certainly surpassed alot of expectations. ViperSnake151 15:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and moved the material to a new article. I've chopped the section down substantially. It still needs work, as does the new article. No doubt we'll have other folks checking in on both as the situation develops. Good suggestion, ViperSnake. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent currency - $/USD
Most of the money figures are similar to this - $170 billion, but there's an exception - 165 million USD. Please correct this. Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Suicide in Japan
Suggest link change ("Japanese example" quoted by US senator) from Seppuku to Suicide in Japan - more common methods for killing yourself in Japan include hanging (ref Toshikatsu Matsuoka, a former minister) and throwing yourself in front of a train. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rottkapp (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

ref
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=289004&cl=12573099&src=finance&ch=1316259 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.202.99 (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Coutts
See the Talk page of Coutts, where it is noted that Coutts was involved with AIG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.138 (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Manchester United
Should it be mentioned that AIG is the principle sponsor of Manchester United, and has been for the last three years? Conay (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, hardly of significance. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo request
The following photo request was copied from Requested pictures/Architecture. Tim Pierce (talk)


 * AIG - Offices on Water Street, with sign shown to be removed. See http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/03/24/business/24bonus_CA0.inline.ready.html for indication of what I mean. Superm401 - Talk 20:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Eytomology
The etymology needs to be discussed.Curb Chain (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Revised logo
A representative of AIG noticed that the logo in the article was outdated, and provided an updated image via OTRS to be used under fair use. OTRS agents, see -- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  00:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

One editor feels that the logo in the article should be 1. File:Logo used by AIG in 2012.jpg while another feels it should be 2. File:AIG 2012 logo.png The color of the image in #2 doesn't match the color of the official image. I do not see why using an unofficial version, with the wrong color, is superior to the official version. The choices appear to be:


 * 1) The official version of the logo, as supplied by the company
 * 2) An artists rendition of the logo, with the advantage that the resolution is better and the image is free, but with the disadvantage that it doesn't match the official version.

What do others think?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The logo I'm watching at the AIG website right now does not seem as bright as the current version... Otherwise, my suggestion is: to upload a new free logo with the same cyan color than the official image has (I could do this). Fma12 (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to run, but I am not sure the second revision is free. Will discuss more later.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we can go on with the discussion later. I consider the logo is below the threshold of originality and therefore ineligible for copyright protection (so it was uploaded and tagged as PD-textlogo on Commons).Fma12 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it is below the threshold. I also note that the color provided by the company isn't close to the color on their website, although neither match exactly the image you created. I'll check with the company to see what they have to say.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I sent an email to AIG. I don't anticipate an answer right away, due to the holidays.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While waiting to hear from the company, it is now clear to me that the file I first uploaded isn't the right one. I've tried again, with a better file.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll be awaiting for a reply from the company, although I think that the free image is the best option, as much as its colors as its transparent background because of being a PNG file. Fma12 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)