PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

AIG's Attitude of Gratitude

| No Comments


The board of directors of American International Group decided today that AIG would not take part in ongoing shareholder lawsuits against the government for its September 2008 bailout of the company. AIG explained that the board was legally obligated to consider whether to participate in the legal actions. The company was correct about this point; the board has a fiduciary obligation to look out for the best interests of the company, even if doing so means looking ungrateful for its taxpayer bailout. The second point AIG made in its statement, however, is not correct when viewed in proper context.

The AIG loan was not, as AIG claims, a profitable venture for the taxpayer. By lending money to AIG at a time when nobody else wanted to, the American people took a tremendous risk. Other potential lenders looked at AIG and concluded that it was insolvent; its assets were worth less than the amount of money needed to save the company. They were not willing to lend at any price. The fact that taxpayers have gotten back a bit more than we put in does not compensate us for having invested in a severely troubled company. Setting aside the impropriety of government investments in private companies, we could have earned more and slept better at night if we had invested the money in a healthier company or portfolio of companies. AIG ended up surviving, in large part because the government's loan sent a signal that AIG would never be allowed to fail and that its creditors would get paid in full.

AIG is running ads this week to thank the American people for bailing it out. As heartwarming as these ads are, putting government money into AIG was a mistake. The company should have been permitted to stand or fall on its own. Then it would not have had to thank American taxpayers--or consider suing them--for bailing it out.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.