Showing posts with label AIG. Show all posts

Atlas Insurance Group

AIG may be the conduit for tens of billions of taxpayer dollars paid out to banks and other counter-parties. Despite this, it is a black box from which little information has emanated. AIG's silence - and that of its protectors in the government - has spoken volumes about the propriety of what has been going on there. One who has not been silent is former AIG honcho Hank Greenberg who has not been shy about explaining, in plain terms, what happened there and what is going wrong now. See his appearance on "Charlie Rose" for the best possible explanation of AIG's woes you are likely to find.

Now, Greenberg has been summoned to Capital Hill to testify about AIG, his role in AIG, and his perspective on the bailout. Unlike the obfuscatory Edward M. Liddy, Greenberg faced his questioners with his head held high, and spoke bluntly and truthfully: AIG Rescue Has Failed, Greenberg Tells Lawmakers

Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, who headed the company for 38 years until his departure under pressure in 2005, said that taxpayers are losing money on their investment in the firm. Instead of liquidating the firm and selling off its assets, he told a U.S. House committee in prepared remarks, that the government should reduce its investment in the firm and replace it with government guarantees.


The current management and board of directors should also be replaced, Mr.Greenberg said. "My approach focuses on reconstructing and sustaining AIG so that it will in the future be a healthy and vibrant company once again," Mr. Greenberg said in his testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee.

While everyone else who matters wants to keep the AIG money feedback loop to continue cycling $$ through the banking world, Greenberg actually wants to restore AIG to financial health. Geez! That's so 20th Century!

Mr. Greenberg said the government should reduce its stake in AIG to 15% from 80%in order to attract private capital. Additionally, Mr. Greenberg said billions in government funds shouldn't have been paid to AIG's counterparties; giving other financial firms guarantees would've been a better option.

"These cash payments to [credit-default swap counterparties should never have occurred," Mr. Greenberg said. "It would have been more beneficial for the American taxpayer if the federal government had walled off AIG Financial Products…and provided guarantees to AIGFP'scounterparties rather than putting up billions of dollars in cash collateral to those counterparties."

Now, how is it that this kind of practical problem solving has been lacking from the Indispensable Men in the Bush-Obama Treasury Departments? Perhaps because they have been focused, not on preventing a "systemic meltdown," but instead protecting the fraudulent underwriting at AIG and the speculative bets that sought to take advantage of that.

Of course, thanks to Elliot Spitzer, Greenberg is a problematic wtiness because he had to resign under a cloud. But, that is beginning to look like a boardroom coup enabled by the sort of prosecutorial over-reach that we have just seen play out in the Ted Stevens case. Funny how that worked out.

In a statement, AIG said that when Mr. Greenberg left in March 2005, the unit had already sold about half of the swaps that caused the biggest problems. AIG added that AIG's exposure under the contracts wasn't hedged.

Mr. Greenbergsaid the amount of exposure AIG faced under the contracts when he left was beside the point. When AIG lost its triple-A credit rating, which came afterhis departure as CEO, he would have hedged the exposure and tried to modify the collateral requirements, he said in the interview.

Yeah, Greenberg seems to be the only person around who wants to talk about AIG's problems beginning with the loss of its AAA rating, which led to collateral calls on it. After the Death of Wall Street in September those calls became a cascade, leading to the bail out. Most of those who received AIG $$ never lost a dime and have received 100% of their contracted payments. Isn't it odd that, with all the talk of sacrifice in the air, that these contracts continue to be honored - no questions asked. Are you feeling ripped off yet?

Atlas Insurance Group, Part 6

Here is something that is becoming increasingly rare - somebody standing up for themselves:

Dear A.I.G., I Quit!
I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

Th writer is able to go out with his head held high ecause he believes he has done nothing wrong and has been ill-used by his bosses and his ostensible political leaders.

Ultimaltely, AIG's non-felonious employees are suffering for the sins of a razzle-dazzle group that has apparently been allowed to leave AIG quietly and, so far, retain their "earnings" from the last few years, leaving others to clean up their mess and face a full frontal assault from statist Dems and their media allies. That is a basic fraying of the social contract that canno tbe repaired without prosecutions and public exposure of the wrong-doers, and a show of restraint and respect for law from our elites. Neither of these options appear to be on the table.

The problem with the AIG bailout has been the utter lack of transparency. Until last week the $170 billion bailout had barely been spoken of, as AIG, the government, and the media engaged in a seeming conspiracy of silence to obfuscate and hide the truth of what was happening there.

The letter writer speaks of working 14 hour days to help AIG. Have you ever had a sense that this was happening? I haven't. After 9/11, there was a very publci display of flags and workers at the disaster sites. There has been no such display by AIG. No one really knows what's going on there, or at its counter-parties. In an atmosphere like that, of course a bonus payment - even if deserved - would look bad.

I have no idea what the writer's political associations are. It could be he's non-political. Then, again he makes an effort to emphasize his humble "son of two teachers," "mill town" roots, which makes him sound like a Democrat. If he is, he has undoubtedly marinated in tales of "stupid" Republicans," and the like. For people who like to think of themselves as liberal, I hope the last 8 weeks have been educational. Their preferred leaders have revealed themselves to be little more than disingenuous statist authoritarians, prone to panic and punitive acts to salve their left-wing base. Whatever rising tide of anger is out there, don't call it "populist." Call it a revolt of the productive class against those who have abused it.




Atlas Insurance Group, pt 5

Oh, for Pete's sake. AIG's now notorious "Financial Products" division is in trouble with the IRS for helping set up dodgy tax shelters for its counter-parties: AIG's Bonus Unit Now in IRS's Sights

Some of the same banks that got government-funded payouts to settle contracts with American International Group Inc. also turned to the insurer for help cutting their income taxes in the U.S. and Europe, according to court records and people familiar with the business.

The Internal Revenue Service is challenging some of the tax deals structured by AIG Financial Products Corp., the same unit of the New York company that has caused political ire over $165 million in employee bonuses.

The company paid $61 million last year in disputed taxes stemming from the deals but sued the U.S. government last month in federal court in New York, seeking a refund, according to filings in the case.

Banks that worked with AIG on tax deals include Crédit Agricole SA of France, Bank of Ireland and Bank of America Corp., according to AIG's lawsuit. The banks declined to comment.


The AIG debacle continues to be an under- and misreported story with a media/congressional mob forming over penny-ante bonuses while billion dollar rip-offs are relegated to the newspaper's back pages. 

The incuriosity about these sorts of things is chilling. Certainly, there are congressmen who are aware of what is happening, and who are exercising a modicum of oversight, but their efforts go unaired in the media. Look at what happened with the "bonus" story. The Obama administration and its allies almost got away with claiming that they were "shocked! shocked!" by it all. As it turned out, the bonuses were discussed in detail, and were the subject of congressional inquiry just two weeks ago. But, the only way you would have known that would have been if you were actually at the hearing!

We are not hearing the full story of AIG, nor are the bad actors being exposed and punished. Rather than demanding the return of bonuses, we should be seeing demands that AIG's financial products division be prosecuted for fraud, if anything. Instead, many apparently are still on the job, or have been allowed to leave discreetly. There has been an unregulated and unsupervised expenditure of $170 billion because of these guys. The present circumstance is simply an injustice. I doubt the financial system can truly recover a sense of trust, and thus cannot recover its bearings at all, until malefactors such as these are brought to justice. 

Finding the Hidden News

here's what you will find on page A18 in the NY Times today: Many in Government Knew Weeks Ago About A.I.G. Bonuses

The question was direct and prescient. Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, asked theTreasury secretary in an open hearing what could be done to stopAmerican International Group from paying $165 million in bonuses to hundreds of employees in the very unit that had nearly destroyed the company.

Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, responded by saying thatexecutive pay in the financial industry had gotten “out of whack” in recent years, and pledged to crack down on exorbitant pay at companies like A.I.G. that were being bailed out with billons of taxpayer dollars.

The exchange took place before the House Ways and Means Committee on March 3 — one week before Mr. Geithner claims he first learned that the failed insurance company was about to pay a round of bonuses that have since caused a political uproar.

It's maybe too obvious to point that if the Indispensable Man were a Republican, he wouldn't be getting the "buried in the back pages" treatment. 

The AIG bonus story is outrageous. It has also been great fun to watch for those of us who were against the bailouts from the beginning. But, it's time to get real. The primary scandal is the huge sums paid out by the gov't with AIG as its conduit. The secondary scandal is the behavior of the political class, which has been engaging in a "shocked! shocked!" routine that is completely bogus. As you can see from the above, the bonuses were widely known and discussed. I have never heard of Congressman Crowley. I assume he has a staff, a basic level of reading comprehension, and a brain. I would assume he didn't just stumble accidentally into this question about AIG bailouts. 

That the Congress and the Obama Administration is now expressing its faux-rage is disingenuous and an insult to the intelligence of their supporters. It's also clear that they know things about the bailouts that are not widely discussed, or even acknowledged, except behind closed doors. You can get away with that if you're talking about national security, but not over the unregulated expenditure of a trillion dollars to the financial sector. The bailouts and their enablers should be the target. Not the stupid bonuses. 

It's time to put away childish distractions and attack the root of this on-going scandal.

Atlas Insurance Group, pt 4

It's fine to get "outraged" and "all het up" about the AIG bonuses, but they are merely symbolic of the real scandal that has been playing out there since last September. You can read the amateur version of the scandal by clicking the AIG link on this blog, but you should also go here to read the professionals at the W$J describe the real AIG outrage.

Since September 16, AIG has sent $120 billion in cash, collateral and other payouts to banks, municipal governments and other derivative counterparties around the world. This includes at least $20 billion to European banks. The list also includes American charity cases like Goldman Sachs, which received at least $13 billion. This comes after months of claims by Goldman that all of its AIG bets were adequately hedged and that it needed no "bailout." Why take $13 billion then? This needless cover-up is one reason Americans are getting angrier as they wonder if Washington is lying to them about these bailouts.


They also touch on something that I have begun to wonder: what is the connection between the Spitzer-induced resignation of Hank Greenberg and AIG's present state? Was his loss a boon or a bane for AIG and its fraudsters, or for us? And, what exactly was Spitzer driving at? He made all sorts of wild accusations, but then dropped them without explanation. Why? Given how things have played out, I have a lot more sympathy for the Spitzer position (it kills me to admit this, I assure you), but Greenberg sincerely seems to believe that AIG was destroyed precisely because he was not there to restrain the worst impulses of its management. This requires more thought

Pensions and AIG

Speaking of suicide, do you want to know what pensions have in common with AIG? Do you even have the strength of will to want to know?

What do pensions have in common with AIG? It turns out a lot. Both were claiming to run a core business when in reality they were fueling a Ponzi scheme using "sophisticated instruments" or "alternative investments" that threaten the security of the global financial system. That's why AIG's dismal results back in August spelled trouble for pension funds.

Just like AIG, most pension funds lack transparency, allowing them to operate beyond the reach of regulators. Moreover, there is no accountability or serious risk management taking place at any of these large pension funds, allowing senior managers to reap huge bonuses for taking excessive risks (typically by beating bogus benchmarks in private markets).

And just like AIG, when their financial solvency eventually reaches a breaking point, these pension funds are going to require billions, if not trillions, in bailout funds to allow them to meet their pension obligations.

You'd better get ready because Uncle Scam wants your money and there is nothing you can do to stop him.

Yes, there is, but it would require people getting out of bed and voting. Developing, as they say...

A Good Death

Charles Grassley seems to have confused some folks with this comment: 

"The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them if they'd follow the Japanese model and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things -- resign, or go commit suicide,'' Grassley (R-Iowa) said on an Iowa radio station, WMT, a clip repeated on a Washington news station, WTOP.
Fat chance! This ain't Japan, buddy. Americans - especially obscenely rich Americans who destroy their companies, but demand their bonuses because "there's a contract" - lack the sense of shame and honor that underlies the "Japanese model." (do they teach that in Japanese business schools?)

It's a rare moment when a rich or powerful American businessman takes responsibility for their crimes. The only one in recent years that I can think of was Martha Stewart, who packed up and went to jail like a man, rather than hide behind her appellate lawyer like most white collar defendants. 

Atlas Insurance Group, pt 3

For once in my life, I am in complete agreement with Robert Riech: Robert Reich: The Real Scandal of AIG

The administration is said to have been outraged when it heard of the bonus plan last week. Apparently Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner told AIG's chairman, Edward Liddy (who was installed at the insistence of the Treasury, in the first place) that the bonuses should not be paid. But most will be paid anyway, because, according to AIG, the firm is legally obligated to do so. The bonuses are part of employee contracts negotiated before the bailouts. And, in any event, Liddy explained, AIG needed to be able to retain talent.

AIG's arguments are absurd on their face. Had AIG gone into chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid; indeed, AIG's executives would have long ago been on the street. And any mention of the word "talent" in the same sentence as "AIG" or "credit default swaps" would be laughable if it laughing weren't already so expensive.

Apart from AIG's sophistry is a much larger point. This sordid story of government helplessness in the face of massive taxpayer commitments illustrates better than anything to date why the government should take over any institution that's "too big to fail" and which has cost taxpayers dearly. Such institutions are no longer within the capitalist system because they are no longer accountable to the market. So to whom should they be accountable? When taxpayers have put up, and essentially own, a large portion of their assets, AIG and other behemoths should be accountable to taxpayers. When our very own Secretary of the Treasury cannot make stick his decision that AIG's bonuses should not be paid, only one conclusion can be drawn: AIG is accountable to no one. Our democracy is seriously broken.

Absolutely right, although it doesn't help that the Indispensable Man has been so intimidated by AIG's executives. He really missed a chance to stand up for himself and the taxpayers, and instead lazily acquiesced faster than Paulson would have. 

This business about how the "bonuses" must be paid because of pre-existing contracts is absurd. Breach the damned contracts and let's see these guys try to get their money through the courts. Let them try to bring lawsuits to enforce these contracts. I think it's high time America came face to face with the whizzes who have done so much to destroy our financial system, and yet continue demand their perquisites.

Reich is right that AIG and the rest of the Bailed Out are no longer within the capitalist system. They are demanding, and getting, government protection, despite that protection being ruinously expensive and deeply unpopular.  AIG has spent nearly twice as much $$ as the entire Marshall Plan, but the only recipients of that largesse has been fellow members of the financial community. It is time to turn off the $pigot, but our government is too cowed to do so. 

Atlas Insurance Group, pt 2

I had to do a double take when I saw this just a second ago on the NY Times website: A.I.G. to Pay $100 Million in Bonuses After Huge Bailout

In his letter to the Treasury, Mr. Liddy said that A.I.G. was required to pay about $165 million in bonuses on or before March 15. The company had already paid $55 million in December, but the rest was about to come due.

The bonus plan covers 400 employees, and the bonuses range from as little as $1,000 to as much as $6.5 million. About seven executives at the financial products unit were entitled to receive more than $3 million in bonuses.

Under a deal reached this week, A.I.G. agreed that the top 50 executives in the financial products division would get half of the $9.6 million they were supposed to get by March 15. The second of their bonuses would be paid out in two installments in July in September. 

WHAT?! After a $170 Billion (or whatever) taxpayer bailout, they should be giving us bonuses!

But, surely, you are thinking, these payments are going to AIG's high performers who had profitable years in AIG divisions that had nothing to do with CDO's and CDS's, right? Ha! If you think that, you have a lot to learn about High Finance:

The bonuses will be paid to executives at American International Group’s Financial Products division, the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps that protected investors from defaults on bond backed by subprime mortgages.

These guys shouldn't be getting bonuses. They should be getting arrested. I can't believe it wasn't fraud to write "trillions of dollars worth of credit default swaps" when AIG lacked even a minimal capital cushion to make good on those contracts. And, why in the world are they even still working for AIG? They destroyed it! Whatever they might have "earned" last year, they more than made up for by "losing" $150 billion in two days last September.

I wrote here that, rather than being the odd man out among the Bailed Out, AIG is actually the linchpin to the financial crisis. It certainly looks more and more like that is the case. It began to fail immediately after Lehman Bros. crashed because suddenly all of AIG's CDS clients came calling at once looking for their payouts. That immediately put AIG's insurance business at immediate risk of a catastrophic collapse, thus the Fed's immediate move to prop up AIG despite its complete lack of regulatory sway over AIG. $150 billion quickly disappeared into AIG's coffers, to be paid out to the lucky institutions that were at the other end of all of those CDS's. 

The Fed has since stoutly refused to explain where that money has gone and who has been getting it. It is practically a state secret. A gov't that had no trouble "punishing" the shareholders of Bear Sternes and Lehman Bros.; that has been happily browbeating Bank of America into buying Merrill Lynch; and that has made American auto executives crawl on their knees; has suddenly become discreet and tight lipped about the biggest bailout of them all. Speculation has at least some of that money going to Europe, Japan, and China. Does anyone at the Fed or the White House want to be standing around when & if people learn what is going on?

The AIG story has been buried in highly technical language that has served to mask what is going on there. But it's really quite simple. The Fed is giving tens of billions to AIG, so that AIG can forward those billions to institutions that bought AIG's CDS's. Those instruments apparently were sold at a relatively low price, and without adequate capital on AIG's side to make good on them should there be a default. Sucks for AIG (and us), but the counter-parties are making out like bandits. Goldman Sachs and Deutch Bank have each received $6 Billion through the AIG bailout. Um, didn't Paulson work at Goldman? And isn't Deutche Bank a freakin' European bank? Shouldn't that be getting the same level of media attention as, say, the story of Sarah Palin's wardrobe?

Some have theorized that, but for the AIG payments, some institutions would be insolvent. Thus, AIG has become a sort of shadow bailout over which there has been no oversight or even the fiction of congressional approval. No wonder these guys think they can demand their bonuses. If AIG falls, then the system falls with it. 

Atlas Insurance Group

Charlottesvillian over at TigerHawk finally distills the AIG "problem" to its essential terms:

As I understand it, the losses at AIG, the parent, are a result of various credit default swaps made with outside counterparties. At one point these contracts were so out of the money that they probably required tiny premiums to AIG to take the risks (wrapping AAA rated MBS, CDOs etc). The risk of collapse of mortgage markets in particular but also probably other market sectors were perceived as being virtually non-existent. These were contracts where they would pay only in extreme, long-tail events, and the revenues off this book of business were probably pretty small on a per contract basis. Hence, a lot of contracts had to be written to make the business worthwhile, and since the risks were seen as virtually non-existent, this was a management decision in an unregulated entity. Now, we are in the long tail that AIG financial engineers did not foresee, and the contracts have sucked all the capital out of AIG, plus everything the government has given them. 

So let’s walk through this. The government pays money to AIG so AIG can continue to honor its contracts. It is making payments under these contracts, to the counterparties on these contracts. The amount of capital given to AIG by the government, most of which AIG has presumably paid out, has reached $180 Billion. That is a lot of money, and is on top of however much capital AIG had before the crisis, which was also sucked out under swap agreements and paid to counter parties. 

Isn’t it curious that for all the talk on all the channels all day, all the Paulson speeches, all the hearings with bankers paraded before House panels, no one has mentioned where the huge amounts of money flowing out of AIG are going? They must be going to a number of big institutions. Probably their CEOs stood before Congress only three weeks ago. Some of them are getting AIG money, but they remain silent. The government must know who is getting the money, and they remain silent too. Yet somehow it apparently feels compelled to provide AIG a ceaseless stream of capital to pay to these outside institutions. Will these institutions fail if the AIG contracts stop paying? This must be concern, noting else makes sense other than outright looting. 
AIG has been the enigma among all of the bailouts. AIG began to fail immediately after Lehman Bros. tumbled into bankruptcy. I remember seeing the Wall Street Journal headline announcing the near simultaneous crash of Lehman, Merrill, and AIG. AIG! There had barely been a whisper of trouble for AIG before that fateful week. 

I may not agree with the bank bailouts, but I at least understand why the Federal Reserve would be lending to banks, and the federal gov't would be backing them up. The same goes for Fannie, Freddie, and the Big 3. History and the law provide the feds with a role in bailing out these entities, even if I disagree. 

But AIG has gotten more money than any of these. That's a pretty good trick, especially when you consider that the Fed has no statutory authority to lend to an insurance company. Same goes for the federal government. And yet they are desperately working to make sure AIG keeps making those damn CDS and CDO payments. Why?

What's incredible is the veil of secrecy that has been drawn over all this. Oh sure, we all "know" that AIG has been bailed out, but no one quite knows why or how. Most explanations are given in highly precise technical language that tax the ordinary person's comprehension. No matter how many times you hear it, it just doesn't make sense that some credit default swaps sold by AIG's hotshot London office would cause a giant insurer like AIG to suddenly require an "emergency" infusion of $150 billion (some emergency!). We hear that "collateral calls" were made, but we never know who made these and whether these calls proved profitable. 

Look at what has happened this week. AIG announced a $60 billion loss for the last quarter. $60. Billion. No company can do that and live. And, yet it was announced almost indirectly, via rumor and then press release. No one from AIG, that I know of, stood up at high noon on Monday and announced that it had taken such a staggering loss (a loss that occurred after our $150 billion bailout). After the loss was not announced, it was announced that the government would be providing an additional $30 billion to AIG. Again, this was done by indirection and implication. It appeared on Yahoo's main page on Sunday night, and then the Monday papers. No one - not Ben Bernanke, or Nancy Pelosi, or Sheila Bair, or President Obama, or the Indispensable Man, or Elliot Spitzer - stood up and said "this is what happened. this is what we're doing. this is how it ends." 

Look at this article in the NY Times, which purports to describe the "new" bailout. You want to know what's strange about it? Not one human being involved in these deliberations is identified by name! (Edward M Liddy is mentioned in passing in describing AIG's recent history). This from the newspaper that fearlessly spoke truth to power by publishing national security secrets, along with the names of the relevant government agents and officials, during the NSA spy wars of a couple years ago. The same media organizations that are ready to fill an hour's coverage with tales of expensive waste baskets, and corporate jets, have been strangely passive about the incredible expenditure of funds that have disappeared into AIG's maw. Why?

AIG has gotten nearly $200 billion is bailout money, and yet it is a dead institution. $200 billion to one company in a little less than 5 months. It's dumbfounding. It's incomprehensible. And C.villian is right; there has never been a time when someone from the federal government has stood up and explained what is going on. I mean, we have "progressive" congressmen who would knock their grandmother to the ground to denounce the Pentagon's latest $600 toilet seat. We have Senators who think we should amend the Constitution to ban flag burning. Right now, there are people agitating to let gays serve in the military, but wondering if they "move too soon" it might hurt President Obama. Doesn't anyone wonder what the virtually silent expenditure of $200 billion for the benefit of a single company might do to his popularity? 

The multi-billion dollar question is: who is getting all this money? I strongly suspect that, if the American people ever found out, there would be hell to pay. Tigerhawk's commenters seem to think it's an unholy combination of big-league US and European banks. The Market Ticker thinks it's mostly going to the Chinese. Most would probably say all of the above and more. 

No matter where the money's going, it appears from the outside that AIG is the linchpin for the crisis in the financial world. AIG was insuring against the loss of value in real estate. That loss was considered so remote that AIG did not seriously believe it would ever have to make good on these contracts. Now, the banks, SIV's and other institutions that endured their own losses from the real estate crash are hanging on to their AIG contract payments with all their might. And the federal government is abetting this with an incalculable transfer of US tax money. 

I'm beginning to think it's in some sort of crazed feedback loop with money simply going around the world and back because no one wants to know what will happen if the machine is turned off. But, if the truth is ever found out, the American people - even those shiny happy people in Grant Park last November - will shut it off. 

Best Retirement Invesments Auto Search