In short: Recommended as the cheap self-help story: trades around book value, "AIG checks that box — it really hasn't worked." Large-account mix is wrong for a soft market, but you are "compensated quite a bit" — a new CEO has blessed 2027 targets driven by expense saves and reinsurance synergies, not the cycle; ~11% ROE, now a pure-play P&C after the last Corebridge stake. Eisman owns it.
AIG is the insurer that nearly collapsed in 2008 and spent over a decade cleaning up. Its customer mix — big corporations — is actually the worst kind for a soft market. But the stock trades at about book value (roughly what its net assets are worth), so you are paid for that weakness.
The "self-help" case: a new CEO has endorsed 2027 targets that come mostly from cutting costs and buying its own reinsurance more cleverly — things management controls, not the insurance cycle. It has now sold its last piece of its life business, making it a simple property & casualty company earning about 11% on equity.
29:53hasn't worked AIG checks that box it really hasn't worked and why hasn't it worked?
29:59I think that's actually a reasonably good question. it trades it around book value.
In short: A low-conviction aside — David Hay mentions he also holds AIG, but as a "more diversified" name rather than a pure life-insurance bet like Lincoln. No real argued view.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.