The AIU acronym, standing for American International Underwriters is not totally unknown--it's been used for several of AIG's non-US subsidiaries over the years, most prominently for the Shanghai branch office, which was AIG's 1919 birthplace.
Still, with a stock price languishing in penny stock territory ($1.02 as of Friday's close), is rebranding the wisest move? Current chairman Ed Liddy seems to think so: in a recent interview, he said AIG's brand was "thoroughly wounded and disgraced." Bringing underwriting into a prominent spot in its name could shift its image from a highflying financial player back to that of an insurance company, and mute some of the notoriety from the investing activities that got it into trouble in the first place.
Liddy's midtream rebranding, audacious as it is, is just one more such move in AIG's (pardon me, AIU's) chutzpah-laden history. It seems unlikely, though, that it's going to scrub any of the mud off its reputation. For the past two decades, the insurance industry has pushed hard to shed its stodgy, low ROI rep and join the Wall Street party. AIG, not surprisingly, was one of the more aggressive of the bunch. So its current move to reassume the insurance industry's mantle of safety, soundness, and traditional conservative financial husbandry rings more than a bit hollow.
Also, how much is this costing anyway? And who's paying for it?
AIU might be better off retaining the AIG name, and sticking with its knitting. For a rebranding to truly work, AIU would have to put its money where its mouth is: clean house, shed its high-flying financial arms, and focus on organic growth in its core businesses.
Otherwise, this rebranding will be nothing more than a new shade of lipstick on the same old ... lips.
My question is a tangent built upon another tangent, but here it goes...
ReplyDeleteAs you know, one of the reasons that we got into this mess is that financial institutions were allowed to shop for the most favorable regulatory agency. In the case of AIG they got the Office of Thrift Supervision, which is supposed to regulate S&Ls, not large insurance companies.
There is a movement to consolidate the agencies that oversee the various types of financial institutions - which I think is absolutely necessary. However I fear that the new agency could very easily wind up as a clumsy monstrosity along the lines of the Department of Homeland Security.
Your thoughts?