[JLS]

Could be those 25 people might have criminal charges against them soon? Don’t know enough about business law, but to totally risk shareholder’s money through deriviatives without allowing any risk monitoring....is that criminal action?

What in the world do you think they could be charged with? What businesses do, particularly financial businesses, is take risks. Whose business other than the owners is it how much risk a particular firm takes?

I can not say I am shocked that a unit or so of AIG was where most of their losses were. As far as never monitored, of course they were monitored at least by the CEO. If the people in this unit had a different view of risk than some others in the firm, so what. As long as they were doing what their bosses thought they were doing again it is of no concern to outsiders.

BTW, if the 25 had a view that the US government would stand behind the assets of Fannie and Freddie, it appears they were correct in their risk assessment doesn't it?

[Cedar]

That’s why I posted this thread. I know little about business law, so I’m wanting to hear from those who do know.

Not all businesses have shareholders to whom they are responsible. Also, when Enron came tumbling down, weren’t those at the top held responsible? Would these risky deriviatives with no oversight be considered somewhat criminal? Maybe not.

My posting is slow, so some of these questions may be answered before this is posted. Sorry, if so.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Glen Beck had the best program on all this Tuesday. AIG was insuring the loans being made at Fannie and Freddie and were in the tank for at least 42% bad paper -- not their choice, it was what Fannie/Freddie took on and obligated AIG to...

I think everyone has to be careful here and not be taken in by a trojan horse scenario... after watching the hearing today, and knowing the little I know about this from reading and watching Hank Greenburg (until 2005 CEO AIG) on Cavuto many times now, I think we should not believe 1/1000th of anything coming out of any of the democrats on Capital Hill..... and even Chris Dodds had to fess up to his part in this today.

[bronxboy]

Isn’t it against the law to write insurance policies without sufficient capital to cover losses? I would think this would be insurance fraud.