Bargain alert

Bargain alert!

AIG warrants are selling for $25. We are looking at a 27% annualized return with little risk that I can see (and I have looked quite a bit). My online spreadsheet is here .

Details:

  • The warrants give you the right to buy AIG in January of 2021 at $45 / share. AIG’s book value is 80.16 per share and the common stock is selling for $56.98.
  • Since AIG’s liquidation value is about book value they should sell for more than book value since book value is growing. How much more? A conservative estimate is 1.15x book value by January 2021.
  • I am assuming 8% growth in book value per year, via ROE and buybacks at a discount to book value.
  • AIG is Bruce Berkowitzes Fairholme Fund’s largest position. His circle of competence is financials; that’s where he first made a name for himself in the 1990s.

Addressing Risks:

  • Will AIG have another crisis? I cannot see that happening anytime soon. They learnt their lesson.
  • How can we make 27% a year if AIG is growing at only 8% a year (ROE)? Because the price will go up.
  • Their portfolio is in bonds, what happens when rates rise? They gain. They will roll over their bonds into higher yielding bonds.
  • What happens if it takes time for the price of AIG to go up? They will continue buying back shares at a discount. This would actually give us better long term returns. Right now they are focusing on long term value creation. For this idea to work we need the price to overtake book value sometime between now and January 2021. Time is on our side.
  • What happens if I will not have the patience to wait it out for five years, will I be able to sell it next week for a quick gain? That is truly a risk I wouldn’t take if I were you.

I write this to counter all the doom and gloom going on :).

Disclaimer: AIG warrants are my single largest position (other than ETFs). I may buy or sell at any time without disclosing.

C:

 Thanks for posting this.

Bill

I’ve never dealt in warrants and I wanted to understand this and started doing the math.

AIG is currently trading around $57 and has a BVPS around $80. So the price/bv ratio today is .71.

Your calculations “Assume that we will sell in 2021 with the market value of common shares at 1.15 times book.” Why? This dramatic increase in price/BV seems to be the core thing that makes you find this investment appealing. Other large financial stocks currently trade in the same .7 ratio area, so it doesn’t appear wildly undervalued.

If we assume the 8% BV growth predictions for AIG are correct, but we don’t expect the valuation ratio to change then the share price in jan 2021 would be 84.6. At that price the warrants are only marginally more profitable than just buying the stock, but disastrously worse if growth is lower than the 8% prediction.

Chipper,

Thanks for sharing this. A few notes (admittedly not more than an hour of thinking):
a) Prior to 2008, AIG’s BookVal/MktCap ranged from .2 to .5 or so. Now it’s 1.29. It is slowly ‘mean reverting’ after the massive 2008 spike when it looked bankruptcy would happen.
b) Prior to 2008, the industry’s BookVal/MktCap was in the .5 to .7 range. So, Prior to 2008, AIG was valued much more highly than the industry. Since 2009, the industry book/val spiked to 1.4 and has fallen to .8 or so. So, the industry is close to the ‘normal range’, while AIG is not. Assuming AIG avoids any big risks or scandals, it’s book val/market cap levels should approach those of the industry (at least 50% appreciation) over the next 5 years.
a) The historical 500 Week SMA for book/Val in the insurance industry is .93; however most of this is due to post 2008 effects. Prior to 2008, you were getting about .6 Book Val/Mkt Cap.
(see Custom series “Insurance” here with about 100 stocks):
https://www.portfolio123.com/app/series/summary/2757?mt=8
So, I don’t think 1.15X book is conservative - although the Bookval/MktCap’s have been in a very steady and positive uptrend for the industry and AIG.

Facts that will complicate this are:
a) The overall returns to the industry at a whole
b) PE expansion / contraction to the market as a whole
c) The quality of the assets on it’s books.

So… I don’t think this is a surefire winner. On book value alone, not digging into the rest of the business, I do think it’s attractive. However, need a deep dive into the ‘quality of assets’ on the books of AIG vs. the industry as a whole to see if there are any distressed assets not really written down yet or likely of greater credit risk (lower quality).

If you like AIG should you buy warrants or the stock outright or very long-term options or some combo of stocks and options?

I haven’t had the time to think about this, but not sure why you like warrants as the best way to play this now vs. the other 2 possibilities (not to mention stock with put options for down-side hedge).
b) The current price of $25 for a warrant, to pay $45 for the stock, when the stock is selling for $58 or whatever, is roughly a 20% premium of the warrants over the stock (the warrants are more expensive), due to things like a) time value, b) downside risk protection. I can buy long-term options (1/1/2017) at $45 strike for $15. So, there’s a lot of embedded ‘assumed time value’ in the warrant price.

This is really a ‘cost’ you are paying for downside insurance (your loss is limited to $25/$58 - or 43% of your investment). The calc’s for whether the warrant is better or the stock outright are complicated and I don’t have time for them now. The main reason to buy the warrants seem to me to be a) cheap leverage (not a big deal in this environment) and b) a max total loss. However, they also give reduced upside (due to the current premium). The warrants are a less conservative way to play this than the stock outright or the stock, with option hedges that you roll over.

Best,
Tom

[quote]
I’ve never dealt in warrants
[/quote]This is my first and only time as well. I stole the template for the idea from Joel Greenblatt’s first book called “You Can be a Stock Market Genius”. It’s a great book where he tries to explain how he made 50% a year for ten years.[quote]
Your calculations “Assume that we will sell in 2021 with the market value of common shares at 1.15 times book.” Why?
[/quote]Because liquidation value +15% seems like a pretty close approximation to what it’s really worth. Why the +15%? Because if they were worth exactly liquidation value then they should theoretically close down shop and liquidate.

Experience has shown that the market doesn’t remain inefficient forever. Given enough time price tends to catch up with intrinsic value sooner or later. How? I don’t need to know yet. It might be through buybacks. It might be via pressure from shareholders to spin off some holdings. It may be in other ways. We have time.[quote]
This dramatic increase in price/BV seems to be the core thing that makes you find this investment appealing.
[/quote]Actually, my favorite thing about this is the low downside. How do you lose money on this one? Book value is a pretty stable yardstick and I don’t have to fear EPS fluctations. I also don’t have to worry about changes to interest rates or the economy or many other risk factors that other stocks have. All they need to do is to keep doing what they’ve been doing for years while buying back shares at a discount. Once you eliminate the downside then the other choices are all acceptable. The 8% growth projection is just an estimate. You may have a better estimate.[quote]
Other large financial stocks currently trade in the same .7 ratio area, so it doesn’t appear wildly undervalued.
[/quote]From what I gather, other financials may also be undervalued right now. I just happen to know AIG much better as I have been following it since I bought the warrants a few years ago at $15/share[quote]
If we assume the 8% BV growth predictions for AIG are correct, but we don’t expect the valuation ratio to change then the share price in jan 2021 would be 84.6. At that price the warrants are only marginally more profitable than just buying the stock, but disastrously worse if growth is lower than the 8% prediction.
[/quote]Every penny in cash that comes in grows book value. Every buyback at less than book grows book value. The 8% is just an estimate. Either way it’s hard to see a way to lose money here. Under likely projections the warrants are worth more than the stock. Bruce Berkowitz of Fairholme seems to think so, he sold a large chunk of the common and bought the warrants. I don’t know of anyone who knows AIG better than him.

Hi Tom,

I think that I may have addressed many of your concerns in my reply to the prior post, so I will just answer the new questions.

The market’s PE expansions/contractions should have little effect on AIG because we are using liquidation value as a yardstick. That’s actually one of my favorite arguments in favor of owning AIG. (Of course during a market crash all stocks go down but we have five years for it to work out.)

[quote]
I haven’t had the time to think about this, but not sure why you like warrants as the best way to play this now vs. the other 2 possibilities (not to mention stock with put options for down-side hedge).
b) The current price of $25 for a warrant, to pay $45 for the stock, when the stock is selling for $58 or whatever, is roughly a 20% premium of the warrants over the stock (the warrants are more expensive), due to things like a) time value, b) downside risk protection. I can buy long-term options (1/1/2017) at $45 strike for $15. So, there’s a lot of embedded ‘assumed time value’ in the warrant price.

This is really a ‘cost’ you are paying for downside insurance (your loss is limited to $25/$58 - or 43% of your investment). The calc’s for whether the warrant is better or the stock outright are complicated and I don’t have time for them now. The main reason to buy the warrants seem to me to be a) cheap leverage (not a big deal in this environment) and b) a max total loss. However, they also give reduced upside (due to the current premium). The warrants are a less conservative way to play this than the stock outright or the stock, with option hedges that you roll over.
[/quote]I look at it differently. I am not choosing between buying 100 shares of AIG vs 100 shares of warrants but instead I see it as choosing between putting $10,000 (for example) into AIG common or $10,000 into AIG warrants.

Warrants are valued using Black-Scholes but the formula is not accurate for five year warrants. These are points that Joel Greenblatt made in his book.

I wouldn’t necessarily use ‘Fairholme’ to make my choices. This FAIX fund has underperformed SP500 by a decent amount over past 10 years. That’s a fairly long time period of underperformance. This is more the ‘modern era’ of stock picking.

Besides, when Bruce Berkowitz bought AIG, he said he saw the true book value at $58 to $60. That means the stock is already back to book value he saw at time of purchase. See:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101008378

So, not clear what his exit price is.

The warrants are basically giving you leverage with downside protection. If you’re right, you can win much bigger - and if you’re wrong, your losses are limited (to invested capital - or 43% of position exposure at present). So, I get the logic and attractiveness of that if you it’s your high-conviction pick. It makes a lot of sense.

It is true that book value/mkt cap should converge over time as AIG keeps going, but that can happen two ways - Mkt Cap can rise, or book value can be written down (through sale of assets or 'write offs).

The book value of AIG excluding DTA and AOCI is about $58/share. The company also appears to be selling off many ‘non core’ assets, which is, I think good management - but their ability to sell at good prices will be impacted by the overall company earnings, the overall stock market and management’s ability to generate earnings on the core company - and keep the board happy.

If interest rates do stay low and/or investment returns are ‘below average’ or predictions, the company may very well end up losing on insurance policies as it’s investment returns don’t match the liabilities it’s writing towards. So, need to believe both in a) management’s underwriting ability and b) management’s investment ability.

If environmental catastrophe’s outpace their models, can lose a lot on property insurance, etc.

To have any real opinion on the ‘true book value’, requires a lot of detailed, bottom up analysis of core asset valuations. That’s not easy. Piggy backing on the backs of several major Hedge fund investors is one way to go - but they should have stellar track records in this regard. Seth Klarman also bought around 1/2013 time frame (at $38 price). So, stock has seen big run up since then. Seems, like a good trade, but way too much work (and/or impossible) for me to try to value it’s assets. It’s too big.

Best,
Tom

Tom,

I wouldn’t bet against Berkowitz. His record running separately managed accounts in the 1990’s was excellent. His mutual fund was in the top quartile for ten years straight. Investors don’t get rustier with age. I suspect that some of his underperformance can be indirectly attributed to that co-manager of his who has since left.

Your article from cnbc helps my thesis. AIG’s book value was $57-$60 per share back then and $80 today. To my simple math head that means that book value per share grew.[quote]
The book value of AIG excluding DTA and AOCI is about $58/share
[/quote]DTA is a pretty good asset. Why exclude it?[quote]
The company also appears to be selling off many ‘non core’ assets, which is, I think good management - but their ability to sell at good prices will be impacted by the overall company earnings, the overall stock market and management’s ability to generate earnings on the core company - and keep the board happy.
[/quote]There is no urgency to sell. If necessary they can hold out for a fair price.[quote]
If interest rates do stay low and/or investment returns are ‘below average’ or predictions, the company may very well end up losing on insurance policies as it’s investment returns don’t match the liabilities it’s writing towards. So, need to believe both in a) management’s underwriting ability and b) management’s investment ability.
[/quote]Sure anything is possible but what are the chances that book value will shrink over the next five years? Sure, a P&C company is in the business of insurance. There is always the risk that a season will have unusually high hurricanes. Still, even if a couple of Katrinas should not do permanent damage.[quote]
To have any real opinion on the ‘true book value’, requires a lot of detailed, bottom up analysis of core asset valuations. That’s not easy. Piggy backing on the backs of several major Hedge fund investors is one way to go - but they should have stellar track records in this regard.
[/quote]Actually, I am pretty sure that there is no one in the world who will accurately estimate the book value to the penny. Luckily if we buy at cheap enough prices we don’t need an exact figure for liquidation value.

I look at two things:
A. What is the maximum loss in a realistic worst case scenario. Answer: None.
B. What is the probable gain under the most likely scenario. A. About 27% a year.

Let’s not make it overly complicated folks.

Hi Chaim:

FWIW I agree with your thesis. I am holding warrants for some time and waiting for p/b to go to 1 before deciding what to do.

Hi crastogi,

Thanks. We value investors need to stick together you know :); there are so few of us.

While we are on the subject of insurance asset plays. What are your thoughts on GNW? The quality of assets is not like AIG, but if they can turn around their money losing LTC operation, the upside is going to be bigger. Plus as they are in multiple insurance segments, they may spinoff/ sell off portions at a favorable time.

I have not been doing too much manual stock picking recently and am not familiar with it. But a quick glance seems to indicate a cigar butt. Not a great business by any means but very cheap. Is it a value trap? I don’t know. I will leave the rest of the analysis to others due to time considerations.

In general, my rule of thumb before investing in such a business I would need to (a) either be comfortable with the downside or (b) buy a basket of these at such cheap prices that on average they will work out. But you already knew that.

Chaim

Thanks for the detailed reply. I’d love to see AIG >$120 for you at expiry. But this loses money if the stock price is <$70 (currently at 59.6). And its a 100% loss at a stock price of $45. I’ll agree its unlikely the price is lower in 5 years than it is today, but for me its not too hard to imagine a scenario in which AIGs share price simply doesn’t rise as much as you’re hoping even if the BV growth assumption are correct. For the warrants to be more profitable than the stock we need around a >5% AR for the next 5 years, and really our prediction needs to be higher than that to justify the additional risk of large % loss.

Chaim,

A lot of people are making this same bet, and you’re definitely not alone:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/889291-aig-warrants-demystified
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/02/27/im-selling-aig-stock-and-buying-warrants.aspx

From 1999 to now, AIG’s grown book value Q2Q by 17% per quarter. However, over past 2.5 years, it’s grown by just around 3% total (according to P123 Series numbers)
See:
https://www.portfolio123.com/app/stock/fundamentalChart

So… 8%/yr growth is not a highly conservative assumption.

I think you’ve got some shot at a big winner, and I’m rooting for you, but I’m also not sure how you can say the risk of loss is zero. We’ll see. If the stock is selling for less then $45 + the warrant price you buy them at - at the time you exercise, you lose money. So, currently that’s $45 plus $26.33 or so, so $71.33. So, the stock’s gotta appreciate by 20% from current levels in the next 5.5 years for you to have been better off with the warrant. There’s a good shot it will do that - but not if the overall market tanks during that time - and stays down - or their investment returns lag their underwriting risks, or their asset sales go poorly or are received poorly about the market.

In general, about 2-3% of the companies in the SP500 ‘fail’ each year (fall to under $5)… so there is always that as well. At $45 AIG stock price, you lose.

I also think the warrants are too expensive right now, and wouldn’t add them. I might look at them at under $20 (or under 1/3 of the stock price). Assuming more than 3 years left on them. If you really love the stock, you can always buy it on margin (it’s basically free) and then buy out of the money LEAP put options to hedge the downside risk. Need, to at least evaluate all the options on this, I think - if you love AIG.

But, it’s a really big company, and it’s hard to value. Not seeing that is not ‘overcomplicating things’, it’s just not looking closely enough (for me). I haven’t gotten to the point where I’d put a lot in myself (all of this has been an exercise to see if I want to go in on my end).

If you haven’t actually gone through the underlying portfolio of assets and investments that make up ‘book value’, to determine what you think is the the true value of those assets, then it seems to me that you haven’t done what ‘fundamental value investors’ try and do - and so position size should be kept small. That’s my view still. I’ve seen tons of hedge fund letters from tons of top value investors. They will do an incredibly detailed bottom up analysis of the company’s assets on which their thesis rests (usually) - and they still often lose. I saw the bottom up work from John Paulson’s fund for years post 2008. Many of his value plays looked great (some of his mining stocks and his analysis on BofA for example). But he lost on all of them.

Any other warrants or TARP warrants you are looking at? What I really like about these long-term ‘warrants’ on value plays is the skewed ‘risk/reward.’ Risk isn’t zero, but your downside here is what you pay for the warrants, and your upside is a potentially large multiple of that. That’s attractive. I would love to take a basket of long-term value plays that have warrants (or really long-term options) and automate that process of finding 20 of them with the most attractive option/warrant price every 12 or 24 months. Have you dug more deeply into that a systematic approach to that process?

EDIT: At the time Bruce B bought, and said he saw the stock value at $58 - $60 - the Book Value per share was around $80. See:
https://www.portfolio123.com/app/stock/fundamentalChart

So, he was looking at ‘bottom up’ valuation in some way and saying that the stock was only worth about 3/4’s of it’s book value, but the market was way underpricing it.

[quote]
But this loses money if the stock price is <$70 (currently at 59.6). And its a 100% loss at a stock price of $45.
[/quote]Agreed.[quote]
I’ll agree its unlikely the price is lower in 5 years than it is today, but for me its not too hard to imagine a scenario in which AIGs share price simply doesn’t rise as much as you’re hoping even if the BV growth assumption are correct.
[/quote]We just need it to rise in price once during the next five years. Perhaps now it seems like it will never happen, but that’s what it always seems like when prices are down. My experience has been that if you have enough patience then it’s unusual for price to remain this much below liquidation for five years. As the financial crisis fades more into the rearview mirror people will be repricing AIG and financials. It might take 30 years for a full repricing but in five years time people will be kicking themselves that they were underweight financials, and that will help bring the price closer to fair value.[quote]
For the warrants to be more profitable than the stock we need around a >5% AR for the next 5 years,
[/quote]Which is the most likely scenario.[quote]
and really our prediction needs to be higher than that to justify the additional risk of large % loss.
[/quote]See below.

[quote]
I’ll agree its unlikely the price is lower in 5 years than it is today, but for me its not too hard to imagine a scenario in which AIGs share price simply doesn’t rise as much as you’re hoping even if the BV growth assumption are correct.
[/quote]The longer the share price stays low the faster book value grows as they buy back stock at low prices.

Let us do the math: At today’s stock prices the common is selling for 75 cents on the dollar. That means that every dollar spend on buybacks grows magically by 33% instantly. (25 cents profit / 75 cents liquidation value = 33% return).

The other way of winning is when the price goes up. When the price catches up to book then I expect to trim my position a lot. The sooner this happens, the higher the annualized return. Basically we win either way.

My worst case scenario is for the price to be just under my selling point for as long as possible and then to have a market crash just before in 2021. Therefore, I will probably become less patient as time goes along. If by 2018 it is not yet a sell then I will probably lower my selling point.

Tom, [quote]
Chaim,

From 1999 to now, AIG’s grown book value Q2Q by 17% per quarter. However, over past 2.5 years, it’s grown by just around 3% total (according to P123 Series numbers)
See:
https://www.portfolio123.com/app/stock/fundamentalChart

So… 8%/yr growth is not a highly conservative assumption.
[/quote]I care about book value per share growth, not total book value. Buybacks grow BVPS at the expense of BookVal.[quote]
I think you’ve got some shot at a big winner, and I’m rooting for you, but I’m also not sure how you can say the risk of loss is zero.
[/quote]Thank you for rooting for me. Even great investments almost never have zero risk, but the probability of losing money seems extremely low and the amount being risked is also very low under almost all reasonable scenarios.[quote]
We’ll see. If the stock is selling for less then $45 + the warrant price you buy them at - at the time you exercise, you lose money. So, currently that’s $45 plus $26.33 or so, so $71.33. So, the stock’s gotta appreciate by 20% from current levels in the next 5.5 years for you to have been better off with the warrant. There’s a good shot it will do that - but not if the overall market tanks during that time
[/quote]During a market crash they get to grow BVPS faster due to buybacks.[quote]
and stays down
[/quote]How often does it happen that a market keeps going down for five years straight? Is that what I should be worried about here?[quote]
or their investment returns lag their underwriting risks
[/quote]Do you mean that you are afraid that there will hurricanes for a few years in a row?[quote]
or their asset sales go poorly or are received poorly about the market.
[/quote]Let’s not rehash that, I addressed that before.[quote]
In general, about 2-3% of the companies in the SP500 ‘fail’ each year (fall to under $5)… so there is always that as well. At $45 AIG stock price, you lose.
[/quote]When that happens please let me know immediately. I would gladly borrow money (but not from a broker) to buy truckloads at <$5 share![quote]
If you really love the stock, you can always buy it on margin (it’s basically free) and then buy out of the money LEAP put options to hedge the downside risk. Need, to at least evaluate all the options on this, I think - if you love AIG.
[/quote]I don’t love AIG. But at the right price it’s a great investment.[quote]
If you haven’t actually gone through the underlying portfolio of assets and investments that make up ‘book value’, to determine what you think is the the true value of those assets, then it seems to me that you haven’t done what ‘fundamental value investors’ try and do - and so position size should be kept small. That’s my view still.
[/quote]I probably agree with you about position size at this price. I paid about $15 for my warrants and kick myself that I didn’t back up the truck when prices fell to $7. At that price they were worth a huge position (I had 14% of my personal portfolio in it and trimmed the position down in the upper 20’s to invest in automated systems.) It’s still my largest position.[quote]
I’ve seen tons of hedge fund letters from tons of top value investors. They will do an incredibly detailed bottom up analysis of the company’s assets on which their thesis rests (usually) - and they still often lose. I saw the bottom up work from John Paulson’s fund for years post 2008. Many of his value plays looked great (some of his mining stocks and his analysis on BofA for example). But he lost on all of them.
[/quote]I didn’t follow Paulson but you just articulated why price is more important than quality (once the quality is stable). When the warrants were selling for $15 and the expiration was 9+ years out and the common was selling for < $30 you didn’t need to dig down to that level to get comfortable with the margin of safety. At $25 and 5.5 years I would not make it as large of an investment. But it’s still a good investment.[quote]
Any other warrants or TARP warrants you are looking at?
[/quote]I am selling off my stock picks one by one as I transition to investment systems. So I’m not looking at the others now.[quote]
What I really like about these long-term ‘warrants’ on value plays is the skewed ‘risk/reward.’ Risk isn’t zero, but your downside here is what you pay for the warrants, and your upside is a potentially large multiple of that. That’s attractive. I would love to take a basket of long-term value plays that have warrants (or really long-term options) and automate that process of finding 20 of them with the most attractive option/warrant price every 12 or 24 months. Have you dug more deeply into that a systematic approach to that process?
[/quote]I din’t see the value in diversifying among TARP warrants. The risk is pretty much all correlated. The risk (to my mind) is not the book value melting away but that the market fluctuations would make it difficult to sell at my targeted price. The market fluctuations of the entire financial sector are highly correlated.[quote]
EDIT: At the time Bruce B bought, and said he saw the stock value at $58 - $60 - the Book Value per share was around $80. See:
https://www.portfolio123.com/app/stock/fundamentalChart
[/quote]I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. On the fundamental chart use the following formula: BookValQ/SharesQ. You will see that BVPS was about $50 in 2010/11 which is when Bruce bought it. That cnbc article that you linked too above also had the correct numbers.

That, in a nutshell, is what I am tussling with. The question is how much of the book can they burn? and what are the probability of the worst case happening. There is new management, and they are working aggressively with various states to reprice their LTC policies. The market is clearly assuming the worst case.

Chetan,

You may want to read the writeups on SeekingAlpha (posted yesterday) and VIC (January). Who knows, you might learn something.

will do. thanks!

Chipper,

The Bruce B. article was published on 9/4/2013 with him saying he estimated book value at $58 to $60. P123 shows a value of about $68 on that day for BookValQPS. I had previously used ‘float’ in the denominator which gave different results. You are correct that the rising growth in ‘bookvalpershare’ is largely a result of management using cash to buy back stock. It’s not mostly ‘actual’ book value growth. That can be a ‘good thing’, and on a ‘large number’ of stock basis, buybacks drive up prices, but it’s also a form of ‘non-market’ supported demand - that is really like leverage. If earnings fall / turn negative, the company can’t support the stock price and the market has to - and DD’s can be exacerbated. I have no crystal ball, but I believe in quant systems with large numbers of positions.

Here’s people who don’t own AIG and likely passed (many of them have financial sector and insurance sector expertise):
Buffett,
Icahn,
Brian Rogers,
Bill Gates
Bill Ackman
Arnold Van Den Berg
Prem Watsa
Mohnish Pabrai
David Einhorn
David Tepper
Seth Klarman (held it previously, but sold already)
George Soros

People who do hold AIG (and the % it is of their holdings as of last 13F filings):
Bill Nygren (2.68% weighting)
Bruce Berkowitz (24% stock, 14% Warrants)
Arnold Schnieder (stock 1%)
Joel Greenblatt (.01%)
John Paulson (4.29%). He bought this as part of his recovery fund, which has not done well.

Bruce B is clearly a very large outlier in his conviction on this stock. It’s not a slam-dunk, and I can’t find a single other big name betting more than 4.29% of their portfolio on it (and Paulson’s done fairly poorly at stock selection post 2008).

Best,
Tom