Comments on: AIG’s head-scratching filing… http://www.footnoted.com/market-meltdown/aigs-head-scratching-filing/ Michelle Leder's guide to what's hiding in SEC filings Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:06:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: American General employee http://www.footnoted.com/market-meltdown/aigs-head-scratching-filing/comment-page-1/#comment-9638 American General employee Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:16:18 +0000 http://www.footnoted.com/?p=4305#comment-9638 That is correct, Primus is buying AIG Taiwan. PT is probably a sister company. That is correct, Primus is buying AIG Taiwan. PT is probably a sister company.

]]> By: David Merkel http://www.footnoted.com/market-meltdown/aigs-head-scratching-filing/comment-page-1/#comment-9611 David Merkel Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:52:38 +0000 http://www.footnoted.com/?p=4305#comment-9611 The two companies both have Primus in the name, but they are not related. Primus is not an uncommon corporate name -- there are 63 Primuses in Bloomberg's database; they are not all related. The telecom firm is a VOIP provider in Virginia. The other Primus is a new financial holding company. From a Bloomberg article: <i> Primus Financial, co-founded by former Citigroup Inc. Asia investment banking chief Robert Morse, offered more than $2 billion for AIG’s Nan Shan Life Insurance Co., two of the people said.</i> This company is far enough off of the radar that Bloomberg does not have a ticker for them yet. I am guessing that this is just a shell to buy Nan Shan Life. The two companies both have Primus in the name, but they are not related. Primus is not an uncommon corporate name — there are 63 Primuses in Bloomberg’s database; they are not all related. The telecom firm is a VOIP provider in Virginia. The other Primus is a new financial holding company. From a Bloomberg article:


Primus Financial, co-founded by former Citigroup Inc. Asia investment banking chief Robert Morse, offered more than $2 billion for AIG’s Nan Shan Life Insurance Co., two of the people said.

This company is far enough off of the radar that Bloomberg does not have a ticker for them yet. I am guessing that this is just a shell to buy Nan Shan Life.

]]> By: Morris http://www.footnoted.com/market-meltdown/aigs-head-scratching-filing/comment-page-1/#comment-9610 Morris Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:28:07 +0000 http://www.footnoted.com/?p=4305#comment-9610 It sounds like July 1 was the date these securities were extinguished in the bankruptcy. Why they delayed filing the Form 4, I don't know, but you can see how it might have been an oversight if they wrote off the investment . It sounds like July 1 was the date these securities were extinguished in the bankruptcy. Why they delayed filing the Form 4, I don’t know, but you can see how it might have been an oversight if they wrote off the investment .

]]> By: Michelle Leder http://www.footnoted.com/market-meltdown/aigs-head-scratching-filing/comment-page-1/#comment-9608 Michelle Leder Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:09:06 +0000 http://www.footnoted.com/?p=4305#comment-9608 Thanks, @SeanDC. That's as good of an explanation as any. Just trying to figure out how this complies with the rules as I understand them for Form 4s. I thought there were 4 business days to disclose all purchases/sales, but perhaps bankruptcy changes those rules. Like I said, I'm confused! Thanks, @SeanDC. That’s as good of an explanation as any. Just trying to figure out how this complies with the rules as I understand them for Form 4s. I thought there were 4 business days to disclose all purchases/sales, but perhaps bankruptcy changes those rules. Like I said, I’m confused!

]]> By: SeanDC http://www.footnoted.com/market-meltdown/aigs-head-scratching-filing/comment-page-1/#comment-9607 SeanDC Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:48:24 +0000 http://www.footnoted.com/?p=4305#comment-9607 This is not a *good* explanation as you had requested, but I wonder whether October 6 was simply the date that they got around to writing off this seemingly worthless equity investment. The shares appear to have been owned by a number of AIG-sponsored private equity funds, and this may be the time of year when those funds go through their portfolio and decide what to write up in value, what to write down, and what to write off. Just my speculation, though; others may have a more informed view. This is not a *good* explanation as you had requested, but I wonder whether October 6 was simply the date that they got around to writing off this seemingly worthless equity investment. The shares appear to have been owned by a number of AIG-sponsored private equity funds, and this may be the time of year when those funds go through their portfolio and decide what to write up in value, what to write down, and what to write off. Just my speculation, though; others may have a more informed view.

]]>