Hank Greenberg is one of the most iconic of characters in the insurance and finance worlds. Maria Bartiromo of Businessweek had an interesting interview with him recently:

MARIA BARTIROMO

A New York Times story last week suggested that you are poaching talent from AIG and reconstructing the AIG model at your privately held firm, C.V. Starr. Is your intention to build a competitor to AIG?
MAURICE “HANK” GREENBERG

No. Look, I’m building an insurance company and an investment company. We didn’t poach anybody. We hired 13 people from AIG out of the 100,000-plus they have. We didn’t poach them; they came to us. A lot of them had left AIG previously. I know one company in Switzerland that hired 130 people from AIG.

So you’re saying AIG’s talent is fleeing?
That’s been going on for some time.

Are the restrictions on executive compensation imposed by pay czar Ken Feinberg driving talent into your arms?
They’re driving people into anybody’s arms, not just mine. Anybody in the insurance business. Why would someone running an important area of the company and doing a good job stay there for the maximum of $200,000 when they can maybe make $400,000 to $600,000 someplace else?

I’m sure you’ve thought about this, but what if Spitzer had not forced you out as CEO of AIG in 2005? How would things have been different?
It would have been 100% different. Nothing like [what has happened] would have taken place. [AIG] would have been strong. Oh, we would have had some losses, but they would have been minuscule compared with what we’ve seen.

How much money would you have saved the American taxpayer?
We wouldn’t, in my judgment, have had to borrow any money from the taxpayer.

What would you have done differently?
I know for a fact that [Martin] Sullivan told everybody: “Just do everything you want, get as much business as you can, and don’t worry about a goddam thing.” Everything they did disregarded risk management. That’s not the way you run a company. And the board sat on its tail. Frank Zarb did nothing. He was the goddam chairman. What did he do?

Did he understand what was happening?
Well, he was chairman. Shouldn’t he have known? What did he get paid for as chairman? Just to go to a meeting?

And if I remember correctly, the board increased their salaries.
Yes, they did. They were working so hard, they increased their salaries.

If you had still been at the helm of AIG during that black week in September 2008, and it became clear AIG needed a bailout to survive, would you have gone to the government or tapped into your connections in China and elsewhere?
I’d have done everything I could to keep the government out. Absolutely.

Since you left AIG, there have been a string of executives in charge: Sullivan, Robert Willumstad, Edward Liddy, and now Robert Benmosche. How would you rate the job Benmosche is doing?
From what I can see, he’s doing a pretty good job. He’s an experienced executive. He ran MetLife (MET). I think he’s a better leader. But if you can’t pay reasonable compensation, I don’t care how good you are.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was asked on Meet the Press on Nov. 1 if he would like to see AIG prosper. And he said: “I’d like it to be successful enough that the taxpayer can get out.” After that, he said he didn’t care what happened.
That’s a really great statement, isn’t it?

What’s the government’s goal here?
To liquidate the company and pay the taxpayer back. But the taxpayer will never be paid back by liquidating AIG. The only way to get paid back is to rebuild the company so it becomes viable again. Why was it decided AIG would be the sacrificial lamb?

Was it to save Goldman Sachs?
Maybe. But I think there’s got to be a complete investigation of who did what and why.

How significant has this been in terms of wealth destruction for you?
Considerable. Not just for me, but for every one of the employees and executives at AIG. And how many shareholders? AIG had a market cap of $180 billion when I left. Goddam near worthless today.

Maria Bartiromo is the anchor of CNBC’s Closing Bell and writes the blog, Maria Bartiromo’s Investor Agenda, at http://investoragenda.cnbc.com.

The Wall Street Journal had a great piece that is one of my favorites of the newspaper, a human interest story targeting a specific individual that tells a bigger story about the company he/she works for. This particular story is about a subject that I follow closely – that of AIG, now rebranded Chartis. Mr. Eastwood seems to be doing a good job but is still “deep in the woods”. Follow the link at the end of the piece to find the original wsj.com page.

In January, Peter Eastwood, the leader of one of the largest insurers in the U.S., walked into a broker’s office with a plea. “We want our partners to stick with us,” he said.

Mr. Eastwood had just been promoted to run Lexington Insurance Co., one of American International Group Inc.’s most profitable units, and he wanted to prevent jittery clients from bolting after last September’s government bailout.

“It’s been a humbling process,” says Mr. Eastwood, 42 years old. Although he had nothing to do with causing the mess that forced the government to swoop in, paying back the roughly $80 billion that AIG owes the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Treasury Department hinges largely on executives such as Mr. Eastwood who run the company’s many insurance units.

Those businesses need to thrive so the company can sell them or steer profits to the government — and still have something left over.

Before AIG nearly collapsed under the weight of its credit-default swaps, the insurer was widely seen as an indomitable force. The swagger is largely gone, with executives and employees now having to reassure clients about the New York company’s financial strength, fend off poaching and scramble for new business.

On Monday, the Government Accountability Office said in a report that AIG’s operations “have begun to show signs of stabilizing” but that the “ultimate success of AIG’s restructuring and repayment efforts remains uncertain.”

AIG has tried to hold and attract desired commercial-insurance customers. But business has suffered, with premiums declining at a double-digit percentage rate in the second quarter from a year earlier in the massive property-and-casualty division that includes Lexington. Income has tumbled in the division by more than 40% to $1 billion, after factoring out capital gains and losses.

New AIG chief Robert Benmosche is weighing whether he wants to keep the global property-and-casualty business, which has been rebranded Chartis, or sell a stake in the unit to investors.

Mr. Eastwood and other executives who toil mostly outside the glare directed at the outspoken Mr. Benmosche and his predecessors face the relentless challenge of essentially trying to run their businesses amid the turmoil. Some customers say the distractions have been obvious.

Last month, Stanford University Medical Center decided to drop two AIG policies, including one from Lexington for medical-malpractice claims. AIG was “really concentrated on their problems, rather than our problems,” says Jeff Driver, the medical center’s chief risk officer, who dealt with different AIG executives, not Mr. Eastwood. “It seemed to be more about them than about us.”
[lexington and churchhill downs] Getty Images

Lexington Insurance, a major AIG subsidiary, sells coverage to many high-profile clients, including Churchill Downs, where the Kentucky Derby is run.

A Chartis spokeswoman says many insurance clients “have appreciated our open and customer-focused approach” during the past year, adding that it “has become an even greater advantage for us in the marketplace.”

On its own, Lexington would be one of the nation’s largest insurers. It has logged tidy profits, including $1.5 billion in 2007, or 27% of the total for AIG’s commercial-insurance operations. Lexington takes on big and unusual risks shunned by many rivals, from onshore oil rigs to sports facilities. Lexington customers include some of the largest U.S. companies, such as General Electric Co., and the insurer is willing to commit millions of dollars on a single policy.

At the time of the AIG bailout, Mr. Eastwood handled health-care accounts at Lexington as a deputy to Kevin Kelley, who had turned the unit into a crown jewel for its parent. Last December, Mr. Eastwood was showering at a Houston hotel when an AIG executive called with word that Mr. Kelley was leaving with his top aide to join a rival. Mr. Eastwood was asked to take over.

Mr. Eastwood caught a flight back to Boston, where Lexington is based, alert to the danger that Mr. Kelley’s departure might spark an exodus. “By the time I get back to 100 Summer St., will I be the only one left in the building?” he recalls thinking.

The Rhode Island native launched a campaign to persuade people to stay. One pivotal moment came in an employee Webcast, where Mr. Eastwood spoke and then asked other top Lexington executives to talk, too. “To me, it was about securing the top and working my way down,” he says.

After the bailout, AIG established retention programs that called for giving thousands of employees bonuses ranging from $92,500 to $4 million. AIG hasn’t disclosed how much specific individuals at Lexington or elsewhere in the company were promised. “They went up to Boston with a bag of money,” says one person familiar with the matter. Mr. Eastwood says compensation hasn’t been “a central theme of the conversations.” The bonuses were distinct from the controversial payments that went to employees of the financial-products unit whose problems largely sparked the bailout.

There were tense moments. Shortly after taking over, Mr. Eastwood called Geof McKernan, the head of NSM Insurance Group, an agency in Conshohocken, Pa. “Are you calling to tell me everything is OK?” Mr. McKernan asked, according to both men. “What are you going to do when the top 10 people in your organization walk out in one week?”

“I don’t think that’s going to happen,” Mr. Eastwood replied.

Mr. Eastwood got credit for keeping the top Lexington staff largely intact, though the threat isn’t gone. According to people familiar with the matter, a rival insurer tried last month to hire a Lexington executive who had been Mr. Eastwood’s peer before he got the top job at the unit. AIG responded to the attempted raid by promoting the executive to a position outside Lexington, and he stayed.

Since taking over at Lexington, Mr. Eastwood also has hit the road, traveling to more than 20 cities from San Diego to London to meet with customers and brokers, some of whom already were nervous because of the bailout.

In January, Mr. Eastwood went to Charlotte, N.C., and met with Steve DeCarlo, who heads an insurance brokerage, AmWINS Group Inc., which does more than $150 million of business with Lexington. “He understands the challenge ahead of him,” Mr. DeCarlo says. “He’s nobody’s dummy.”

It helps that AIG still is a huge player in commercial insurance, so finding alternatives at a competitive price can be hard, says Jim Rubel, an executive vice president at Lockton Inc., a Kansas City, Mo., brokerage.

Many customers also are comforted by the billions of dollars that AIG’s insurance units have for paying claims and oversight of AIG’s claims-paying strength by state insurance regulators. In May, Wyndham Worldwide Corp. renewed a policy with Lexington that provides $25 million of coverage for property damage at hundreds of the Parsippany, N.J., company’s hotels.

Mr. Driver, the Stanford risk manager, hasn’t ruled out a return to AIG. “We just want to step back and see how they develop,” he says.

Mr. Eastwood says the situation “feels a lot more stable.” This month, he spoke again to Mr. McKernan and asked the Pennsylvania insurance executive how things were going. “AIG’s not having any negative effect on my business. You’ve been able to keep your team together,” Mr. McKernan said. “So I’m happy.”

You can find the original HERE at wsj.com.

Chubb provides a newsletter that has some great tips and examples of how we can and why we should lower our exposure for liability claims. A recent article is found HERE and has some good tips to follow.

Consider these tips to lower your exposure from accommodation requests:

* Review your disability policy. Is it clear how accommodation requests are made (preferably in writing) and how they are evaluated within your organization?
* Provide Americans with Disabilities Act and sensitivity training to your managers and supervisors. Make certain that your managers and supervisors do not automatically refuse employee requests for accommodation because they seem “out of the ordinary” or violate a minor policy.
* Make certain that managers and supervisors quickly refer all accommodation requests to human resources for evaluation.
* When presented with an accommodation request, consider the cause and extent of the employee’s restriction. This will help you determine whether the employee has a true disability that substantially limits him or her in a major life activity.
* Consult medical specialists in the field of the person’s disability.
* When organization rules (e.g., no eating at a desk) conflict with doctor ordered treatment plans, make certain that needs for the rule substantially outweigh the treatment needs of the employee.
* Finally, note that most accommodation requests cost very little in time or money.

Adult obesity rates increased in 23 states and did not decrease in a single state in the past year, according to F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies Are Failing in America 2009, a report released today by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).

How Obesity Policies are Failing in America

July 2009

The percentage of obese or overweight children is at or above 30 percent in 30 states. Mississippi had the highest rate of adult obesity at 32.5 percent, making it the fifth year in a row that the state topped the list. Four states now have rates above 30 percent, including Mississippi, Alabama (31.2 percent), West Virginia (31.1 percent), and Tennessee (30.2 percent). Eight of the 10 states with the highest percentage of obese adults are in the South. Colorado continued to have the lowest percentage of obese adults at 18.9 percent.

Adult obesity rates now exceed 25 percent in 31 states and exceed 20 percent in 49 states and Washington, D.C. Two-thirds of American adults are either obese or overweight. In 1991, no state had an obesity rate above 20 percent. In 1980, the national average for adult obesity was 15 percent. Sixteen states experienced an increase for the second year in a row, and 11 states experienced an increase for the third straight year.

Mississippi also had the highest rate of obese and overweight children (ages 10 to 17) at 44.4 percent. Minnesota and Utah had the lowest rate at 23.1 percent. Eight of the 10 states with the highest rates of obese and overweight children are in the South. Childhood obesity rates have more than tripled since 1980.

The F as in Fat report contains rankings of state obesity rates and a review of federal and state government policies aimed at reducing or preventing obesity. Some additional key findings from F as in Fat 2009 include:

* The current economic crisis could exacerbate the obesity epidemic. Food prices, particularly for more nutritious foods, are expected to rise, making it more difficult for families to eat healthy foods. At the same time, safety-net programs and services are becoming increasingly overextended as the numbers of unemployed, uninsured and underinsured continue to grow. In addition, due to the strain of the recession, rates of depression, anxiety and stress, which are linked to obesity for many individuals, also are increasing.
* Nineteen states now have nutritional standards for school lunches, breakfasts and snacks that are stricter than current USDA requirements. Five years ago, only four states had legislation requiring stricter standards.
* Twenty-seven states have nutritional standards for competitive foods sold a la carte, in vending machines, in school stores or in school bake sales. Five years ago, only six states had nutritional standards for competitive foods.
* Twenty states have passed requirements for body mass index (BMI) screenings of children and adolescents or have passed legislation requiring other forms of weight-related assessments in schools. Five years ago, only four states had passed screening requirements.
* A recent analysis commissioned by TFAH found that the Baby Boomer generation has a higher rate of obesity compared with previous generations. As the Baby Boomer generation ages, obesity-related costs to Medicare and Medicaid are likely to grow significantly because of the large number of people in this population and its high rate of obesity. And, as Baby Boomers become Medicare-eligible, the percentage of obese adults age 65 and older could increase significantly. Estimates of the increase in percentage of obese adults range from 5.2 percent in New York to 16.3 percent in Alabama.

Key report recommendations for addressing obesity within health reform include:

* Ensuring every adult and child has access to coverage for preventive medical services, including nutrition and obesity counseling and screening for obesity-related diseases, such as type 2 diabetes;
* Increasing the number of programs available in communities, schools, and childcare settings that help make nutritious foods more affordable and accessible and provide safe and healthy places for people to engage in physical activity; and
* Reducing Medicare expenditures by promoting proven programs that improve nutrition and increase physical activity among adults ages 55 to 64.

The report also calls for a National Strategy to Combat Obesity that would define roles and responsibilities for federal, state and local governments and promote collaboration among businesses, communities, schools and families. It would seek to advance policies that

* Provide healthy foods and beverages to students at schools;
* Increase the availability of affordable healthy foods in all communities;
* Increase the frequency, intensity, and duration of physical activity at school;
* Improve access to safe and healthy places to live, work, learn, and play;
* Limit screen time; and
* Encourage employers to provide workplace wellness programs.