>    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> the equation..

>         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> - Series F draw down .
> [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> ($3,206)

> DIVIDED BY

>       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

> SCRANTON SCENARIO #1: $41.605B series E (TARP) is not paid back,
> instead, they do conversion of Series C only, would look like:

>         Total AIG Shareholders' equity FORGET ABOUT E PREFERRED
> $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> - Series F draw down .
> [in millions]  ($72,712) series E and F  -     ($3,206)

> DIVIDED BY

>       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> [in millions]  (134.6)  +  (562.9)

> = EQUALS $99.6/SHARE

> ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> *NOTE: UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares)
> CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY $55.7  B  (THEY MAKE 14.1 BILLION FOR THE
> TARP LOAN) SO WHY ALSO PAY THE 41.6 B TREASURY COMMITMENT??
> *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> so what happens to the Series E? Well. Those cant be converted anyway.
> So I guess Treasury can keep them.  They have a liquidation value of
> $2B (400,000 series E shares at $5 par value)

> SUMMARY:

> CONVERSION WILL HAPPEN, IN MY OPINION, BUT THE $41.6 B TARP WILL NOT
> BE ALSO PAID BACK.  UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, THE TAXPAYER STILL GET
> ALL THERE MONEY BACK AND EXTRA $14.1 BILLION.  ALL GOOD,

> Year but you forgot about the FED LOAN you say?  Scranton is not
> worried about that.  AIA ALICO IPO will take care of that.  WRITE-UPS
> on asset portfolio will take care of that.

> RECOMMENDATION: HOLD FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 12 MONTHS. says ccscranton

> did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > the equation..

> >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > - Series F draw down .
> > [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> > ($3,206)

> > DIVIDED BY

> >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> > = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> > 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

> > SCRANTON SCENARIO #1: $41.605B series E (TARP) is not paid back,
> > instead, they do conversion of Series C only, would look like:

> >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity FORGET ABOUT E PREFERRED
> > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > - Series F draw down .
> > [in millions]  ($72,712) series E and F  -     ($3,206)

> > DIVIDED BY

> >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > [in millions]  (134.6)  +  (562.9)

> > = EQUALS $99.6/SHARE

> > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > *NOTE: UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares)
> > CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY $55.7  B  (THEY MAKE 14.1 BILLION FOR THE
> > TARP LOAN) SO WHY ALSO PAY THE 41.6 B TREASURY COMMITMENT??
> > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > so what happens to the Series E? Well. Those cant be converted anyway.
> > So I guess Treasury can keep them.  They have a liquidation value of
> > $2B (400,000 series E shares at $5 par value)

> > SUMMARY:

> > CONVERSION WILL HAPPEN, IN MY OPINION, BUT THE $41.6 B TARP WILL NOT
> > BE ALSO PAID BACK.  UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, THE TAXPAYER STILL GET
> > ALL THERE MONEY BACK AND EXTRA $14.1 BILLION.  ALL GOOD,

> > Year but you forgot about the FED LOAN you say?  Scranton is not
> > worried about that.  AIA ALICO IPO will take care of that.  WRITE-UPS
> > on asset portfolio will take care of that.

> > RECOMMENDATION: HOLD FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 12 MONTHS. says ccscranton

> Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> share !!!  Hello?
> On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> > On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > > the equation..

> > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > - Series F draw down .
> > > [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> > > ($3,206)

> > > DIVIDED BY

> > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> > > = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> > > 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

> > > SCRANTON SCENARIO #1: $41.605B series E (TARP) is not paid back,
> > > instead, they do conversion of Series C only, would look like:

> > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity FORGET ABOUT E PREFERRED
> > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > - Series F draw down .
> > > [in millions]  ($72,712) series E and F  -     ($3,206)

> > > DIVIDED BY

> > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > [in millions]  (134.6)  +  (562.9)

> > > = EQUALS $99.6/SHARE

> > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > *NOTE: UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares)
> > > CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY $55.7  B  (THEY MAKE 14.1 BILLION FOR THE
> > > TARP LOAN) SO WHY ALSO PAY THE 41.6 B TREASURY COMMITMENT??
> > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > so what happens to the Series E? Well. Those cant be converted anyway.
> > > So I guess Treasury can keep them.  They have a liquidation value of
> > > $2B (400,000 series E shares at $5 par value)

> > > SUMMARY:

> > > CONVERSION WILL HAPPEN, IN MY OPINION, BUT THE $41.6 B TARP WILL NOT
> > > BE ALSO PAID BACK.  UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, THE TAXPAYER STILL GET
> > > ALL THERE MONEY BACK AND EXTRA $14.1 BILLION.  ALL GOOD,

> > > Year but you forgot about the FED LOAN you say?  Scranton is not
> > > worried about that.  AIA ALICO IPO will take care of that.  WRITE-UPS
> > > on asset portfolio will take care of that.

> > > RECOMMENDATION: HOLD FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 12 MONTHS. says ccscranton

> Hi scranton.

> This is how I calculate AIG.

> Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> They owe the US government, 84bln.

> So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> net $2bln equity.

> With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> using a one year 20% discount factor.

> Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which
> makes their US owing down by $25bln, though they incur a $5bln charge.

> SO net equity after paying US government would be $74bln - ($5bln
> charge) - ($84bln-$25bln) = Hey guys, look the NET EQUITY will be
> $10bln!!!!!

> So Scranton, you are right to give AIG a book value of $99/share, coz
> the book value is indeed $10bln.

> So BOOK value of $99/share, and TARGET $240/share, long term TARGET
> $400/share.

> On Nov 8, 7:58 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> > share !!!  Hello?
> > On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> > > On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > > > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > > > the equation..

> > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> > > > ($3,206)

> > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> > > > = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> > > > 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

> > > > SCRANTON SCENARIO #1: $41.605B series E (TARP) is not paid back,
> > > > instead, they do conversion of Series C only, would look like:

> > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity FORGET ABOUT E PREFERRED
> > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > [in millions]  ($72,712) series E and F  -     ($3,206)

> > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > [in millions]  (134.6)  +  (562.9)

> > > > = EQUALS $99.6/SHARE

> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > *NOTE: UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares)
> > > > CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY $55.7  B  (THEY MAKE 14.1 BILLION FOR THE
> > > > TARP LOAN) SO WHY ALSO PAY THE 41.6 B TREASURY COMMITMENT??
> > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > so what happens to the Series E? Well. Those cant be converted anyway.
> > > > So I guess Treasury can keep them.  They have a liquidation value of
> > > > $2B (400,000 series E shares at $5 par value)

> > > > SUMMARY:

> > > > CONVERSION WILL HAPPEN, IN MY OPINION, BUT THE $41.6 B TARP WILL NOT
> > > > BE ALSO PAID BACK.  UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, THE TAXPAYER STILL GET
> > > > ALL THERE MONEY BACK AND EXTRA $14.1 BILLION.  ALL GOOD,

> > > > Year but you forgot about the FED LOAN you say?  Scranton is not
> > > > worried about that.  AIA ALICO IPO will take care of that.  WRITE-UPS
> > > > on asset portfolio will take care of that.

> > > > RECOMMENDATION: HOLD FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 12 MONTHS. says ccscranton

> Hi scranton.

> This is how I calculate AIG.

> Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> They owe the US government, 84bln.

> So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> net $2bln equity.

> With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> using a one year 20% discount factor.

> Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which
> makes their US owing down by $25bln, though they incur a $5bln charge.

> SO net equity after paying US government would be $74bln - ($5bln
> charge) - ($84bln-$25bln) = Hey guys, look the NET EQUITY will be
> $10bln!!!!!

> So Scranton, you are right to give AIG a book value of $99/share, coz
> the book value is indeed $10bln.

> So BOOK value of $99/share, and TARGET $240/share, long term TARGET
> $400/share.

> On Nov 8, 7:58 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> > share !!!  Hello?
> > On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> > > On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > > > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > > > the equation..

> > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> > > > ($3,206)

> > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> > > > = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> > > > 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

> > > > SCRANTON SCENARIO #1: $41.605B series E (TARP) is not paid back,
> > > > instead, they do conversion of Series C only, would look like:

> > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity FORGET ABOUT E PREFERRED
> > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > [in millions]  ($72,712) series E and F  -     ($3,206)

> > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > [in millions]  (134.6)  +  (562.9)

> > > > = EQUALS $99.6/SHARE

> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > *NOTE: UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares)
> > > > CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY $55.7  B  (THEY MAKE 14.1 BILLION FOR THE
> > > > TARP LOAN) SO WHY ALSO PAY THE 41.6 B TREASURY COMMITMENT??
> > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > so what happens to the Series E? Well. Those cant be converted anyway.
> > > > So I guess Treasury can keep them.  They have a liquidation value of
> > > > $2B (400,000 series E shares at $5 par value)

> > > > SUMMARY:

> > > > CONVERSION WILL HAPPEN, IN MY OPINION, BUT THE $41.6 B TARP WILL NOT
> > > > BE ALSO PAID BACK.  UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, THE TAXPAYER STILL GET
> > > > ALL THERE MONEY BACK AND EXTRA $14.1 BILLION.  ALL GOOD,

> > > > Year but you forgot about the FED LOAN you say?  Scranton is not
> > > > worried about that.  AIA ALICO IPO will take care of that.  WRITE-UPS
> > > > on asset portfolio will take care of that.

> > > > RECOMMENDATION: HOLD FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 12 MONTHS. says ccscranton

> ok, I stopped reading when I hit this line:

> "So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We
> got
> 70bln - 84bln = -10bln."

> incorrect.  The $84B is accounted for on their balance sheet
> (liabilities).  balance sheet is ASSETS minus LIABILITIES [including
> $84B]

> Remember also, that AIG has substantial cash-on-hand, though they do
> need it to operate, they are liquid enough to pay $84B in CASH, if
> they had to, below is all CASH-IN-HAND

> CASH: 4.957 B
> INVESTMENT INCOME DUE: 6.020 B
> INSURANCE PREMIUMS: 15.481 B
> REINSRUANCE ASSETS. NET: 22.697 B
> TRADE RECEIVABLES: 1.246 B
> GOODWILL (can you say, offshore?): 5.847 B
> SEPARATE ACCOUNTS ASSETS, AT FAIR VALUE (offshore?): 59.553 B

> TOTAL CASH-IN-HAND:  $115.801 BILLION

> This was more or less reported at the link sct.chaumers provided the
> other day:  "5 Midcaps with the Highest Cash"

> http://www.benzinga.com/trading-ideas/long-ideas/36610/5-mid-cap-stoc...

> I excluded all Investments, deferred income tax, deferred policy
> acquisition costs, real estate, fixed assets, urealized gain on swaps,
> and other prepaid commitment asset.   These are excluded categories,
> because AIG needs to keep that money to use down the road.

> So, you could say they are in fine condition, and liquid, cash is
> king, no matter how you look at it.

> Yes, EVERYONE, will profit from AIG taxpayer, bondholder, stock
> holder.  YOU JUST NEED TO WAKE UP AND SEE AHEAD OF THE CURVE, IMHO.  -
> scranton

> On Nov 8, 8:08 am, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hi scranton.

> > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> > AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> > positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> > I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> > net $2bln equity.

> > With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> > is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> > Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> > using a one year 20% discount factor.

> > Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> > Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> > We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> > will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> > AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which
> > makes their US owing down by $25bln, though they incur a $5bln charge.

> > SO net equity after paying US government would be $74bln - ($5bln
> > charge) - ($84bln-$25bln) = Hey guys, look the NET EQUITY will be
> > $10bln!!!!!

> > So Scranton, you are right to give AIG a book value of $99/share, coz
> > the book value is indeed $10bln.

> > So BOOK value of $99/share, and TARGET $240/share, long term TARGET
> > $400/share.

> > On Nov 8, 7:58 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> > > share !!!  Hello?
> > > On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> > > > On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > > > > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > > > > the equation..

> > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> > > > > ($3,206)

> > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> > > > > = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> > > > > 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

> > > > > SCRANTON SCENARIO #1: $41.605B series E (TARP) is not paid back,
> > > > > instead, they do conversion of Series C only, would look like:

> > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity FORGET ABOUT E PREFERRED
> > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712) series E and F  -     ($3,206)

> > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > [in millions]  (134.6)  +  (562.9)

> > > > > = EQUALS $99.6/SHARE

> > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > *NOTE: UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares)
> > > > > CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY $55.7  B  (THEY MAKE 14.1 BILLION FOR THE
> > > > > TARP LOAN) SO WHY ALSO PAY THE 41.6 B TREASURY COMMITMENT??
> > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > so what happens to the Series E? Well. Those cant be converted anyway.
> > > > > So I guess Treasury can keep them.  They have a liquidation value of
> > > > > $2B (400,000 series E shares at $5 par value)

> > > > > SUMMARY:

> > > > > CONVERSION WILL HAPPEN, IN MY OPINION, BUT THE $41.6 B TARP WILL NOT
> > > > > BE ALSO PAID BACK.  UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, THE TAXPAYER STILL GET
> > > > > ALL THERE MONEY BACK AND EXTRA $14.1 BILLION.  ALL GOOD,

> > > > > Year but you forgot about the FED LOAN you say?  Scranton is not
> > > > > worried about that.  AIA ALICO IPO will take care of that.  WRITE-UPS
> > > > > on asset portfolio will take care of that.

> > > > > RECOMMENDATION: HOLD FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 12 MONTHS. says ccscranton

> Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> of you are predicting.
> What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hi scranton.

> > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> > AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> > positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> > I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> > net $2bln equity.

> > With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> > is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> > Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> > using a one year 20% discount factor.

> > Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> > Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> > We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> > will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> > AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which
> > makes their US owing down by $25bln, though they incur a $5bln charge.

> > SO net equity after paying US government would be $74bln - ($5bln
> > charge) - ($84bln-$25bln) = Hey guys, look the NET EQUITY will be
> > $10bln!!!!!

> > So Scranton, you are right to give AIG a book value of $99/share, coz
> > the book value is indeed $10bln.

> > So BOOK value of $99/share, and TARGET $240/share, long term TARGET
> > $400/share.

> > On Nov 8, 7:58 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> > > share !!!  Hello?
> > > On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> > > > On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > > > > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > > > > the equation..

> > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> > > > > ($3,206)

> > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> > > > > = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> > > > > 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

> > > > > SCRANTON SCENARIO #1: $41.605B series E (TARP) is not paid back,
> > > > > instead, they do conversion of Series C only, would look like:

> > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity FORGET ABOUT E PREFERRED
> > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712) series E and F  -     ($3,206)

> > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > [in millions]  (134.6)  +  (562.9)

> > > > > = EQUALS $99.6/SHARE

> > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > *NOTE: UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares)
> > > > > CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY $55.7  B  (THEY MAKE 14.1 BILLION FOR THE
> > > > > TARP LOAN) SO WHY ALSO PAY THE 41.6 B TREASURY COMMITMENT??
> > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > so what happens to the Series E? Well. Those cant be converted anyway.
> > > > > So I guess Treasury can keep them.  They have a liquidation value of
> > > > > $2B (400,000 series E shares at $5 par value)

> > > > > SUMMARY:

> > > > > CONVERSION WILL HAPPEN, IN MY OPINION, BUT THE $41.6 B TARP WILL NOT
> > > > > BE ALSO PAID BACK.  UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, THE TAXPAYER STILL GET
> > > > > ALL THERE MONEY BACK AND EXTRA $14.1 BILLION.  ALL GOOD,

> > > > > Year but you forgot about the FED LOAN you say?  Scranton is not
> > > > > worried about that.  AIA ALICO IPO will take care of that.  WRITE-UPS
> > > > > on asset portfolio will take care of that.

> > > > > RECOMMENDATION: HOLD FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 12 MONTHS. says ccscranton

> I will answer that- its because AIG is churning over 800 % of its
> float every month.  When its so volatile, how can analysts predict
> anything?

> On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> > of you are predicting.
> > What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> > making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> > All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> > in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> > On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Hi scranton.

> > > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> > > AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> > > positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> > > I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> > > net $2bln equity.

> > > With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> > > is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> > > Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> > > using a one year 20% discount factor.

> > > Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> > > Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> > > We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> > > will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> > > AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which
> > > makes their US owing down by $25bln, though they incur a $5bln charge.

> > > SO net equity after paying US government would be $74bln - ($5bln
> > > charge) - ($84bln-$25bln) = Hey guys, look the NET EQUITY will be
> > > $10bln!!!!!

> > > So Scranton, you are right to give AIG a book value of $99/share, coz
> > > the book value is indeed $10bln.

> > > So BOOK value of $99/share, and TARGET $240/share, long term TARGET
> > > $400/share.

> > > On Nov 8, 7:58 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> > > > share !!!  Hello?
> > > > On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> > > > > On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > > > > > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > > > > > the equation..

> > > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> > > > > > ($3,206)

> > > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > > [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> > > > > > = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > > *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> > > > > > 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> > > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

> > > > > > SCRANTON SCENARIO #1: $41.605B series E (TARP) is not paid back,
> > > > > > instead, they do conversion of Series C only, would look like:

> > > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity FORGET ABOUT E PREFERRED
> > > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712) series E and F  -     ($3,206)

> > > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > > [in millions]  (134.6)  +  (562.9)

> > > > > > = EQUALS $99.6/SHARE

> > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > > *NOTE: UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares)
> > > > > > CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY $55.7  B  (THEY MAKE 14.1 BILLION FOR THE
> > > > > > TARP LOAN) SO WHY ALSO PAY THE 41.6 B TREASURY COMMITMENT??
> > > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > > so what happens to the Series E? Well. Those cant be converted anyway.
> > > > > > So I guess Treasury can keep them.  They have a liquidation value of
> > > > > > $2B (400,000 series E shares at $5 par value)

> > > > > > SUMMARY:

> > > > > > CONVERSION WILL HAPPEN, IN MY OPINION, BUT THE $41.6 B TARP WILL NOT
> > > > > > BE ALSO PAID BACK.  UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, THE TAXPAYER STILL GET
> > > > > > ALL THERE MONEY BACK AND EXTRA $14.1 BILLION.  ALL GOOD,

> > > > > > Year but you forgot about the FED LOAN you say?  Scranton is not
> > > > > > worried about that.  AIA ALICO IPO will take care of that.  WRITE-UPS
> > > > > > on asset portfolio will take care of that.

> > > > > > RECOMMENDATION: HOLD FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 12 MONTHS. says ccscranton

> Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> of you are predicting.
> What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hi scranton.

> > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> > AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> > positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> > I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> > net $2bln equity.

> > With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> > is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> > Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> > using a one year 20% discount factor.

> > Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> > Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> > We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> > will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> > AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which
> > makes their US owing down by $25bln, though they incur a $5bln charge.

> > SO net equity after paying US government would be $74bln - ($5bln
> > charge) - ($84bln-$25bln) = Hey guys, look the NET EQUITY will be
> > $10bln!!!!!

> > So Scranton, you are right to give AIG a book value of $99/share, coz
> > the book value is indeed $10bln.

> > So BOOK value of $99/share, and TARGET $240/share, long term TARGET
> > $400/share.

> > On Nov 8, 7:58 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> > > share !!!  Hello?
> > > On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> > > > On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > > > > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > > > > the equation..

> > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> > > > > ($3,206)

> > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> > > > > = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> > > > > 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

> > > > > SCRANTON SCENARIO #1: $41.605B series E (TARP) is not paid back,
> > > > > instead, they do conversion of Series C only, would look like:

> > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity FORGET ABOUT E PREFERRED
> > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712) series E and F  -     ($3,206)

> > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > [in millions]  (134.6)  +  (562.9)

> > > > > = EQUALS $99.6/SHARE

> > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > *NOTE: UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares)
> > > > > CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY $55.7  B  (THEY MAKE 14.1 BILLION FOR THE
> > > > > TARP LOAN) SO WHY ALSO PAY THE 41.6 B TREASURY COMMITMENT??
> > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > so what happens to the Series E? Well. Those cant be converted anyway.
> > > > > So I guess Treasury can keep them.  They have a liquidation value of
> > > > > $2B (400,000 series E shares at $5 par value)

> > > > > SUMMARY:

> > > > > CONVERSION WILL HAPPEN, IN MY OPINION, BUT THE $41.6 B TARP WILL NOT
> > > > > BE ALSO PAID BACK.  UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, THE TAXPAYER STILL GET
> > > > > ALL THERE MONEY BACK AND EXTRA $14.1 BILLION.  ALL GOOD,

> > > > > Year but you forgot about the FED LOAN you say?  Scranton is not
> > > > > worried about that.  AIA ALICO IPO will take care of that.  WRITE-UPS
> > > > > on asset portfolio will take care of that.

> > > > > RECOMMENDATION: HOLD FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 12 MONTHS. says ccscranton- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

<georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Atlas4:  Good point.

> This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> books.

> AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> on the books.

> These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> that won't be yours.

> And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> this taxpayer's disgust.)

> On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> > of you are predicting.
> > What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> > making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> > All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> > in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> > On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Hi scranton.

> > > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> > > AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> > > positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> > > I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> > > net $2bln equity.

> > > With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> > > is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> > > Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> > > using a one year 20% discount factor.

> > > Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> > > Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> > > We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> > > will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> > > AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which
> > > makes their US owing down by $25bln, though they incur a $5bln charge.

> > > SO net equity after paying US government would be $74bln - ($5bln
> > > charge) - ($84bln-$25bln) = Hey guys, look the NET EQUITY will be
> > > $10bln!!!!!

> > > So Scranton, you are right to give AIG a book value of $99/share, coz
> > > the book value is indeed $10bln.

> > > So BOOK value of $99/share, and TARGET $240/share, long term TARGET
> > > $400/share.

> > > On Nov 8, 7:58 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> > > > share !!!  Hello?
> > > > On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> > > > > On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > > > > > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > > > > > the equation..

> > > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> > > > > > ($3,206)

> > > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > > [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> > > > > > = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > > *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> > > > > > 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> > > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

> > > > > > SCRANTON SCENARIO #1: $41.605B series E (TARP) is not paid back,
> > > > > > instead, they do conversion of Series C only, would look like:

> > > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity FORGET ABOUT E PREFERRED
> > > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712) series E and F  -     ($3,206)

> > > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > > [in millions]  (134.6)  +  (562.9)

> > > > > > = EQUALS $99.6/SHARE

> > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > > *NOTE: UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares)
> > > > > > CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY $55.7  B  (THEY MAKE 14.1 BILLION FOR THE
> > > > > > TARP LOAN) SO WHY ALSO PAY THE 41.6 B TREASURY COMMITMENT??
> > > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > > so what happens to the Series E? Well. Those cant be converted anyway.
> > > > > > So I guess Treasury can keep them.  They have a liquidation value of
> > > > > > $2B (400,000 series E shares at $5 par value)

> > > > > > SUMMARY:

> > > > > > CONVERSION WILL HAPPEN, IN MY OPINION, BUT THE $41.6 B TARP WILL NOT
> > > > > > BE ALSO PAID BACK.  UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, THE TAXPAYER STILL GET
> > > > > > ALL THERE MONEY BACK AND EXTRA $14.1 BILLION.  ALL GOOD,

> > > > > > Year but you forgot about the FED LOAN you say?  Scranton is not
> > > > > > worried about that.  AIA ALICO IPO will take care of that.  WRITE-UPS
> > > > > > on asset portfolio will take care of that.

> > > > > > RECOMMENDATION: HOLD FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 12 MONTHS. says ccscranton- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > books.

> > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> > taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> > $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> > on the books.

> > These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> > them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> > that won't be yours.

> > And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> > becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> > This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> > in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> > What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> > government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> > then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> > Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> > A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> > rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> > this taxpayer's disgust.)

> > On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> > > of you are predicting.
> > > What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> > > making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> > > All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> > > in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> > > On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Hi scranton.

> > > > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > > > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > > > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > > > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > > > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > > > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> > > > AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> > > > positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> > > > I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> > > > net $2bln equity.

> > > > With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> > > > is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> > > > Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> > > > using a one year 20% discount factor.

> > > > Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> > > > Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> > > > We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> > > > will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> > > > AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which
> > > > makes their US owing down by $25bln, though they incur a $5bln charge.

> > > > SO net equity after paying US government would be $74bln - ($5bln
> > > > charge) - ($84bln-$25bln) = Hey guys, look the NET EQUITY will be
> > > > $10bln!!!!!

> > > > So Scranton, you are right to give AIG a book value of $99/share, coz
> > > > the book value is indeed $10bln.

> > > > So BOOK value of $99/share, and TARGET $240/share, long term TARGET
> > > > $400/share.

> > > > On Nov 8, 7:58 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> > > > > share !!!  Hello?
> > > > > On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> > > > > > On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > > > > > > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > > > > > > the equation..

> > > > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > > > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> > > > > > > ($3,206)

> > > > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > > > [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> > > > > > > = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > > > *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> > > > > > > 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> > > > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

> > > > > > > SCRANTON SCENARIO #1: $41.605B series E (TARP) is not paid back,
> > > > > > > instead, they do conversion of Series C only, would look like:

> > > > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity FORGET ABOUT E PREFERRED
> > > > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712) series E and F  -     ($3,206)

> > > > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > > > [in millions]  (134.6)  +  (562.9)

> > > > > > > = EQUALS $99.6/SHARE

> > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > > > *NOTE: UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares)
> > > > > > > CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY $55.7  B  (THEY MAKE 14.1 BILLION FOR THE
> > > > > > > TARP LOAN) SO WHY ALSO PAY THE 41.6 B TREASURY COMMITMENT??
> > > > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > > > so what happens to the Series E? Well. Those cant be converted anyway.
> > > > > > > So I guess Treasury can keep them.  They have a liquidation value of
> > > > > > > $2B (400,000 series E shares at $5 par value)

> > > > > > > SUMMARY:

> > > > > > > CONVERSION WILL HAPPEN, IN MY OPINION, BUT THE $41.6 B TARP WILL NOT
> > > > > > > BE ALSO PAID BACK.  UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, THE TAXPAYER STILL GET
> > > > > > > ALL THERE MONEY BACK AND EXTRA $14.1 BILLION.  ALL GOOD,

> > > > > > > Year but you forgot about the FED LOAN you say?  Scranton is not
> > > > > > > worried about that.  AIA ALICO IPO will take care of that.  WRITE-UPS
> > > > > > > on asset portfolio will take care of that.

> > > > > > > RECOMMENDATION: HOLD FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 12 MONTHS. says ccscranton- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > books.

> > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> > taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> > $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> > on the books.

> > These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> > them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> > that won't be yours.

> > And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> > becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> > This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> > in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> > What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> > government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> > then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> > Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> > A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> > rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> > this taxpayer's disgust.)

> > On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> > > of you are predicting.
> > > What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> > > making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> > > All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> > > in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> > > On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Hi scranton.

> > > > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > > > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > > > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > > > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > > > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > > > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> > > > AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> > > > positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> > > > I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> > > > net $2bln equity.

> > > > With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> > > > is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> > > > Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> > > > using a one year 20% discount factor.

> > > > Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> > > > Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> > > > We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> > > > will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> > > > AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which
> > > > makes their US owing down by $25bln, though they incur a $5bln charge.

> > > > SO net equity after paying US government would be $74bln - ($5bln
> > > > charge) - ($84bln-$25bln) = Hey guys, look the NET EQUITY will be
> > > > $10bln!!!!!

> > > > So Scranton, you are right to give AIG a book value of $99/share, coz
> > > > the book value is indeed $10bln.

> > > > So BOOK value of $99/share, and TARGET $240/share, long term TARGET
> > > > $400/share.

> > > > On Nov 8, 7:58 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> > > > > share !!!  Hello?
> > > > > On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> > > > > > On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > > > > > > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > > > > > > the equation..

> > > > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > > > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> > > > > > > ($3,206)

> > > > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > > > [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> > > > > > > = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > > > *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> > > > > > > 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> > > > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

> > > > > > > SCRANTON SCENARIO #1: $41.605B series E (TARP) is not paid back,
> > > > > > > instead, they do conversion of Series C only, would look like:

> > > > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity FORGET ABOUT E PREFERRED
> > > > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712) series E and F  -     ($3,206)

> > > > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > > > [in millions]  (134.6)  +  (562.9)

> > > > > > > = EQUALS $99.6/SHARE

> > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > > > *NOTE: UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares)
> > > > > > > CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY $55.7  B  (THEY MAKE 14.1 BILLION FOR THE
> > > > > > > TARP LOAN) SO WHY ALSO PAY THE 41.6 B TREASURY COMMITMENT??
> > > > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > > > so what happens to the Series E? Well. Those cant be converted anyway.
> > > > > > > So I guess Treasury can keep them.  They have a liquidation value of
> > > > > > > $2B (400,000 series E shares at $5 par value)

> > > > > > > SUMMARY:

> > > > > > > CONVERSION WILL HAPPEN, IN MY OPINION, BUT THE $41.6 B TARP WILL NOT
> > > > > > > BE ALSO PAID BACK.  UNDER SCRANTON SCENARIO, THE TAXPAYER STILL GET
> > > > > > > ALL THERE MONEY BACK AND EXTRA $14.1 BILLION.  ALL GOOD,

> > > > > > > Year but you forgot about the FED LOAN you say?  Scranton is not
> > > > > > > worried about that.  AIA ALICO IPO will take care of that.  WRITE-UPS
> > > > > > > on asset portfolio will take care of that.

> > > > > > > RECOMMENDATION: HOLD FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 12 MONTHS. says ccscranton- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

<georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is for trading, not investing.

> I'm here because I trade options in AIG.  I play very
> conservatively...  I get in when volatility drops, and bail out when
> volatility increases.

> I would never short AIG, for the simple reason that it moves so
> radically.  This would be a very, very dangerous stock to short.

> I do not enjoy watching others losing money.  I hope everyone here can
> make money.  That's why I share my opinions!

> I have absolutely no idea if AIG will go up or down, short term.   No
> idea at all.  Not a clue.  I just want it to move... up or down it
> doesn't matter, for me it just needs to move.

> Long term?   Well that one is much easier...  Zero.

> On Nov 8, 5:37 pm, Rich Sheppard <rsgato...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> > and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> > your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> > motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> > could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> > downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> > case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> > concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> > On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > > books.

> > > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> > > taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> > > $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> > > on the books.

> > > These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> > > them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> > > that won't be yours.

> > > And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> > > becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> > > This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> > > in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> > > What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> > > government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> > > then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> > > Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> > > A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> > > rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> > > this taxpayer's disgust.)

> > > On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > > > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> > > > of you are predicting.
> > > > What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> > > > making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> > > > All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> > > > in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> > > > On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Hi scranton.

> > > > > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > > > > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > > > > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > > > > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > > > > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > > > > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> > > > > AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> > > > > positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> > > > > I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> > > > > net $2bln equity.

> > > > > With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> > > > > is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> > > > > Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> > > > > using a one year 20% discount factor.

> > > > > Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> > > > > Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> > > > > We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> > > > > will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> > > > > AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which
> > > > > makes their US owing down by $25bln, though they incur a $5bln charge.

> > > > > SO net equity after paying US government would be $74bln - ($5bln
> > > > > charge) - ($84bln-$25bln) = Hey guys, look the NET EQUITY will be
> > > > > $10bln!!!!!

> > > > > So Scranton, you are right to give AIG a book value of $99/share, coz
> > > > > the book value is indeed $10bln.

> > > > > So BOOK value of $99/share, and TARGET $240/share, long term TARGET
> > > > > $400/share.

> > > > > On Nov 8, 7:58 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> > > > > > share !!!  Hello?
> > > > > > On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > > > > > > > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > > > > > > > the equation..

> > > > > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > > > > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> > > > > > > > ($3,206)

> > > > > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > > > > [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> > > > > > > > = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > > > > *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> > > > > > > > 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> > > > > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________

> > > > > > > > SCRANTON SCENARIO #1: $41.605B series E (TARP) is not paid back,
> > > > > > > > instead, they do conversion of Series C only, would look like:

> > > > > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity FORGET ABOUT E PREFERRED
> > > > > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D

> You have to base decisions in something.  be open to considering the
> facts in the 10Q.  All I'm doing is offering information. According to
> numbers AIG is UNDERVALUED.  If that doesn't help you thats fine.
> Some people trade on a minute-to-minute basis, and the future is of
> little consequence, therefore.

> I will share some thoughts concerning the IPO's. you should at least
> "tune-in to the minutes" that pass when this happens in Q4.

> Lets apply the IPO scenario using the numbers from Q3.  Mind you, I
> think the Q4 numbers will be better than Q3.  They will probably still
> post paper profit from other assets
> appreciation.

> So, for example, pretend the IPO deal happened in Q3.  They reduce FED
> LOAN by $25B minus $5bn charge (for AIA/ALICO), and also post the
> deferred 1.4b charge (for Nan Shan). In this case, NET EQUITY would
> be: $91.3 Billion because 18.6 billion of their FED debt is erased.
> You with me?

> With that, you  calculate $68.14/ per pro forma diluted share, based
> on the pro-forma calculation on page 11 of  Q3 2009 financial
> supplement.

> NOTE:  $68.14/share counts for converted Treasury Trust Series C
> shares AND also ASSUMES PAYING OFF THE 40B TARP.  Which I've already
> speculated won't happen.  Without paying the TARP,  Treasury still
> recoups all their outlay through converted Series C.  The pro-forma BV
> in that scenario would yeild $130 per pro forma diluted share (you can
> call it scranton scenario with IPO)

> So in summary, IPO action should put the  pro- forma BV at $68, at the
> very least.

> Again, AIG is still undervalued, in my opinion all WORST CASE
> SCENARIOS ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO SHARE PRICE- UP TO $68 PER SHARE AT
> VERY LEAST, AFTER
> IPO'S HAPPEN IN Q4

> Good Luck, hope that help

> On Nov 8, 8:41 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is for trading, not investing.

> > I'm here because I trade options in AIG.  I play very
> > conservatively...  I get in when volatility drops, and bail out when
> > volatility increases.

> > I would never short AIG, for the simple reason that it moves so
> > radically.  This would be a very, very dangerous stock to short.

> > I do not enjoy watching others losing money.  I hope everyone here can
> > make money.  That's why I share my opinions!

> > I have absolutely no idea if AIG will go up or down, short term.   No
> > idea at all.  Not a clue.  I just want it to move... up or down it
> > doesn't matter, for me it just needs to move.

> > Long term?   Well that one is much easier...  Zero.

> > On Nov 8, 5:37 pm, Rich Sheppard <rsgato...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> > > and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> > > your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> > > motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> > > could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> > > downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> > > case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> > > concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> > > On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > > > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > > > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > > > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > > > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > > > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > > > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > > > books.

> > > > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > > > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > > > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > > > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > > > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> > > > taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> > > > $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> > > > on the books.

> > > > These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> > > > them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> > > > that won't be yours.

> > > > And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> > > > becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> > > > This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> > > > in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> > > > What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> > > > government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> > > > then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> > > > Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> > > > A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> > > > rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> > > > this taxpayer's disgust.)

> > > > On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > > > > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> > > > > of you are predicting.
> > > > > What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> > > > > making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> > > > > All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> > > > > in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> > > > > On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Hi scranton.

> > > > > > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > > > > > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > > > > > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > > > > > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > > > > > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > > > > > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> > > > > > AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> > > > > > positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> > > > > > I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> > > > > > net $2bln equity.

> > > > > > With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> > > > > > is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> > > > > > Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> > > > > > using a one year 20% discount factor.

> > > > > > Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> > > > > > Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> > > > > > We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> > > > > > will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> > > > > > AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which
> > > > > > makes their US owing down by $25bln, though they incur a $5bln charge.

> > > > > > SO net equity after paying US government would be $74bln - ($5bln
> > > > > > charge) - ($84bln-$25bln) = Hey guys, look the NET EQUITY will be
> > > > > > $10bln!!!!!

> > > > > > So Scranton, you are right to give AIG a book value of $99/share, coz
> > > > > > the book value is indeed $10bln.

> > > > > > So BOOK value of $99/share, and TARGET $240/share, long term TARGET
> > > > > > $400/share.

> > > > > > On Nov 8, 7:58 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> > > > > > > share !!!  Hello?
> > > > > > > On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > > > > > > > > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > > > > > > > > the equation..

> > > > > > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > > > > > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > > > > > - Series F draw down .
> > > > > > > > > [in millions]  ($72,712)  -   ($41,605 TARP) series E  and F -
> > > > > > > > > ($3,206)

> > > > > > > > > DIVIDED BY

> > > > > > > > >       Total common shares outstanding + common shares issued upon
> > > > > > > > > assumed CONVERSION of Series C Preferred Stock
> > > > > > > > > [in millions]  (134,603,179)  +  (562,868,096)

> > > > > > > > > = EQUALS $40/SHARE
> > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > *NOTE: TREASURY TRUST (562,868,096 shares) CONVERTED GIVES TREASURY
> > > > > > > > > 22.5 BILLION WINDFALL PROFIT! AS OF TODAY.
> > > > > > > > > *NOTE:  BOND HOLDERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE NET
> > > > > > > > > EQUITY OF  $72.712 B

> george, AIA ALICO account for about 1/3 of premiums reported for the
> quarter, around $5 billion.  AIG parent will still hold 20% [$1B per
> quarter] of AIA ALICO after IPO is exercised.

> On Nov 8, 10:33 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > You have to base decisions in something.  be open to considering the
> > facts in the 10Q.  All I'm doing is offering information. According to
> > numbers AIG is UNDERVALUED.  If that doesn't help you thats fine.
> > Some people trade on a minute-to-minute basis, and the future is of
> > little consequence, therefore.

> > I will share some thoughts concerning the IPO's. you should at least
> > "tune-in to the minutes" that pass when this happens in Q4.

> > Lets apply the IPO scenario using the numbers from Q3.  Mind you, I
> > think the Q4 numbers will be better than Q3.  They will probably still
> > post paper profit from other assets
> > appreciation.

> > So, for example, pretend the IPO deal happened in Q3.  They reduce FED
> > LOAN by $25B minus $5bn charge (for AIA/ALICO), and also post the
> > deferred 1.4b charge (for Nan Shan). In this case, NET EQUITY would
> > be: $91.3 Billion because 18.6 billion of their FED debt is erased.
> > You with me?

> > With that, you  calculate $68.14/ per pro forma diluted share, based
> > on the pro-forma calculation on page 11 of  Q3 2009 financial
> > supplement.

> > NOTE:  $68.14/share counts for converted Treasury Trust Series C
> > shares AND also ASSUMES PAYING OFF THE 40B TARP.  Which I've already
> > speculated won't happen.  Without paying the TARP,  Treasury still
> > recoups all their outlay through converted Series C.  The pro-forma BV
> > in that scenario would yeild $130 per pro forma diluted share (you can
> > call it scranton scenario with IPO)

> > So in summary, IPO action should put the  pro- forma BV at $68, at the
> > very least.

> > Again, AIG is still undervalued, in my opinion all WORST CASE
> > SCENARIOS ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO SHARE PRICE- UP TO $68 PER SHARE AT
> > VERY LEAST, AFTER
> > IPO'S HAPPEN IN Q4

> > Good Luck, hope that help

> > On Nov 8, 8:41 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is for trading, not investing.

> > > I'm here because I trade options in AIG.  I play very
> > > conservatively...  I get in when volatility drops, and bail out when
> > > volatility increases.

> > > I would never short AIG, for the simple reason that it moves so
> > > radically.  This would be a very, very dangerous stock to short.

> > > I do not enjoy watching others losing money.  I hope everyone here can
> > > make money.  That's why I share my opinions!

> > > I have absolutely no idea if AIG will go up or down, short term.   No
> > > idea at all.  Not a clue.  I just want it to move... up or down it
> > > doesn't matter, for me it just needs to move.

> > > Long term?   Well that one is much easier...  Zero.

> > > On Nov 8, 5:37 pm, Rich Sheppard <rsgato...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> > > > and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> > > > your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> > > > motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> > > > could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> > > > downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> > > > case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> > > > concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> > > > On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > > > > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > > > > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > > > > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > > > > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > > > > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > > > > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > > > > books.

> > > > > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > > > > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > > > > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > > > > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > > > > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> > > > > taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> > > > > $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> > > > > on the books.

> > > > > These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> > > > > them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> > > > > that won't be yours.

> > > > > And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> > > > > becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> > > > > This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> > > > > in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> > > > > What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> > > > > government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> > > > > then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> > > > > Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> > > > > A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> > > > > rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> > > > > this taxpayer's disgust.)

> > > > > On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > > > > > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> > > > > > of you are predicting.
> > > > > > What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> > > > > > making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> > > > > > All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> > > > > > in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Hi scranton.

> > > > > > > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > > > > > > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > > > > > > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > > > > > > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > > > > > > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > > > > > > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> > > > > > > AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> > > > > > > positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> > > > > > > I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> > > > > > > net $2bln equity.

> > > > > > > With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> > > > > > > is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> > > > > > > Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> > > > > > > using a one year 20% discount factor.

> > > > > > > Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> > > > > > > Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> > > > > > > We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> > > > > > > will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> > > > > > > AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which
> > > > > > > makes their US owing down by $25bln, though they incur a $5bln charge.

> > > > > > > SO net equity after paying US government would be $74bln - ($5bln
> > > > > > > charge) - ($84bln-$25bln) = Hey guys, look the NET EQUITY will be
> > > > > > > $10bln!!!!!

> > > > > > > So Scranton, you are right to give AIG a book value of $99/share, coz
> > > > > > > the book value is indeed $10bln.

> > > > > > > So BOOK value of $99/share, and TARGET $240/share, long term TARGET
> > > > > > > $400/share.

> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 7:58 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> > > > > > > > share !!!  Hello?
> > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > did I mention my scenario yields BV $99.6/share after dilution??

> > > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 10:40 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >    So my fellow bagholders, let take a hard look at what is presented
> > > > > > > > > > here, we have a pro forma BV of $40.  But there is something missed in
> > > > > > > > > > the equation..

> > > > > > > > > >         Total AIG Shareholders' equity - MINUS Series E PREFERRED
> > > > > > > > > > $40.605 B LOAN (including cumulative dividends on Series D preferred)
> > > > > > > > > > - Series F draw down .

> george, re-reading your post I find so much disinformation I don't
> know where to start.  You say AIA ALICO is overvalued on books?  What
> are you even saying?  They are barely selling them at a multiple of 1X
> annual earnings.  get real.  You also said there is 5 billion write-
> down on the deal because they are overvalued. No, thats not right.  $5
> billion is related to accelerated amortization,  because they are
> paying such a huge chunk of Fed loan so quickly.  Pretty standard loan
> stuff.

> On Nov 8, 11:09 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > george, AIA ALICO account for about 1/3 of premiums reported for the
> > quarter, around $5 billion.  AIG parent will still hold 20% [$1B per
> > quarter] of AIA ALICO after IPO is exercised.

> > On Nov 8, 10:33 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > You have to base decisions in something.  be open to considering the
> > > facts in the 10Q.  All I'm doing is offering information. According to
> > > numbers AIG is UNDERVALUED.  If that doesn't help you thats fine.
> > > Some people trade on a minute-to-minute basis, and the future is of
> > > little consequence, therefore.

> > > I will share some thoughts concerning the IPO's. you should at least
> > > "tune-in to the minutes" that pass when this happens in Q4.

> > > Lets apply the IPO scenario using the numbers from Q3.  Mind you, I
> > > think the Q4 numbers will be better than Q3.  They will probably still
> > > post paper profit from other assets
> > > appreciation.

> > > So, for example, pretend the IPO deal happened in Q3.  They reduce FED
> > > LOAN by $25B minus $5bn charge (for AIA/ALICO), and also post the
> > > deferred 1.4b charge (for Nan Shan). In this case, NET EQUITY would
> > > be: $91.3 Billion because 18.6 billion of their FED debt is erased.
> > > You with me?

> > > With that, you  calculate $68.14/ per pro forma diluted share, based
> > > on the pro-forma calculation on page 11 of  Q3 2009 financial
> > > supplement.

> > > NOTE:  $68.14/share counts for converted Treasury Trust Series C
> > > shares AND also ASSUMES PAYING OFF THE 40B TARP.  Which I've already
> > > speculated won't happen.  Without paying the TARP,  Treasury still
> > > recoups all their outlay through converted Series C.  The pro-forma BV
> > > in that scenario would yeild $130 per pro forma diluted share (you can
> > > call it scranton scenario with IPO)

> > > So in summary, IPO action should put the  pro- forma BV at $68, at the
> > > very least.

> > > Again, AIG is still undervalued, in my opinion all WORST CASE
> > > SCENARIOS ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO SHARE PRICE- UP TO $68 PER SHARE AT
> > > VERY LEAST, AFTER
> > > IPO'S HAPPEN IN Q4

> > > Good Luck, hope that help

> > > On Nov 8, 8:41 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > This is for trading, not investing.

> > > > I'm here because I trade options in AIG.  I play very
> > > > conservatively...  I get in when volatility drops, and bail out when
> > > > volatility increases.

> > > > I would never short AIG, for the simple reason that it moves so
> > > > radically.  This would be a very, very dangerous stock to short.

> > > > I do not enjoy watching others losing money.  I hope everyone here can
> > > > make money.  That's why I share my opinions!

> > > > I have absolutely no idea if AIG will go up or down, short term.   No
> > > > idea at all.  Not a clue.  I just want it to move... up or down it
> > > > doesn't matter, for me it just needs to move.

> > > > Long term?   Well that one is much easier...  Zero.

> > > > On Nov 8, 5:37 pm, Rich Sheppard <rsgato...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> > > > > and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> > > > > your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> > > > > motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> > > > > could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> > > > > downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> > > > > case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> > > > > concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> > > > > On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > > > > > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > > > > > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > > > > > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > > > > > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > > > > > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > > > > > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > > > > > books.

> > > > > > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > > > > > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > > > > > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > > > > > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > > > > > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> > > > > > taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> > > > > > $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> > > > > > on the books.

> > > > > > These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> > > > > > them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> > > > > > that won't be yours.

> > > > > > And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> > > > > > becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> > > > > > This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> > > > > > in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> > > > > > What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> > > > > > government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> > > > > > then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> > > > > > Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> > > > > > A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> > > > > > rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> > > > > > this taxpayer's disgust.)

> > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > > > > > > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> > > > > > > of you are predicting.
> > > > > > > What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> > > > > > > making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> > > > > > > All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> > > > > > > in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > Hi scranton.

> > > > > > > > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > > > > > > > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > > > > > > > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > > > > > > > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > > > > > > > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > > > > > > > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> > > > > > > > AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> > > > > > > > positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> > > > > > > > I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> > > > > > > > net $2bln equity.

> > > > > > > > With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> > > > > > > > is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> > > > > > > > Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> > > > > > > > using a one year 20% discount factor.

> > > > > > > > Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> > > > > > > > Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> > > > > > > > We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> > > > > > > > will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> > > > > > > > AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which
> > > > > > > > makes their US owing down by $25bln, though they incur a $5bln charge.

> > > > > > > > SO net equity after paying US government would be $74bln - ($5bln
> > > > > > > > charge) - ($84bln-$25bln) = Hey guys, look the NET EQUITY will be
> > > > > > > > $10bln!!!!!

> > > > > > > > So Scranton, you are right to give AIG a book value of $99/share, coz
> > > > > > > > the book value is indeed $10bln.

> > > > > > > > So BOOK value of $99/share, and TARGET $240/share, long term TARGET
> > > > > > > > $400/share.

> > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 7:58 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > Can someone at least challenge this please!? Lets hear it !!! $99/
> > > > > > > > > share !!!  Hello?
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 7, 11:47 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com>

> I know that the $5 billion charge is due to accelerated amortization,
> but I have no information about the book values of AIA and ALICO on
> AIG's balance sheet.

> scranton, would you mind telling us how you can be so confident that
> the IPO's of both companies will bring profits to AIG?

> On Nov 9, 1:23 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > george, re-reading your post I find so much disinformation I don't
> > know where to start.  You say AIA ALICO is overvalued on books?  What
> > are you even saying?  They are barely selling them at a multiple of 1X
> > annual earnings.  get real.  You also said there is 5 billion write-
> > down on the deal because they are overvalued. No, thats not right.  $5
> > billion is related to accelerated amortization,  because they are
> > paying such a huge chunk of Fed loan so quickly.  Pretty standard loan
> > stuff.

> > On Nov 8, 11:09 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > george, AIA ALICO account for about 1/3 of premiums reported for the
> > > quarter, around $5 billion.  AIG parent will still hold 20% [$1B per
> > > quarter] of AIA ALICO after IPO is exercised.

> > > On Nov 8, 10:33 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > You have to base decisions in something.  be open to considering the
> > > > facts in the 10Q.  All I'm doing is offering information. According to
> > > > numbers AIG is UNDERVALUED.  If that doesn't help you thats fine.
> > > > Some people trade on a minute-to-minute basis, and the future is of
> > > > little consequence, therefore.

> > > > I will share some thoughts concerning the IPO's. you should at least
> > > > "tune-in to the minutes" that pass when this happens in Q4.

> > > > Lets apply the IPO scenario using the numbers from Q3.  Mind you, I
> > > > think the Q4 numbers will be better than Q3.  They will probably still
> > > > post paper profit from other assets
> > > > appreciation.

> > > > So, for example, pretend the IPO deal happened in Q3.  They reduce FED
> > > > LOAN by $25B minus $5bn charge (for AIA/ALICO), and also post the
> > > > deferred 1.4b charge (for Nan Shan). In this case, NET EQUITY would
> > > > be: $91.3 Billion because 18.6 billion of their FED debt is erased.
> > > > You with me?

> > > > With that, you  calculate $68.14/ per pro forma diluted share, based
> > > > on the pro-forma calculation on page 11 of  Q3 2009 financial
> > > > supplement.

> > > > NOTE:  $68.14/share counts for converted Treasury Trust Series C
> > > > shares AND also ASSUMES PAYING OFF THE 40B TARP.  Which I've already
> > > > speculated won't happen.  Without paying the TARP,  Treasury still
> > > > recoups all their outlay through converted Series C.  The pro-forma BV
> > > > in that scenario would yeild $130 per pro forma diluted share (you can
> > > > call it scranton scenario with IPO)

> > > > So in summary, IPO action should put the  pro- forma BV at $68, at the
> > > > very least.

> > > > Again, AIG is still undervalued, in my opinion all WORST CASE
> > > > SCENARIOS ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO SHARE PRICE- UP TO $68 PER SHARE AT
> > > > VERY LEAST, AFTER
> > > > IPO'S HAPPEN IN Q4

> > > > Good Luck, hope that help

> > > > On Nov 8, 8:41 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > This is for trading, not investing.

> > > > > I'm here because I trade options in AIG.  I play very
> > > > > conservatively...  I get in when volatility drops, and bail out when
> > > > > volatility increases.

> > > > > I would never short AIG, for the simple reason that it moves so
> > > > > radically.  This would be a very, very dangerous stock to short.

> > > > > I do not enjoy watching others losing money.  I hope everyone here can
> > > > > make money.  That's why I share my opinions!

> > > > > I have absolutely no idea if AIG will go up or down, short term.   No
> > > > > idea at all.  Not a clue.  I just want it to move... up or down it
> > > > > doesn't matter, for me it just needs to move.

> > > > > Long term?   Well that one is much easier...  Zero.

> > > > > On Nov 8, 5:37 pm, Rich Sheppard <rsgato...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> > > > > > and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> > > > > > your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> > > > > > motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> > > > > > could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> > > > > > downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> > > > > > case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> > > > > > concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > > > > > > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > > > > > > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > > > > > > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > > > > > > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > > > > > > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > > > > > > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > > > > > > books.

> > > > > > > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > > > > > > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > > > > > > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > > > > > > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > > > > > > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> > > > > > > taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> > > > > > > $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> > > > > > > on the books.

> > > > > > > These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> > > > > > > them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> > > > > > > that won't be yours.

> > > > > > > And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> > > > > > > becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> > > > > > > This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> > > > > > > in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> > > > > > > What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> > > > > > > government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> > > > > > > then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> > > > > > > Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> > > > > > > A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> > > > > > > rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> > > > > > > this taxpayer's disgust.)

> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > > > > > > > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> > > > > > > > of you are predicting.
> > > > > > > > What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> > > > > > > > making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> > > > > > > > All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> > > > > > > > in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > Hi scranton.

> > > > > > > > > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > > > > > > > > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > > > > > > > > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > > > > > > > > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > > > > > > > > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > > > > > > > > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> > > > > > > > > AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> > > > > > > > > positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> > > > > > > > > I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> > > > > > > > > net $2bln equity.

> > > > > > > > > With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company
> > > > > > > > > is net profiting. Thus in 3years it will cost $400.

> > > > > > > > > Since this is a forward projection of 3 years, we have to discount it
> > > > > > > > > using a one year 20% discount factor.

> > > > > > > > > Hence I will discount this by 60%.

> > > > > > > > > Which gives a TARGET value for AIG at $240 by 2010!

> > > > > > > > > We are sitting on a gold mine ladies and gentlement. This is why I
> > > > > > > > > will load up the 2012 CALLS.

> > > > > > > > > AIG will profit alot of money. They will spin off an IPO soon which

> I thought I just did ??

> I truly believe investors can live with AIG and less 1/3 revenue.
> (Thats also less benefits they have to pay every quarter, so don't
> forget that) They will also probably have 1/5 to 1/4 less liability
> each quarter as a consequence of downsizing.  All good.

> If my logic doesn't suit you I don't know what else to say.  Yes, I am
> EXTREMELY Confident.  Dont worry bout me.  Advice to anyone is arm
> yourself with information.  Don't just read the message boards. peace.

> On Nov 9, 12:12 am, sakura...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > I know that the $5 billion charge is due to accelerated amortization,
> > but I have no information about the book values of AIA and ALICO on
> > AIG's balance sheet.

> > scranton, would you mind telling us how you can be so confident that
> > the IPO's of both companies will bring profits to AIG?

> > On Nov 9, 1:23 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > george, re-reading your post I find so much disinformation I don't
> > > know where to start.  You say AIA ALICO is overvalued on books?  What
> > > are you even saying?  They are barely selling them at a multiple of 1X
> > > annual earnings.  get real.  You also said there is 5 billion write-
> > > down on the deal because they are overvalued. No, thats not right.  $5
> > > billion is related to accelerated amortization,  because they are
> > > paying such a huge chunk of Fed loan so quickly.  Pretty standard loan
> > > stuff.

> > > On Nov 8, 11:09 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > george, AIA ALICO account for about 1/3 of premiums reported for the
> > > > quarter, around $5 billion.  AIG parent will still hold 20% [$1B per
> > > > quarter] of AIA ALICO after IPO is exercised.

> > > > On Nov 8, 10:33 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > You have to base decisions in something.  be open to considering the
> > > > > facts in the 10Q.  All I'm doing is offering information. According to
> > > > > numbers AIG is UNDERVALUED.  If that doesn't help you thats fine.
> > > > > Some people trade on a minute-to-minute basis, and the future is of
> > > > > little consequence, therefore.

> > > > > I will share some thoughts concerning the IPO's. you should at least
> > > > > "tune-in to the minutes" that pass when this happens in Q4.

> > > > > Lets apply the IPO scenario using the numbers from Q3.  Mind you, I
> > > > > think the Q4 numbers will be better than Q3.  They will probably still
> > > > > post paper profit from other assets
> > > > > appreciation.

> > > > > So, for example, pretend the IPO deal happened in Q3.  They reduce FED
> > > > > LOAN by $25B minus $5bn charge (for AIA/ALICO), and also post the
> > > > > deferred 1.4b charge (for Nan Shan). In this case, NET EQUITY would
> > > > > be: $91.3 Billion because 18.6 billion of their FED debt is erased.
> > > > > You with me?

> > > > > With that, you  calculate $68.14/ per pro forma diluted share, based
> > > > > on the pro-forma calculation on page 11 of  Q3 2009 financial
> > > > > supplement.

> > > > > NOTE:  $68.14/share counts for converted Treasury Trust Series C
> > > > > shares AND also ASSUMES PAYING OFF THE 40B TARP.  Which I've already
> > > > > speculated won't happen.  Without paying the TARP,  Treasury still
> > > > > recoups all their outlay through converted Series C.  The pro-forma BV
> > > > > in that scenario would yeild $130 per pro forma diluted share (you can
> > > > > call it scranton scenario with IPO)

> > > > > So in summary, IPO action should put the  pro- forma BV at $68, at the
> > > > > very least.

> > > > > Again, AIG is still undervalued, in my opinion all WORST CASE
> > > > > SCENARIOS ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO SHARE PRICE- UP TO $68 PER SHARE AT
> > > > > VERY LEAST, AFTER
> > > > > IPO'S HAPPEN IN Q4

> > > > > Good Luck, hope that help

> > > > > On Nov 8, 8:41 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > This is for trading, not investing.

> > > > > > I'm here because I trade options in AIG.  I play very
> > > > > > conservatively...  I get in when volatility drops, and bail out when
> > > > > > volatility increases.

> > > > > > I would never short AIG, for the simple reason that it moves so
> > > > > > radically.  This would be a very, very dangerous stock to short.

> > > > > > I do not enjoy watching others losing money.  I hope everyone here can
> > > > > > make money.  That's why I share my opinions!

> > > > > > I have absolutely no idea if AIG will go up or down, short term.   No
> > > > > > idea at all.  Not a clue.  I just want it to move... up or down it
> > > > > > doesn't matter, for me it just needs to move.

> > > > > > Long term?   Well that one is much easier...  Zero.

> > > > > > On Nov 8, 5:37 pm, Rich Sheppard <rsgato...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> > > > > > > and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> > > > > > > your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> > > > > > > motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> > > > > > > could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> > > > > > > downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> > > > > > > case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> > > > > > > concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > > > > > > > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > > > > > > > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > > > > > > > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > > > > > > > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > > > > > > > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > > > > > > > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > > > > > > > books.

> > > > > > > > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > > > > > > > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > > > > > > > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > > > > > > > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > > > > > > > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> > > > > > > > taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> > > > > > > > $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> > > > > > > > on the books.

> > > > > > > > These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> > > > > > > > them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> > > > > > > > that won't be yours.

> > > > > > > > And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> > > > > > > > becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> > > > > > > > This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> > > > > > > > in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> > > > > > > > What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> > > > > > > > government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> > > > > > > > then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> > > > > > > > Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> > > > > > > > A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> > > > > > > > rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> > > > > > > > this taxpayer's disgust.)

> > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > > > > > > > > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> > > > > > > > > of you are predicting.
> > > > > > > > > What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> > > > > > > > > making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> > > > > > > > > All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> > > > > > > > > in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> > > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > Hi scranton.

> > > > > > > > > > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > > > > > > > > > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > > > > > > > > > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > > > > > > > > > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > > > > > > > > > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > > > > > > > > > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative 10bln in equity.

> > > > > > > > > > AIG could possibly make $2-5bln a year. And hence they will return to
> > > > > > > > > > positive equity in the next 5-3 years.

> > > > > > > > > > I believe AIG will make $4bln a year. So after 3 years, AIG will have
> > > > > > > > > > net $2bln equity.

> > > > > > > > > > With EPS of $40!!!! This will be trading at P/E of 10X as the company

> Sounds like "Scranton" thinks way too much of himself.
> I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of that mouth,

> Sounds like alot of stuffed shirt bullsheet to me.

> All hot air and verbal posturing.

> Can't be trusted.

> .

> On Nov 9, 6:43 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I thought I just did ??

> > I truly believe investors can live with AIG and less 1/3 revenue.
> > (Thats also less benefits they have to pay every quarter, so don't
> > forget that) They will also probably have 1/5 to 1/4 less liability
> > each quarter as a consequence of downsizing.  All good.

> > If my logic doesn't suit you I don't know what else to say.  Yes, I am
> > EXTREMELY Confident.  Dont worry bout me.  Advice to anyone is arm
> > yourself with information.  Don't just read the message boards. peace.

> > On Nov 9, 12:12 am, sakura...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > I know that the $5 billion charge is due to accelerated amortization,
> > > but I have no information about the book values of AIA and ALICO on
> > > AIG's balance sheet.

> > > scranton, would you mind telling us how you can be so confident that
> > > the IPO's of both companies will bring profits to AIG?

> > > On Nov 9, 1:23 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > george, re-reading your post I find so much disinformation I don't
> > > > know where to start.  You say AIA ALICO is overvalued on books?  What
> > > > are you even saying?  They are barely selling them at a multiple of 1X
> > > > annual earnings.  get real.  You also said there is 5 billion write-
> > > > down on the deal because they are overvalued. No, thats not right.  $5
> > > > billion is related to accelerated amortization,  because they are
> > > > paying such a huge chunk of Fed loan so quickly.  Pretty standard loan
> > > > stuff.

> > > > On Nov 8, 11:09 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > george, AIA ALICO account for about 1/3 of premiums reported for the
> > > > > quarter, around $5 billion.  AIG parent will still hold 20% [$1B per
> > > > > quarter] of AIA ALICO after IPO is exercised.

> > > > > On Nov 8, 10:33 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > You have to base decisions in something.  be open to considering the
> > > > > > facts in the 10Q.  All I'm doing is offering information. According to
> > > > > > numbers AIG is UNDERVALUED.  If that doesn't help you thats fine.
> > > > > > Some people trade on a minute-to-minute basis, and the future is of
> > > > > > little consequence, therefore.

> > > > > > I will share some thoughts concerning the IPO's. you should at least
> > > > > > "tune-in to the minutes" that pass when this happens in Q4.

> > > > > > Lets apply the IPO scenario using the numbers from Q3.  Mind you, I
> > > > > > think the Q4 numbers will be better than Q3.  They will probably still
> > > > > > post paper profit from other assets
> > > > > > appreciation.

> > > > > > So, for example, pretend the IPO deal happened in Q3.  They reduce FED
> > > > > > LOAN by $25B minus $5bn charge (for AIA/ALICO), and also post the
> > > > > > deferred 1.4b charge (for Nan Shan). In this case, NET EQUITY would
> > > > > > be: $91.3 Billion because 18.6 billion of their FED debt is erased.
> > > > > > You with me?

> > > > > > With that, you  calculate $68.14/ per pro forma diluted share, based
> > > > > > on the pro-forma calculation on page 11 of  Q3 2009 financial
> > > > > > supplement.

> > > > > > NOTE:  $68.14/share counts for converted Treasury Trust Series C
> > > > > > shares AND also ASSUMES PAYING OFF THE 40B TARP.  Which I've already
> > > > > > speculated won't happen.  Without paying the TARP,  Treasury still
> > > > > > recoups all their outlay through converted Series C.  The pro-forma BV
> > > > > > in that scenario would yeild $130 per pro forma diluted share (you can
> > > > > > call it scranton scenario with IPO)

> > > > > > So in summary, IPO action should put the  pro- forma BV at $68, at the
> > > > > > very least.

> > > > > > Again, AIG is still undervalued, in my opinion all WORST CASE
> > > > > > SCENARIOS ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO SHARE PRICE- UP TO $68 PER SHARE AT
> > > > > > VERY LEAST, AFTER
> > > > > > IPO'S HAPPEN IN Q4

> > > > > > Good Luck, hope that help

> > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:41 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > This is for trading, not investing.

> > > > > > > I'm here because I trade options in AIG.  I play very
> > > > > > > conservatively...  I get in when volatility drops, and bail out when
> > > > > > > volatility increases.

> > > > > > > I would never short AIG, for the simple reason that it moves so
> > > > > > > radically.  This would be a very, very dangerous stock to short.

> > > > > > > I do not enjoy watching others losing money.  I hope everyone here can
> > > > > > > make money.  That's why I share my opinions!

> > > > > > > I have absolutely no idea if AIG will go up or down, short term.   No
> > > > > > > idea at all.  Not a clue.  I just want it to move... up or down it
> > > > > > > doesn't matter, for me it just needs to move.

> > > > > > > Long term?   Well that one is much easier...  Zero.

> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 5:37 pm, Rich Sheppard <rsgato...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> > > > > > > > and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> > > > > > > > your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> > > > > > > > motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> > > > > > > > could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> > > > > > > > downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> > > > > > > > case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> > > > > > > > concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > > > > > > > > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > > > > > > > > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > > > > > > > > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > > > > > > > > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > > > > > > > > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > > > > > > > > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > > > > > > > > books.

> > > > > > > > > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > > > > > > > > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > > > > > > > > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > > > > > > > > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > > > > > > > > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> > > > > > > > > taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> > > > > > > > > $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> > > > > > > > > on the books.

> > > > > > > > > These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> > > > > > > > > them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> > > > > > > > > that won't be yours.

> > > > > > > > > And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> > > > > > > > > becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> > > > > > > > > This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> > > > > > > > > in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> > > > > > > > > What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> > > > > > > > > government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> > > > > > > > > then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> > > > > > > > > Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> > > > > > > > > A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> > > > > > > > > rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> > > > > > > > > this taxpayer's disgust.)

> > > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > > > > > > > > > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> > > > > > > > > > of you are predicting.
> > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> > > > > > > > > > making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> > > > > > > > > > All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> > > > > > > > > > in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:08 pm, fxchat <theforexchatr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > Hi scranton.

> > > > > > > > > > > This is how I calculate AIG.

> > > > > > > > > > > Their total equity (ignore US investments) is 70bln.

> > > > > > > > > > > They owe the US government, 84bln.

> > > > > > > > > > > So I count AIG by paying the US government in full. 84bln. And We got
> > > > > > > > > > > 70bln - 84bln = -10bln.

> > > > > > > > > > > Alrite. So AIG is worthed negative

> To what end? to get us to buy a couple hundered shares?

> On Nov 9, 9:57 am, moefuzz <moefu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Sounds like "Scranton" thinks way too much of himself.
> > I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of that mouth,

> > Sounds like alot of stuffed shirt bullsheet to me.

> > All hot air and verbal posturing.

> > Can't be trusted.

> > .

> > On Nov 9, 6:43 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I thought I just did ??

> > > I truly believe investors can live with AIG and less 1/3 revenue.
> > > (Thats also less benefits they have to pay every quarter, so don't
> > > forget that) They will also probably have 1/5 to 1/4 less liability
> > > each quarter as a consequence of downsizing.  All good.

> > > If my logic doesn't suit you I don't know what else to say.  Yes, I am
> > > EXTREMELY Confident.  Dont worry bout me.  Advice to anyone is arm
> > > yourself with information.  Don't just read the message boards. peace.

> > > On Nov 9, 12:12 am, sakura...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > > I know that the $5 billion charge is due to accelerated amortization,
> > > > but I have no information about the book values of AIA and ALICO on
> > > > AIG's balance sheet.

> > > > scranton, would you mind telling us how you can be so confident that
> > > > the IPO's of both companies will bring profits to AIG?

> > > > On Nov 9, 1:23 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > george, re-reading your post I find so much disinformation I don't
> > > > > know where to start.  You say AIA ALICO is overvalued on books?  What
> > > > > are you even saying?  They are barely selling them at a multiple of 1X
> > > > > annual earnings.  get real.  You also said there is 5 billion write-
> > > > > down on the deal because they are overvalued. No, thats not right.  $5
> > > > > billion is related to accelerated amortization,  because they are
> > > > > paying such a huge chunk of Fed loan so quickly.  Pretty standard loan
> > > > > stuff.

> > > > > On Nov 8, 11:09 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > george, AIA ALICO account for about 1/3 of premiums reported for the
> > > > > > quarter, around $5 billion.  AIG parent will still hold 20% [$1B per
> > > > > > quarter] of AIA ALICO after IPO is exercised.

> > > > > > On Nov 8, 10:33 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > You have to base decisions in something.  be open to considering the
> > > > > > > facts in the 10Q.  All I'm doing is offering information. According to
> > > > > > > numbers AIG is UNDERVALUED.  If that doesn't help you thats fine.
> > > > > > > Some people trade on a minute-to-minute basis, and the future is of
> > > > > > > little consequence, therefore.

> > > > > > > I will share some thoughts concerning the IPO's. you should at least
> > > > > > > "tune-in to the minutes" that pass when this happens in Q4.

> > > > > > > Lets apply the IPO scenario using the numbers from Q3.  Mind you, I
> > > > > > > think the Q4 numbers will be better than Q3.  They will probably still
> > > > > > > post paper profit from other assets
> > > > > > > appreciation.

> > > > > > > So, for example, pretend the IPO deal happened in Q3.  They reduce FED
> > > > > > > LOAN by $25B minus $5bn charge (for AIA/ALICO), and also post the
> > > > > > > deferred 1.4b charge (for Nan Shan). In this case, NET EQUITY would
> > > > > > > be: $91.3 Billion because 18.6 billion of their FED debt is erased.
> > > > > > > You with me?

> > > > > > > With that, you  calculate $68.14/ per pro forma diluted share, based
> > > > > > > on the pro-forma calculation on page 11 of  Q3 2009 financial
> > > > > > > supplement.

> > > > > > > NOTE:  $68.14/share counts for converted Treasury Trust Series C
> > > > > > > shares AND also ASSUMES PAYING OFF THE 40B TARP.  Which I've already
> > > > > > > speculated won't happen.  Without paying the TARP,  Treasury still
> > > > > > > recoups all their outlay through converted Series C.  The pro-forma BV
> > > > > > > in that scenario would yeild $130 per pro forma diluted share (you can
> > > > > > > call it scranton scenario with IPO)

> > > > > > > So in summary, IPO action should put the  pro- forma BV at $68, at the
> > > > > > > very least.

> > > > > > > Again, AIG is still undervalued, in my opinion all WORST CASE
> > > > > > > SCENARIOS ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO SHARE PRICE- UP TO $68 PER SHARE AT
> > > > > > > VERY LEAST, AFTER
> > > > > > > IPO'S HAPPEN IN Q4

> > > > > > > Good Luck, hope that help

> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:41 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > This is for trading, not investing.

> > > > > > > > I'm here because I trade options in AIG.  I play very
> > > > > > > > conservatively...  I get in when volatility drops, and bail out when
> > > > > > > > volatility increases.

> > > > > > > > I would never short AIG, for the simple reason that it moves so
> > > > > > > > radically.  This would be a very, very dangerous stock to short.

> > > > > > > > I do not enjoy watching others losing money.  I hope everyone here can
> > > > > > > > make money.  That's why I share my opinions!

> > > > > > > > I have absolutely no idea if AIG will go up or down, short term.   No
> > > > > > > > idea at all.  Not a clue.  I just want it to move... up or down it
> > > > > > > > doesn't matter, for me it just needs to move.

> > > > > > > > Long term?   Well that one is much easier...  Zero.

> > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 5:37 pm, Rich Sheppard <rsgato...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> > > > > > > > > and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> > > > > > > > > your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> > > > > > > > > motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> > > > > > > > > could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> > > > > > > > > downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> > > > > > > > > case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> > > > > > > > > concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> > > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > > > > > > > > > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > > > > > > > > > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > > > > > > > > > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > > > > > > > > > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > > > > > > > > > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > > > > > > > > > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > > > > > > > > > books.

> > > > > > > > > > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > > > > > > > > > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > > > > > > > > > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > > > > > > > > > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > > > > > > > > > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> > > > > > > > > > taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> > > > > > > > > > $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> > > > > > > > > > on the books.

> > > > > > > > > > These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> > > > > > > > > > them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> > > > > > > > > > that won't be yours.

> > > > > > > > > > And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> > > > > > > > > > becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> > > > > > > > > > This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> > > > > > > > > > in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> > > > > > > > > > What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> > > > > > > > > > government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> > > > > > > > > > then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> > > > > > > > > > Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> > > > > > > > > > A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> > > > > > > > > > rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> > > > > > > > > > this taxpayer's disgust.)

> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > > > > > > > > > > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> > > > > > > > > > > of you are predicting.
> > > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> > > > > > > > > > > making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> > > > > > > > > > > All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> > > > > > > > > > > in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> Sounds like "Scranton" thinks way too much of himself.
> I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of that mouth,

> Sounds like alot of stuffed shirt bullsheet to me.

> All hot air and verbal posturing.

> Can't be trusted.

> .

> On Nov 9, 6:43 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I thought I just did ??

> > I truly believe investors can live with AIG and less 1/3 revenue.
> > (Thats also less benefits they have to pay every quarter, so don't
> > forget that) They will also probably have 1/5 to 1/4 less liability
> > each quarter as a consequence of downsizing.  All good.

> > If my logic doesn't suit you I don't know what else to say.  Yes, I am
> > EXTREMELY Confident.  Dont worry bout me.  Advice to anyone is arm
> > yourself with information.  Don't just read the message boards. peace.

> > On Nov 9, 12:12 am, sakura...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > I know that the $5 billion charge is due to accelerated amortization,
> > > but I have no information about the book values of AIA and ALICO on
> > > AIG's balance sheet.

> > > scranton, would you mind telling us how you can be so confident that
> > > the IPO's of both companies will bring profits to AIG?

> > > On Nov 9, 1:23 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > george, re-reading your post I find so much disinformation I don't
> > > > know where to start.  You say AIA ALICO is overvalued on books?  What
> > > > are you even saying?  They are barely selling them at a multiple of 1X
> > > > annual earnings.  get real.  You also said there is 5 billion write-
> > > > down on the deal because they are overvalued. No, thats not right.  $5
> > > > billion is related to accelerated amortization,  because they are
> > > > paying such a huge chunk of Fed loan so quickly.  Pretty standard loan
> > > > stuff.

> > > > On Nov 8, 11:09 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > george, AIA ALICO account for about 1/3 of premiums reported for the
> > > > > quarter, around $5 billion.  AIG parent will still hold 20% [$1B per
> > > > > quarter] of AIA ALICO after IPO is exercised.

> > > > > On Nov 8, 10:33 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > You have to base decisions in something.  be open to considering the
> > > > > > facts in the 10Q.  All I'm doing is offering information. According to
> > > > > > numbers AIG is UNDERVALUED.  If that doesn't help you thats fine.
> > > > > > Some people trade on a minute-to-minute basis, and the future is of
> > > > > > little consequence, therefore.

> > > > > > I will share some thoughts concerning the IPO's. you should at least
> > > > > > "tune-in to the minutes" that pass when this happens in Q4.

> > > > > > Lets apply the IPO scenario using the numbers from Q3.  Mind you, I
> > > > > > think the Q4 numbers will be better than Q3.  They will probably still
> > > > > > post paper profit from other assets
> > > > > > appreciation.

> > > > > > So, for example, pretend the IPO deal happened in Q3.  They reduce FED
> > > > > > LOAN by $25B minus $5bn charge (for AIA/ALICO), and also post the
> > > > > > deferred 1.4b charge (for Nan Shan). In this case, NET EQUITY would
> > > > > > be: $91.3 Billion because 18.6 billion of their FED debt is erased.
> > > > > > You with me?

> > > > > > With that, you  calculate $68.14/ per pro forma diluted share, based
> > > > > > on the pro-forma calculation on page 11 of  Q3 2009 financial
> > > > > > supplement.

> > > > > > NOTE:  $68.14/share counts for converted Treasury Trust Series C
> > > > > > shares AND also ASSUMES PAYING OFF THE 40B TARP.  Which I've already
> > > > > > speculated won't happen.  Without paying the TARP,  Treasury still
> > > > > > recoups all their outlay through converted Series C.  The pro-forma BV
> > > > > > in that scenario would yeild $130 per pro forma diluted share (you can
> > > > > > call it scranton scenario with IPO)

> > > > > > So in summary, IPO action should put the  pro- forma BV at $68, at the
> > > > > > very least.

> > > > > > Again, AIG is still undervalued, in my opinion all WORST CASE
> > > > > > SCENARIOS ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO SHARE PRICE- UP TO $68 PER SHARE AT
> > > > > > VERY LEAST, AFTER
> > > > > > IPO'S HAPPEN IN Q4

> > > > > > Good Luck, hope that help

> > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:41 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > This is for trading, not investing.

> > > > > > > I'm here because I trade options in AIG.  I play very
> > > > > > > conservatively...  I get in when volatility drops, and bail out when
> > > > > > > volatility increases.

> > > > > > > I would never short AIG, for the simple reason that it moves so
> > > > > > > radically.  This would be a very, very dangerous stock to short.

> > > > > > > I do not enjoy watching others losing money.  I hope everyone here can
> > > > > > > make money.  That's why I share my opinions!

> > > > > > > I have absolutely no idea if AIG will go up or down, short term.   No
> > > > > > > idea at all.  Not a clue.  I just want it to move... up or down it
> > > > > > > doesn't matter, for me it just needs to move.

> > > > > > > Long term?   Well that one is much easier...  Zero.

> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 5:37 pm, Rich Sheppard <rsgato...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> > > > > > > > and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> > > > > > > > your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> > > > > > > > motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> > > > > > > > could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> > > > > > > > downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> > > > > > > > case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> > > > > > > > concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > > > > > > > > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > > > > > > > > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > > > > > > > > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > > > > > > > > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > > > > > > > > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > > > > > > > > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > > > > > > > > books.

> > > > > > > > > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > > > > > > > > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > > > > > > > > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > > > > > > > > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > > > > > > > > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> > > > > > > > > taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> > > > > > > > > $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> > > > > > > > > on the books.

> > > > > > > > > These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> > > > > > > > > them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> > > > > > > > > that won't be yours.

> > > > > > > > > And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> > > > > > > > > becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> > > > > > > > > This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> > > > > > > > > in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> > > > > > > > > What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> > > > > > > > > government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> > > > > > > > > then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> > > > > > > > > Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> > > > > > > > > A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> > > > > > > > > rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> > > > > > > > > this taxpayer's disgust.)

> > > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > > > > > > > > > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both
> > > > > > > > > > of you are predicting.
> > > > > > > > > > What makes you think that after selling of largs chunks of it's profit
> > > > > > > > > > making machinery it will eventually be up in the sky ?

> > > > > > > > > > All of your calculations should be easy mathematics for proffesionals
> > > > > > > > > > in the field. Why are so few sharing those sentiments ?

> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 8,

> what exactly are you doing ?
> The only person so far that made what initially appeared to be a good
> attempt at perhpas not challenging Scrantons thoughts on AIG was
> George. Too bad only that some of the things Geroge said sounded good
> but were flawed and since his account got cancelled we will not find
> out If it was simply in err. or lack of understanding/insight.

>  Only when a prediction/scenario/ thesis is challenged with solid
> facts is there a chance to learn from it and perhaps find commons
> which is what I am interested in.

> On Nov 9, 3:57 pm, moefuzz <moefu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Sounds like "Scranton" thinks way too much of himself.
> > I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of that mouth,

> > Sounds like alot of stuffed shirt bullsheet to me.

> > All hot air and verbal posturing.

> > Can't be trusted.

> > .

> > On Nov 9, 6:43 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I thought I just did ??

> > > I truly believe investors can live with AIG and less 1/3 revenue.
> > > (Thats also less benefits they have to pay every quarter, so don't
> > > forget that) They will also probably have 1/5 to 1/4 less liability
> > > each quarter as a consequence of downsizing.  All good.

> > > If my logic doesn't suit you I don't know what else to say.  Yes, I am
> > > EXTREMELY Confident.  Dont worry bout me.  Advice to anyone is arm
> > > yourself with information.  Don't just read the message boards. peace.

> > > On Nov 9, 12:12 am, sakura...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > > I know that the $5 billion charge is due to accelerated amortization,
> > > > but I have no information about the book values of AIA and ALICO on
> > > > AIG's balance sheet.

> > > > scranton, would you mind telling us how you can be so confident that
> > > > the IPO's of both companies will bring profits to AIG?

> > > > On Nov 9, 1:23 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > george, re-reading your post I find so much disinformation I don't
> > > > > know where to start.  You say AIA ALICO is overvalued on books?  What
> > > > > are you even saying?  They are barely selling them at a multiple of 1X
> > > > > annual earnings.  get real.  You also said there is 5 billion write-
> > > > > down on the deal because they are overvalued. No, thats not right.  $5
> > > > > billion is related to accelerated amortization,  because they are
> > > > > paying such a huge chunk of Fed loan so quickly.  Pretty standard loan
> > > > > stuff.

> > > > > On Nov 8, 11:09 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > george, AIA ALICO account for about 1/3 of premiums reported for the
> > > > > > quarter, around $5 billion.  AIG parent will still hold 20% [$1B per
> > > > > > quarter] of AIA ALICO after IPO is exercised.

> > > > > > On Nov 8, 10:33 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > You have to base decisions in something.  be open to considering the
> > > > > > > facts in the 10Q.  All I'm doing is offering information. According to
> > > > > > > numbers AIG is UNDERVALUED.  If that doesn't help you thats fine.
> > > > > > > Some people trade on a minute-to-minute basis, and the future is of
> > > > > > > little consequence, therefore.

> > > > > > > I will share some thoughts concerning the IPO's. you should at least
> > > > > > > "tune-in to the minutes" that pass when this happens in Q4.

> > > > > > > Lets apply the IPO scenario using the numbers from Q3.  Mind you, I
> > > > > > > think the Q4 numbers will be better than Q3.  They will probably still
> > > > > > > post paper profit from other assets
> > > > > > > appreciation.

> > > > > > > So, for example, pretend the IPO deal happened in Q3.  They reduce FED
> > > > > > > LOAN by $25B minus $5bn charge (for AIA/ALICO), and also post the
> > > > > > > deferred 1.4b charge (for Nan Shan). In this case, NET EQUITY would
> > > > > > > be: $91.3 Billion because 18.6 billion of their FED debt is erased.
> > > > > > > You with me?

> > > > > > > With that, you  calculate $68.14/ per pro forma diluted share, based
> > > > > > > on the pro-forma calculation on page 11 of  Q3 2009 financial
> > > > > > > supplement.

> > > > > > > NOTE:  $68.14/share counts for converted Treasury Trust Series C
> > > > > > > shares AND also ASSUMES PAYING OFF THE 40B TARP.  Which I've already
> > > > > > > speculated won't happen.  Without paying the TARP,  Treasury still
> > > > > > > recoups all their outlay through converted Series C.  The pro-forma BV
> > > > > > > in that scenario would yeild $130 per pro forma diluted share (you can
> > > > > > > call it scranton scenario with IPO)

> > > > > > > So in summary, IPO action should put the  pro- forma BV at $68, at the
> > > > > > > very least.

> > > > > > > Again, AIG is still undervalued, in my opinion all WORST CASE
> > > > > > > SCENARIOS ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO SHARE PRICE- UP TO $68 PER SHARE AT
> > > > > > > VERY LEAST, AFTER
> > > > > > > IPO'S HAPPEN IN Q4

> > > > > > > Good Luck, hope that help

> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:41 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > This is for trading, not investing.

> > > > > > > > I'm here because I trade options in AIG.  I play very
> > > > > > > > conservatively...  I get in when volatility drops, and bail out when
> > > > > > > > volatility increases.

> > > > > > > > I would never short AIG, for the simple reason that it moves so
> > > > > > > > radically.  This would be a very, very dangerous stock to short.

> > > > > > > > I do not enjoy watching others losing money.  I hope everyone here can
> > > > > > > > make money.  That's why I share my opinions!

> > > > > > > > I have absolutely no idea if AIG will go up or down, short term.   No
> > > > > > > > idea at all.  Not a clue.  I just want it to move... up or down it
> > > > > > > > doesn't matter, for me it just needs to move.

> > > > > > > > Long term?   Well that one is much easier...  Zero.

> > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 5:37 pm, Rich Sheppard <rsgato...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> > > > > > > > > and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> > > > > > > > > your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> > > > > > > > > motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> > > > > > > > > could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> > > > > > > > > downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> > > > > > > > > case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> > > > > > > > > concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> > > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > > > > > > > > > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > > > > > > > > > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > > > > > > > > > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > > > > > > > > > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > > > > > > > > > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > > > > > > > > > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > > > > > > > > > books.

> > > > > > > > > > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > > > > > > > > > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > > > > > > > > > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > > > > > > > > > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > > > > > > > > > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> > > > > > > > > > taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> > > > > > > > > > $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> > > > > > > > > > on the books.

> > > > > > > > > > These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> > > > > > > > > > them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> > > > > > > > > > that won't be yours.

> > > > > > > > > > And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> > > > > > > > > > becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> > > > > > > > > > This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> > > > > > > > > > in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> > > > > > > > > > What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> > > > > > > > > > government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> > > > > > > > > > then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> > > > > > > > > > Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> > > > > > > > > > A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> > > > > > > > > > rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> > > > > > > > > > this taxpayer's disgust.)

> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > > > > > > > > > > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both

> what exactly are you doing ?
> The only person so far that made what initially appeared to be a good
> attempt at perhpas not challenging Scrantons thoughts on AIG was
> George. Too bad only that some of the things Geroge said sounded good
> but were flawed and since his account got cancelled we will not find
> out If it was simply in err. or lack of understanding/insight.

>  Only when a prediction/scenario/ thesis is challenged with solid
> facts is there a chance to learn from it and perhaps find commons
> which is what I am interested in.

> On Nov 9, 3:57 pm, moefuzz <moefu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Sounds like "Scranton" thinks way too much of himself.
> > I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of that mouth,

> > Sounds like alot of stuffed shirt bullsheet to me.

> > All hot air and verbal posturing.

> > Can't be trusted.

> > .

> > On Nov 9, 6:43 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I thought I just did ??

> > > I truly believe investors can live with AIG and less 1/3 revenue.
> > > (Thats also less benefits they have to pay every quarter, so don't
> > > forget that) They will also probably have 1/5 to 1/4 less liability
> > > each quarter as a consequence of downsizing.  All good.

> > > If my logic doesn't suit you I don't know what else to say.  Yes, I am
> > > EXTREMELY Confident.  Dont worry bout me.  Advice to anyone is arm
> > > yourself with information.  Don't just read the message boards. peace.

> > > On Nov 9, 12:12 am, sakura...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > > I know that the $5 billion charge is due to accelerated amortization,
> > > > but I have no information about the book values of AIA and ALICO on
> > > > AIG's balance sheet.

> > > > scranton, would you mind telling us how you can be so confident that
> > > > the IPO's of both companies will bring profits to AIG?

> > > > On Nov 9, 1:23 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > george, re-reading your post I find so much disinformation I don't
> > > > > know where to start.  You say AIA ALICO is overvalued on books?  What
> > > > > are you even saying?  They are barely selling them at a multiple of 1X
> > > > > annual earnings.  get real.  You also said there is 5 billion write-
> > > > > down on the deal because they are overvalued. No, thats not right.  $5
> > > > > billion is related to accelerated amortization,  because they are
> > > > > paying such a huge chunk of Fed loan so quickly.  Pretty standard loan
> > > > > stuff.

> > > > > On Nov 8, 11:09 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > george, AIA ALICO account for about 1/3 of premiums reported for the
> > > > > > quarter, around $5 billion.  AIG parent will still hold 20% [$1B per
> > > > > > quarter] of AIA ALICO after IPO is exercised.

> > > > > > On Nov 8, 10:33 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > You have to base decisions in something.  be open to considering the
> > > > > > > facts in the 10Q.  All I'm doing is offering information. According to
> > > > > > > numbers AIG is UNDERVALUED.  If that doesn't help you thats fine.
> > > > > > > Some people trade on a minute-to-minute basis, and the future is of
> > > > > > > little consequence, therefore.

> > > > > > > I will share some thoughts concerning the IPO's. you should at least
> > > > > > > "tune-in to the minutes" that pass when this happens in Q4.

> > > > > > > Lets apply the IPO scenario using the numbers from Q3.  Mind you, I
> > > > > > > think the Q4 numbers will be better than Q3.  They will probably still
> > > > > > > post paper profit from other assets
> > > > > > > appreciation.

> > > > > > > So, for example, pretend the IPO deal happened in Q3.  They reduce FED
> > > > > > > LOAN by $25B minus $5bn charge (for AIA/ALICO), and also post the
> > > > > > > deferred 1.4b charge (for Nan Shan). In this case, NET EQUITY would
> > > > > > > be: $91.3 Billion because 18.6 billion of their FED debt is erased.
> > > > > > > You with me?

> > > > > > > With that, you  calculate $68.14/ per pro forma diluted share, based
> > > > > > > on the pro-forma calculation on page 11 of  Q3 2009 financial
> > > > > > > supplement.

> > > > > > > NOTE:  $68.14/share counts for converted Treasury Trust Series C
> > > > > > > shares AND also ASSUMES PAYING OFF THE 40B TARP.  Which I've already
> > > > > > > speculated won't happen.  Without paying the TARP,  Treasury still
> > > > > > > recoups all their outlay through converted Series C.  The pro-forma BV
> > > > > > > in that scenario would yeild $130 per pro forma diluted share (you can
> > > > > > > call it scranton scenario with IPO)

> > > > > > > So in summary, IPO action should put the  pro- forma BV at $68, at the
> > > > > > > very least.

> > > > > > > Again, AIG is still undervalued, in my opinion all WORST CASE
> > > > > > > SCENARIOS ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO SHARE PRICE- UP TO $68 PER SHARE AT
> > > > > > > VERY LEAST, AFTER
> > > > > > > IPO'S HAPPEN IN Q4

> > > > > > > Good Luck, hope that help

> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:41 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > This is for trading, not investing.

> > > > > > > > I'm here because I trade options in AIG.  I play very
> > > > > > > > conservatively...  I get in when volatility drops, and bail out when
> > > > > > > > volatility increases.

> > > > > > > > I would never short AIG, for the simple reason that it moves so
> > > > > > > > radically.  This would be a very, very dangerous stock to short.

> > > > > > > > I do not enjoy watching others losing money.  I hope everyone here can
> > > > > > > > make money.  That's why I share my opinions!

> > > > > > > > I have absolutely no idea if AIG will go up or down, short term.   No
> > > > > > > > idea at all.  Not a clue.  I just want it to move... up or down it
> > > > > > > > doesn't matter, for me it just needs to move.

> > > > > > > > Long term?   Well that one is much easier...  Zero.

> > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 5:37 pm, Rich Sheppard <rsgato...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> > > > > > > > > and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> > > > > > > > > your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> > > > > > > > > motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> > > > > > > > > could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> > > > > > > > > downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> > > > > > > > > case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> > > > > > > > > concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> > > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > > > > > > > > > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > > > > > > > > > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > > > > > > > > > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > > > > > > > > > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > > > > > > > > > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > > > > > > > > > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > > > > > > > > > books.

> > > > > > > > > > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > > > > > > > > > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > > > > > > > > > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > > > > > > > > > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > > > > > > > > > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out charity here, and as a
> > > > > > > > > > taxpayer, it makes my blood boil.  AIG is anticipating a write down of
> > > > > > > > > > $5 billion on that deal.  Why?  Because AIA and ALICO are overvalued
> > > > > > > > > > on the books.

> > > > > > > > > > These are among AIG's best sources of earnings, and AIG is losing
> > > > > > > > > > them.  Those earnings will not be AIG's.  So quit counting earnings
> > > > > > > > > > that won't be yours.

> > > > > > > > > > And then there is that former earnings engine, ILFC which is rapidly
> > > > > > > > > > becoming a yawning chasm for further destruction of taxpayer's value.
> > > > > > > > > > This is turning so rapidly that everytime a deal gets worked out, it's
> > > > > > > > > > in the toilet before the attorneys ever get paid for writing it up.

> > > > > > > > > > What's all this happy talk about IPOs?  Any IPO or issuance of
> > > > > > > > > > government preferreds is dilutive to current shareholders.  Ah but,
> > > > > > > > > > then again.  We are diluting zero.  So what's the difference?

> > > > > > > > > > Trade this.  There is no investment value here.

> > > > > > > > > > A good case can be made for investing in AIG's debt.  It has a high
> > > > > > > > > > rate of return and is implicitly backed by the government.  (Much to
> > > > > > > > > > this taxpayer's disgust.)

> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:56 am, Atlas4 <atlas...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Fellas, coorect me If I am wrong but AIG when it was a " well
> > > > > > > > > > > functioning " company pre crisis never seen the per share values both

> what exactly are you doing ?
> The only person so far that made what initially appeared to be a good
> attempt at perhpas not challenging Scrantons thoughts on AIG was
> George. Too bad only that some of the things Geroge said sounded good
> but were flawed and since his account got cancelled we will not find
> out If it was simply in err. or lack of understanding/insight.

>  Only when a prediction/scenario/ thesis is challenged with solid
> facts is there a chance to learn from it and perhaps find commons
> which is what I am interested in.

> On Nov 9, 3:57 pm, moefuzz <moefu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Sounds like "Scranton" thinks way too much of himself.
> > I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of that mouth,

> > Sounds like alot of stuffed shirt bullsheet to me.

> > All hot air and verbal posturing.

> > Can't be trusted.

> > .

> > On Nov 9, 6:43 am, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I thought I just did ??

> > > I truly believe investors can live with AIG and less 1/3 revenue.
> > > (Thats also less benefits they have to pay every quarter, so don't
> > > forget that) They will also probably have 1/5 to 1/4 less liability
> > > each quarter as a consequence of downsizing.  All good.

> > > If my logic doesn't suit you I don't know what else to say.  Yes, I am
> > > EXTREMELY Confident.  Dont worry bout me.  Advice to anyone is arm
> > > yourself with information.  Don't just read the message boards. peace.

> > > On Nov 9, 12:12 am, sakura...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > > I know that the $5 billion charge is due to accelerated amortization,
> > > > but I have no information about the book values of AIA and ALICO on
> > > > AIG's balance sheet.

> > > > scranton, would you mind telling us how you can be so confident that
> > > > the IPO's of both companies will bring profits to AIG?

> > > > On Nov 9, 1:23 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > george, re-reading your post I find so much disinformation I don't
> > > > > know where to start.  You say AIA ALICO is overvalued on books?  What
> > > > > are you even saying?  They are barely selling them at a multiple of 1X
> > > > > annual earnings.  get real.  You also said there is 5 billion write-
> > > > > down on the deal because they are overvalued. No, thats not right.  $5
> > > > > billion is related to accelerated amortization,  because they are
> > > > > paying such a huge chunk of Fed loan so quickly.  Pretty standard loan
> > > > > stuff.

> > > > > On Nov 8, 11:09 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > george, AIA ALICO account for about 1/3 of premiums reported for the
> > > > > > quarter, around $5 billion.  AIG parent will still hold 20% [$1B per
> > > > > > quarter] of AIA ALICO after IPO is exercised.

> > > > > > On Nov 8, 10:33 pm, scranton sheilds <ccscranton...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > You have to base decisions in something.  be open to considering the
> > > > > > > facts in the 10Q.  All I'm doing is offering information. According to
> > > > > > > numbers AIG is UNDERVALUED.  If that doesn't help you thats fine.
> > > > > > > Some people trade on a minute-to-minute basis, and the future is of
> > > > > > > little consequence, therefore.

> > > > > > > I will share some thoughts concerning the IPO's. you should at least
> > > > > > > "tune-in to the minutes" that pass when this happens in Q4.

> > > > > > > Lets apply the IPO scenario using the numbers from Q3.  Mind you, I
> > > > > > > think the Q4 numbers will be better than Q3.  They will probably still
> > > > > > > post paper profit from other assets
> > > > > > > appreciation.

> > > > > > > So, for example, pretend the IPO deal happened in Q3.  They reduce FED
> > > > > > > LOAN by $25B minus $5bn charge (for AIA/ALICO), and also post the
> > > > > > > deferred 1.4b charge (for Nan Shan). In this case, NET EQUITY would
> > > > > > > be: $91.3 Billion because 18.6 billion of their FED debt is erased.
> > > > > > > You with me?

> > > > > > > With that, you  calculate $68.14/ per pro forma diluted share, based
> > > > > > > on the pro-forma calculation on page 11 of  Q3 2009 financial
> > > > > > > supplement.

> > > > > > > NOTE:  $68.14/share counts for converted Treasury Trust Series C
> > > > > > > shares AND also ASSUMES PAYING OFF THE 40B TARP.  Which I've already
> > > > > > > speculated won't happen.  Without paying the TARP,  Treasury still
> > > > > > > recoups all their outlay through converted Series C.  The pro-forma BV
> > > > > > > in that scenario would yeild $130 per pro forma diluted share (you can
> > > > > > > call it scranton scenario with IPO)

> > > > > > > So in summary, IPO action should put the  pro- forma BV at $68, at the
> > > > > > > very least.

> > > > > > > Again, AIG is still undervalued, in my opinion all WORST CASE
> > > > > > > SCENARIOS ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO SHARE PRICE- UP TO $68 PER SHARE AT
> > > > > > > VERY LEAST, AFTER
> > > > > > > IPO'S HAPPEN IN Q4

> > > > > > > Good Luck, hope that help

> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:41 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > This is for trading, not investing.

> > > > > > > > I'm here because I trade options in AIG.  I play very
> > > > > > > > conservatively...  I get in when volatility drops, and bail out when
> > > > > > > > volatility increases.

> > > > > > > > I would never short AIG, for the simple reason that it moves so
> > > > > > > > radically.  This would be a very, very dangerous stock to short.

> > > > > > > > I do not enjoy watching others losing money.  I hope everyone here can
> > > > > > > > make money.  That's why I share my opinions!

> > > > > > > > I have absolutely no idea if AIG will go up or down, short term.   No
> > > > > > > > idea at all.  Not a clue.  I just want it to move... up or down it
> > > > > > > > doesn't matter, for me it just needs to move.

> > > > > > > > Long term?   Well that one is much easier...  Zero.

> > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 5:37 pm, Rich Sheppard <rsgato...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > George, simple question for you.  If you have no faith in this stock
> > > > > > > > > and you value it at ZERO, why on earth would you spend a minute of
> > > > > > > > > your life here following these postings?  What would possibly be your
> > > > > > > > > motivation?  Do you enjoy watching others potentially lose money?  Or,
> > > > > > > > > could it be you are here to SHORT the stock and make money on the
> > > > > > > > > downside?  That would be the only logical reason.  And if thats the
> > > > > > > > > case, then I guess we can discount just about anything you write
> > > > > > > > > concerning how much AIG will  go down in price, now can't we?

> > > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 3:23 pm, George Leroy Tirebiter

> > > > > > > > > <georgeleroytirebiter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Atlas4:  Good point.

> > > > > > > > > > This is all voo-doo math.  AIG is over-priced at any price above
> > > > > > > > > > zero.  There is no possibility that future earnings can flow to common
> > > > > > > > > > equity.  Future earnings will be applied to U.S. Government re-payment
> > > > > > > > > > or to other entities as the asset disposition continues.

> > > > > > > > > > Look, they got more than the asking price for Nan Shan, but will still
> > > > > > > > > > take a significant hit in 4Q for it.  Why?  It was overvalued on the
> > > > > > > > > > books.

> > > > > > > > > > AIA and ALICO are going to the government not for cash, but for a 25
> > > > > > > > > > billion reduction in the amount outstanding on the Fed window, coupled
> > > > > > > > > > with a 25 billion reduction in AIG's line of credit at the window.
> > > > > > > > > > AIG gets to keep anything above $25 billion?  There is nothing above
> > > > > > > > > > the $25 billion.  FRBNY is handing out chari