>I advise you to pay special attention to the last line in the table. Learning something new in the process may help you to be more careful with numbers when you decide to say something next time.
>
>Charming. Now, for your benefit:
>
>1) The bottom line to which you refer shows Net Tangible Assets of $60B in the current distressed market. That includes the government debt and $10B of negative shareholder equity. If you regard that as "a shade above $0" I'd be grateful if you could send me a similar paltry sum. ;-)
>
>2) Visit the same page and click on Annual Data rather than Quarterly data. As you'll see, the "bottom line" in which you are so interested is approximately $15B less today than it was in 2005 before the mess began. IOW according to your logic, AIG's total worth today is only $15B less than it was in 2005 at the height of its value and prestige. On that basis I challenge you to explain why the share price has plunged from >$50 then to pennies today if there's only $15B in it, shedding $200B market capitalization in the process.
>
>The figures that really matter are the liabilities section. Since 2005, liabilities have risen by *hundreds* of billions of dollars. That's where the government's billions are being poured. The next quarter's figures are worse which is why government is adding more $, but at some point the liabilities will be under control after which AIG is still a pretty good company.

It is plain hilarious. You have strange ideas how balance sheet works. When government gives loan to a company, it does not go to liabilities only. It goes to both sodes of the balance sheet, cash to assets, debt obligations to liabilities, i.e. it is neutral in accounting terms. However, it is just a part of the story, because if government buys equity shares (something you profess to like) then cash goes to assets and nothing goes to liabilities. It means that AIG tangible assets are propped up by government buying shares losing market value every day. Hopefully, you are familiar with basic market concept: the more shares you issue, the cheaper they become. You may also come up with simple arithmetic operation to find out how big would be AIG assets if you subtract government cash spent to buy new shares.
What is also not neutral is company performance, i.e. losing money all the way down the sink. By the way, if you believe that 60B is closer to your fantastic 1.5T (that you cheerfully touted over this board quite recently) than to zero, then you should check it again on your calculator. You may also check that 60B was the number for 09/30/2008 when the crisis just started. I kindly advise you to learn from this article http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0236343320090302?rpc=44
It may help you understand better how much money AIG loses in quarter/week/day etc, and project this rate to the number that you accidentally (with my help, by the way) learned. It might happen that my estimate of zero is too optimistic, one may talk about negative equity in this case.