Measuring Up

It's sad when credit companies haven't a clue about credit

Peppercom has always used American Express for our small business needs. The company has always given us the benefit we need. That's why it's sad that we were forced to TRY and change credit card companies recently.

You see, my business partner and I (and a lot of our other senior executives) fly a lot on Continental Airlines. AMEX had a great points partnership with Continental and we used those points to purchase free tickets or upgrade. But, to our dismay, that relationship is ending in September.

We recently switched over to a Chase Small Business Card because that's Continental's big partner now. What's sadder, and equally as frustrating, is that Chase has no idea how to service the small business market and doesn't know very much about its target customer either. That became apparent yesterday in an appalling call I had with a Chase Small Business representative.

The call only happened because Chase gave us a paltry $17 thousand limit on our cards. With upwards of 15 executives using these cards to travel for clients, we knew that at a minimum, we needed a limit of 250k. That's what we have with AMEX. The credit professionals there understand our needs, how we use it and they see how we easily pay the balance each month.

Chase told us they needed two years of our audited Peppercom financials to approve this level of credit. We told them no problem. We're profitable, pay our credit debt on time and have plenty of revenue to qualify for this amount.

Yesterday, a Chase Small Business analyst left me a voice mail telling me that our credit request was declined and we are stuck with the original $17 thousand limit. That made no sense at all. So, I called him to discuss the matter. Here was our basic conversation (paraphrased):

Ed: "Hi, you denied us the amount we are asking for. Can I ask why? AMEX has no problem approving this amount or even more."

Chase Rep: "This card is really only meant for one person. While we appreciate your business, we're not sure how you could need that much credit."

Ed: "This is a small business corporate card, right?"

Chase Rep: "Yes."

Ed: "Well then if it is, you'd understand that it isn't for one person's personal use, but instead will be used for travel, hotels, client campaign purchases, office needs, etc., by many senior Peppercom employees. Thus, we could be spending 100 or 200 thousand per month and just want to have a safe limit in case. Again, we've had a 16 year relationship with AMEX that we are now looking to transfer to you. But, you need to understand our needs."

Chase Rep: "Thank you. We do understand your needs. But, that limit is just much too high for one person doing business, sir."

Ed: "Do you understand that this is for my company’s business, not one person? Why did you ask for two years of financial records from Peppercom if you only care about my card? I am not asking for a personal credit card. This is for all Peppercom's needs."

Chase Rep: "I understand and appreciate that. It just seems that our credit analysts feel that 17 thousand, your current limit, should suffice to fill those needs."

Ed: "That's ludicrous. Do your credit people see any issues with our financials? Ok, what about if I lower the limit to maybe... 200 thousand?"

Chase rep: "Nothing on my documents shows any issues with your financial statements, Mr. Moed. That's not a problem. But, 17 thousand is all that we can approve."

Ed: "Ok. I'm getting nowhere. How long have you worked in the small business area for...because you clearly don't comprehend the difference between consumer and business needs."

Chase Rep: "This is my third week, Mr. Moed,"

Ed: "Good-bye."

Based on my experience, Chase should not be in the small business credit card market business. The company wasted my time and that of Peppercom's financial managers as well. Any bank or credit vehicle that understands small business credit would enthusiastically want Peppercom as a customer for that amount of credit.

The moral of this post is for companies to stick to the knitting they know versus trying to expand into areas where a lack of experience will only damage their reputation. I'm done with Chase and every time I see one of its ridiculous small business commercials it will remind me to tell this story again and again and again...

NBA = National Bankruptcy Association

Everyone’s heard hundreds of stories about professional athletes going broke. They spend as if money grows on trees. And, they trust far too many friends, managers and agents. Many eventually steal or betray them behind their backs and suck them dry.

Sports Illustrated’s Rick Reilly wrote this interesting, tongue-in-cheek post highlighting many more sad realities on this topic. One startling and sobering statistic got my attention, though. Over 60 percent of NBA players go broke within five years of retirement. Wow.

The first question that runs through my mind is… why won’t they ever learn? The stories are always in the news. So, how many rags to riches to rags examples do these stars need to see or read about before they actually change their behavior? Then it occurred to me that one’s behavior can only change if that person understands he is doing something wrong/harmful and then is taught how to do it better (or not at all).  Understanding that point, I wonder if the NBA needs to step up here and take more of a leadership role with its players.  While the league has no legal responsibility to make sure its employees don’t throw away their lives, I think an ethical example still needs to be set.

I did a little research on the NBA. This league does some great work helping kids become more educated about staying in school and away from drugs. And, it also plays a pivotal role helping players with various maturity and emotional issues they inevitably encounter as they jump from high school or college into a celebrity life in the NBA. But, I’ve yet to find any literature, information or media coverage about how the league helps on the financial literacy front. That’s really a shame.

The image of this league has consistently fallen over the last decade or so for a variety of reasons. Attendance at games and viewership has also greatly waned as the fan base demographics are now limited to more inner city, lower income consumers (versus a healthy mix of middle class and more affluent fans as well.) It’s clear that this fan base still admires these talented basketball players and views them as bona fide heroes because of what they can do on the basketball court and the image they personify. Here’s food for thought: If the NBA actually took a position by teaching its players how to save the millions of $$$ they earn, then just maybe this new found personal financial responsibility would be emulated by the fans and spill over to a part of our society that really needs this help the most. 

Nothing more than organized gambling…

For those who haven’t figured it out yet, our financial markets are laughable. The last collapse, that began in 2007, scared many away. But, it’s actually the recent rise over the last 4-6 months which has me more concerned. You see, there’s no rhyme or reason as to why the Dow Jones Index and others continue to climb steadily.

Sure, jobs are coming back slowly. And, there seems to be a more optimistic view that our economy will become a tad healthier in 2011. But, none of this was apparent in the third and fourth quarters of 2010 when the Dow Jones Average jumped from a miserly low of 9,500 points to over 11.500 by the end of last year. And, every day we still see plenty of negative indicators largest public companies and state and local governments that all isn’t well from a growth standpoint.

My feeling is that for the average Joe, investing in our financial markets is no different than playing craps or blackjack in a casino.  The only real distinction (and positive) with playing blackjack or craps at a casino is that a player can actually understand what his/her odds are to win (even though those chances might be ever so small). For the average investor, the belief that a level playing field existed used to provide a lot of comfort. Most felt that they would be taken care of in the long run if they invested in fairly safe and conservative bets over their working lives. We all know now that this belief is nothing more than a mirage. The reality is that huge institutional forces can (and will) coerce excess and greed into almost any investment marketplace. Because of this, no one individual investor can ever truly feel confident that his/her portfolio will be safe, or far worse, when the markets might simply crash again.

Yet, it’s pretty ironic that most of continue to operate in a mindless sheep-like fashion. We herd once again in packs to these same stocks, bonds, mutual funds and other investments. We all seem to have incredibly short memories because everyone is feeling pretty darn good now. Why not…the markets and our investment portfolio values continue to grow each and every month. So, on paper, everything looks wonderful again.

So, what’s a person supposed to do?  Most working Americans use their 529 and 401k plans as the number one vehicle to save for college and retirement. I’m no financial expert, but it is easy to see that without year to year gains in tax free (or tax deferred) investments in these types of products, it would be almost impossible to save enough money for critical long term needs. Of course, this is a double edged sword because all that money invested may not be worth much of anything in three, five or nine years when the market quite possibly crashes again.

This reality is truly an untenable enigma (at least in my mind). The only seemingly rational move I can think of is to diversify whatever wealth/money one has into a variety of different investments (like real estate and plain old savings accounts) and to become that much wiser to any situation where our markets are rising too quickly for no apparent logical reason. Apart from that, we all need to never forget that anything that looks or feel too good to be true, is just that. So, don’t get hoodwinked again into believing that our financial markets are anything more than organized gambling.

Am I fat or is my belt tight?

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Milos Sugovic.

It all comes down to framing. No matter what policy or program is being put into place, how you frame it limits or defines the inferences that individuals make about the message. The audience likes to pick a side, even though two seemingly conflicting alternatives are at the core no different. Take for example the Fed’s latest attempt to jump-start the economy – which the media calls QE2 or Quantitative Easing 2 - in which it recently decided to buy $600 billion in long-term Treasuries over the next eight months and reinvest an additional $250 billion to $300 billion in Treasuries with the proceeds of its earlier investments. These bond purchases will culminate in Q3 of 2011 and will inject about $900 billion into the U.S. economy.
 
Such a move by the central bank invariably creates downward pressure on interest rates, making borrowing cheaper. In a healthy economy that’s like taking a fat kid to a candy store. It stimulates short-term growth by encouraging businesses to borrow for the purpose of investing in capital and machinery, while it gets consumers to spend…and then spend some more. However, in an ailing economy, such outcomes - even though highly desired - are just wishful thinking.
 
The U.S. economy is a fat diabetic that has become irresponsive to insulin. A body suffering from type 2 diabetes needs insulin, but like all medication, its effectiveness diminishes beyond a certain level and can become fatal. The U.S. economy is no different: it has become desensitized to the central bank’s flood of liquidity and cheap credit. No surprise, quantitative easing isn’t working. And that’s because the problem isn’t a lack of credit, or that it’s too expensive. The problem is that our accumulated and excess dead weight- also known as debt- has been transferred from bubble to bubble. Replacing that “old” 40” LCD TV, which you borrowed money for in the first place with the new and improved 42” LED model that comes with those scarce necessities like Google, Facebook and Twitter, will do only one thing: increase your debt. 
 
Unfortunately, the American Dream allows for no nightmares. So, the Fed is responding to consumer desires and is delivering cash in the form of "easy money" to an economy which has no need for it, except to gamble with in the financial markets. But blowing bubbles now and worrying about the consequences later is bound to backfire, as we have witnessed time and time again. Driving borrowing rates down to zero will obliterate the interest income for consumers with savings accounts and low-risk fixed investments. It is also likely to increase inflation, which will further eat away at the value of that shrinking interest income, especially because wages aren’t rising. Together, these forces will create a real interest rate equal to zero and incentives to take on more risk to earn a greater return – the same urge that got us into this mess in the first place. Is it any wonder that investors poured more than $18 billion into hedge funds in October, the highest level in 11 months?
 
“Lucky” for us the economy, like the body, has a way of correcting for imbalances and restoring equilibrium. The high unemployment rate is one way the bubble deflates itself. And no matter how hard the Fed and its troupe of chubby Americans try to swim against the current, they’re bound to fail. What’s needed is instead some tough love: some sweat, tears and then some more sweat.

But how does one sell such a message? No spinster can make lower spending and unemployment sound good, not even Mark Zandi, the chief economist and co-founder of Moody's.  At the end of the day, it all comes down to framing. What got us in this mess is, paradoxically, high spending and excessive risk taking when investing. So, what will get us out of it is lower spending and a higher tax rate on risky investments – but such policies are doomed to face severe criticism. On the other hand, advocating for higher savings and lowering the tax rate on stable, long-term investments will do only one thing – generate applause. The funny thing is, the former is no different from the latter, apart from how it’s framed.  That’s why, for us PR folks, it’s all about the formulation, not the logic, of an argument.

New Form of Financing Makes Loan Sharking Seem Credible

I thought I’d seen it all. But, clearly that isn’t the case. Witness yesterday’s article in the New York Times.

Banks, hedge funds, private equity funds and all types of other institutional investors have found their newest market to make giant sized alpha returns in. Yes to date, they’ve invested upwards of $1 billion bankrolling law suits. That’s right. There’s no more money to be made in toxic mortgage backed securities. So, now some of the largest players on Wall Street are financing large divorce cases, class action and malpractice suits with the hope that there will be big pay-offs in the end.

Their argument for entering this bizarre financing world, is a classic one. By providing serious funding (the lawyers for one class action suit were given $30 million), these large financiers are actually helping the “little people” stand up to big, bad corporations (who took advantage of them) by leveling the playing field as trials are incredibly expensive. Without outside funding, these defendants (those would be the behemoth corporations who are accused of harming innocent victims) have a significant advantage through deep pockets. And, deep pockets provide unlimited funds to tie up courts and, if needed, keep spending on the litigation process for years, while the plaintiffs run out of money and hope.

I’m sure that argument has some validity to it. But, I can also guarantee that those who have jumped into this  financing market, didn’t do so out of the goodness in their heart. No, they smell blood (figuratively, of course). To me, this seems like just another form of predatory financing/lending and that won’t bode well in the end for the consumer (in this case that’s the plaintiff’s in these trials) who believe their “white knights” have arrived.

Much like every other artificial financial market that ballooned in size and then popped out of nowhere, there are always scores of consumers hurt in the end. We all know how that worked out over the last two years with individual investors and those who owned homes, but couldn’t afford to keep paying the oversized mortgage obligations. My bet is that once these sophisticated investors see that financing class action law suits is more akin to betting on the horses at Belmont, many won’t have the stomach to continue. The question isn’t when this will happen, but how.

I can envision any number of scenarios where “the rug is pulled right out from under” a class action plaintiff’s feet during the middle of a costly law suit against some giant corporation. Once said investor feels queasy that the case might not win (and after two or three subsequent losses), the plaintiff is left high and dry without any of the agreed to investment to continue much needed litigation efforts.

Loan sharks find gaps in society where weak individuals or businesses will pay almost any interest rate (the “Vig”) to get quick money. They exploit and take advantage of this acute pain point. Explain to me what the difference is between this and those who are now financing law suits…  

Evaluating GE in the light it deserves

Today's guest post is by Michael Dresner, CEO, Peppercom’s Brand² Squared Licensing Division.

Last week’s front cover article of BusinessWeek had the headline “Can GE Still Manage?” I can’t imagine any  magazine subscriber not having her attention grabbed by that copy. Cutting to the chase, I considered it a sensationalist way to keep readers turning their pages. But is the headline accurate, even as a leading question? 

I don’t completely fault the editorial staff. Blue-chip institutions across automotive and financial services– long known for unquestionable quality and success– are mired in crises and cover-ups. So every for-profit organization is seen through an increasingly scrutinizing and cynical lens. With respect to GE– to quote the article– we have seen a “hellish decade that cut GE’s value in half.”  Any stakeholder of the company could be unnerved.

In reading the article, I kept waiting for objective comparisons to companies of GE’s size and scope across the same time period. Jack Welch continuously says measurement is in part about relativity–  where you stand vis a vis others. BusinessWeek didn’t do that, at least in this article. So we did. Our research was quick, so feel free to debate the methodology.  But the results are interesting.

One decade ago– in the year 2000, the last full calendar year before Jeff Immelt became CEO– GE stood at #5 on the Fortune 500, posting more in annual profit than any other company on that list.  #1 that year was General Motors. #4 was Ford Motor Company. Numbers 7 and 8? Citigroup and AT&T respectively.  Numbers 16, 17 and 18 were Sears Roebuck, AIG, and Enron. 

In the most recent posting of Fortune 500 companies, GE (the only company mentioned in this blog with the same CEO since 2001) stands at #4, posting double-digit profit gains vs. 10 years ago, though less profit than one oil company and Wal-Mart. General Motors is now #15 on the Fortune 500 with no earnings. The company that was AT&T ten years ago no longer exists. Citigroup at #12 in 2010 lost $1.6 billion on $108 billion in sales.  Sears Roebuck, AIG and Enron can be discussed in another blog (though Enron the Broadway Musical is glowing with preopening buzz.)

The decade from hell has decimated many other companies that were once at or close to GE’s size.  Or perhaps, the mistakes in management at Citigroup, General Motors, Sears Roebuck, AIG and Enron The Broadway Musical caused these companies to decimate during the decade from hell. I am exposed only to information publicly available about GE, therefore far from an expert. Here’s what information is available.  Its leadership position from a revenue standpoint has been relatively stable across manufacturing, consumer goods and financial services. GE brings infrastructural innovation to developing countries like no other enterprise in the world. Annual volume of ecomagination products outpaces 370 companies in the Fortune 500 in total sales.  During this decade from hell– when no company was too big to fail– GE would have long unraveled without immensely talented managers guided by a continuously improving work ethic. One can easily lose sight of this without the very comparison that makes for objective measurement and journalism.  And when BusinessWeek publishes articles headlined “Can GE Still Manage?,” that’s what readers should expect.

This is just plain silly…

The backlash against those institutions receiving TARP money has taken on an entire new  level of absurdity.  According to today’s article (Corporations Take a Low-Key Approach to Event Sponsorship), a number of large financial institutions were sponsors of the US Open, but no one really knew because they kept it a complete secret. Yes, that’s right. They spent hundreds of thousands of $$$ to bring important clients and prospects to the event, wine and dine them at corporate sponsor tables and more, but only on the condition that their name never appear anywhere as an actual sponsor.

So, for example, guests of Goldman Sachs and Bank of America sat at $50,000 sponsored dinner tables, but no sign was posted as to whose table it actually was. Those attending the dinner were left guessing who the covert benefactor was. Wow… feels like a CIA operation.

Let’s be serious about this for a minute. Yes, any company that has received TARP funds needs to scrutinize its expenditures and should be made accountable by providing provide ongoing updates on its finances. But, this has really gone too far. When companies are forced to compromise the value of brand building efforts through paid for sponsorships (i.e. they can’t promote their brands at these events,) then the principle of what should be happening  has become completely lost.

We’ve always done lots of work for financial services companies. It’s a fact that they win lots of business and earn more $$$ by wooing prospects and clients through these high level, prestigious professional sporting events. Like it or not, this is (and always will be) an important new business strategy for them. I think that Congress and the public at large needs to take a chill pill and back off on this issue because it isn’t helping anyone. By taking away the ability to promote their brand and name at these events, these companies waste a large chunk of the dollars they are spending. So in essence, because they live in fear of being singled out by Congress/the public, they are leaving a lot of value on the table. Thus, we are forcing them to throw away our money.

I know that I simplified an issue that is much more complex. But, hopefully my meaning is clear. We shouldn’t be forcing TARP funded companies to change their tried and true approaches to doing business (which, by the way, generates much needed income that will help them get back on solid ground.) I completely believe in accountability and transparency of where the money is going and how much is being spent. But, there is a big difference between corporate boondoggles that simply pamper the senior executives of these broken companies versus legitimate sales and marketing programs that truly generate business, goodwill and some ongoing brand rehabilitation.

It’s too bad that those who influence public opinion about these companies (like our politicians) pretend that this is a black and white, negative issue. Shame on them for not properly educating the masses versus continuing to fan the flames.

ATM fees represent bad PR

Like most people, I regularly use ATMs to obtain cash. Yesterday, I used one from TD Bank in Manhattan and was charged $3.00 after withdrawing just 50 bucks. For those of you who aren’t good with numbers, that transaction was a 6 percent cost to me. Quite candidly, it pissed me off. And now, for no other reason than this, I’m annoyed with this specific bank.

ATM fees are nothing new. And, these annoying fees that banks charge to consumers have risen steadily over the last 20 years. But, this issue has been a contentious one forever, as well. I remember when we represented the PLUS banking network in the early 90s (back in my J. Walter Thompson days). The number one issue keeping those banking executives up at night was how to show consumer rights groups, legislators and the constituents they represent that ATMs provide real value. And thus, those nasty fees are entirely fair.

The main problem is that none of the arguments they put forward then worked. Just like the messages that are being emitted now, they continue to fall on deaf ears. And, this creates real legislative and reputational problems every few years when the issue becomes hot again. If you read some of the comments/positions that a few banks take, one can understand why.

I read an article in which a Chase spokesperson (my bank is Chase) said (I’m paraphrasing) that the ATM surcharge fee supports real value that the bank provides through its 11,000 U.S. ATMs to non banking customers. (Chase, like many banks doesn’t charge its own customers these fees.) So, if I read this correctly, would Chase close down these ATMs, or continue not charging its customers for ATM usage if non customers decided to forgo using these services from Chase forever? I highly doubt it. Chase needs to have ATMs available to me and the millions of other customers for convenience. It just knows that everyone else represents a huge money making audience, especially in this tough economy.

Another bank issued a statement early this year that it only charges ATM fees to those who aren’t checking customers. And, this is a real reason why those who aren’t customers should really think about becoming ones. Are you kidding me? Talk about a bizarre, strong armed sales tactic that will not resonate with the average consumer.

My point in all of this is that ATM fees are bad news from a reputational/image standpoint. Most banks have realized this and at least stopped charging their customers for the pleasure of using their machines. I’d like to acknowledge the few (though) who learned that they can’t win this PR war and have stopped charging fees all together, or in only very specific instances. These banks understand that there are millions of people who everyday have the same experience I had yesterday. And, they clearly value their images a great deal.

I realize that ATM surcharges represent a very healthy revenue stream for the banking industry. This is not a simple issue. But, as we’ve seen over the last nine months, the difference between a financial services company having a positive versus negative reputation, now takes on an entirely new reality as to whether that organization can survive (or at least thrive) or become part of a growing banking graveyard.  

When accuracy and reason are inherent conflicts

One of the larger hedge fund managers is fighting back against the Obama Chrysler backlash. Cliff Asness, whose firm manages $20 billion of assets, has written an open letter blasting the President for his attack on the hedge fund industry in the wake of this bankruptcy. 

I find this article quite interesting because his points of view are indeed accurate and in some cases, legally binding. For example, he states that “it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers to get their clients the best return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the ‘sacrifice,’ they are stealing.”

Asness is entirely right. As a matter of fact, if you, I or even Mr. Obama (when he was a private citizen) had reason to believe that our hedge fund manager wasn’t trying to get the best possible price for our investment in Chrysler, we would have real grounds to sue his fund.  After all, we only invested our hard earned money because we believed that it’s manager was going to do everything within his legal means to generate as high a return as possible. The fact that many constituents (including our government) are trying to save Chrysler has little to do with what might be good for me or you as an investor in the automotive company’s bonds (especially if we could save some of our return if the company went bankrupt). And, to call those investors ‘selfish’ is truly a bullying tactic that fundamentally cuts across the grain of what our stock market investment philosophy has always been about.

Now, unfortunately for Perella Weinberg Partners (the investment firm behind all of this) being right isn’t always reasonable or prudent. And, in the most egregious cases (like so many collapses in this bizarre economy,) being willfully tone deaf when the President of our country is on the bully pulpit screaming at you is just kind of stupid. The reality is that every constituent within the Chrysler deal had to sacrifice something. Many had to give in to almost every concession. So, when Perella Weinberg Partners didn’t back down until the heat became unbearable, they received an oral lashing in the worst type of way from Obama. And, that translated to becoming the sacrificial lamb on the front page of every newspaper in America.

Stories in the media are like snow men. They melt away very quickly when the weather changes (or in this case another story comes along). This story too shall pass pretty quickly. Although, it feels like the hedge fund industry is finally at a point where it is about to start fighting the moniker of being the everyday man’s selfish villain. I think Asness’ letter is a smart approach to tell the industry’s side of this story. I just wouldn’t want to get caught in the cross hairs of the president’s next Wall Street damning because no one really cares about the other point of view as that is happening.

AIG just doesn’t give two sh*ts

When I first heard yesterday about how AIG had handed out $165 million in new bonuses, I thought it had to be a joke. Then, I knew it wasn’t, when I saw this article.

As a public relations practitioner, my first thought was – how could AIG have screwed up so badly again? Yet another body blow to a company that is hated, laughed at and is considered to be an almost unbelievable business case example of what is wrong today.

I mean… it’s CEO, Edward Liddy, concocted two reasons for the bonus hand outs that are simply implausible based on the situation our economy is in and based on who actually owns this insurance giant now.  They are:

Point #1 – AIG is contractually bound to pay these bonuses or the company will be sued.

Answer #1 – Ok, you are right Mr. CEO. AIG might be sued if these bonuses aren’t paid. But, who cares? We are living in unprecedented times. And, these times call for unprecedented actions. The fact is that if the government didn’t step in THREE times to pour billions of $$$ into AIG, the company would be bankrupt. Do you know what that means? There would be no money to pay bonuses anyway. Now, the public owns 80 percent of your company. So, much like the automakers did (can’t believe I’m saying something positive about this group,) all existing contracts/agreements and any other special considerations should have been considered null and void. Because the only thing that matters is the company’s survival. Not, whether it’s executives (many who helped AIG lose billions) continue to get rich. Bottom line – the bonuses were just plain wrong and are clearly a public relations tsunami.

Point #2 – AIG has to pay these bonuses to retain talent or they will leave for competitors.

Answer #2 – I have one question for you, Mr. Liddy. Where will they go? Last I checked, Wall Street has shredded over 400,000 jobs. Financial firms, insurance companies and everyone else in the industry are still laying off thousands. I’m really curious on this one– what other competitive jobs exist right now that will take in these high priced senior executives (many who have egg on their faces)? That’s right. It just doesn’t add up because there are no jobs to be had. And because of that, there is no credibility in this message.

Let’s get back to my original premise above. It took me a while (sorry, sometimes I am slow to see the obvious,) but now I get it. This really isn’t a public relations blunder for AIG, because AIG doesn’t care about its public image at all. That’s the only conclusion I can come to now. Over the last seven months, the company has continued to make mistake after mistake, with each one growing noticeably larger in the public’s eye. The most recent disaster was handled in such an amateurish way (the contents of the letter sent to our current Treasury Secretary,) that it’s almost inconceivable to me that AIG’s senior management  is even attempting to rebuild faith with the public or any of its key stakeholders (except those who received big bonuses, of course.)

Let’s keep our eyes wide open as to what comes next. With the President, Congress and the AG all swooping in, I think this might be the last mistake this now cartoonish looking company will be allowed to make.