But right away, when Benmosched took over, the mood was just different. I don't think it took long for anyone associated with the AIG story to believe the company would be back under his leadership. And when he now says he never had any doubt about it, it's a good bet that he actually didn't.

From the limited times I've spoken to him and from hearing/reading his comments since taking over, if Benmosche was given the reigns earlier, I think he might have said something like: “We're still AIG. There was a piece of us that made bad bets, and we are thankful to be buoyed by the taxpayer, but we remain AIG and we're going to prove it to you and pay back all obligations. In the meantime, I'll stand outside and confront anyone throwing anything at my staff.”

He is from Brooklyn, after all.

At the time the name change was made, it “wasn't a bad call,” says Peter van Aartrijk, CEO of branding and marketing-communications firm Aartrijk (pronounced “R-trike”). The man has a serious hatred for acronyms and liked the name Chartis because “it meant something,” but he admits AIG is an exception to his rule.

“I'm not surprised they are going back to it [the AIG name],” van Aartrijk says. “It makes sense now.”

He actually wonders if AIG will keep the Chartis name—maybe use it for something else. Or maybe sell it.

This is the reality of branding: what matters is what stakeholders and customers think. “Brands are not owned by owners,” van Aartrijk says. Surveys of customers, agents and employees allegedly led to the original name change when AIG ruled headlines for all the wrong reasons. A consulting firm said the name was damaged goods.

But a good brand retains customers, according to van Aartrijk. And, according to videos AIG has posted to YouTube to tell the world it is “back,” the company retained more than 90 percent of its clients. Was this due to AIG changing the name of its P&C operation?

Hindsight is 20/20 and I'm not an expert, but that seems like a pretty good retention rate in the face of the public nightmare that came with having to be bailed out. (I know. I've done the stories about how the company allegedly underpriced business to keep it.)

Benmosche seems to have always known AIG was a great insurance company. I may never fully understand how this insurance conglomerate paid back the taxpayer, with a profit, but that has never seemed very important to its customers.

I may be way off in my presumption. Maybe the new name had a lot more to do with maintaining a level of profit where profit could be made. But did it ever really trick anyone? Did someone not know Chartis was AIG?

Millions of dollars in expenses later, it sure seems like “Chartis” was unnecessary. But remember how in 2009 no one could argue with getting as far away from the letters “AIG” as possible.

I don't know…I've just had fun these last couple days wondering if Benmosche would have.