Thom
  • Thom
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
Monday, March 16, 2009 5:45:00 PM
Save their Bonuses! They need the money. It was in the contract. Riiiight. I hope they're ready for the take over.
HockeyDad
Monday, March 16, 2009 6:02:00 PM
What takeover? The other 20%?
donutboy2000
Monday, March 16, 2009 7:34:00 PM
Cut pay and anyone worth a damn will leave for more money elsewhere. What's left will end up working for the Feds.
Homebrew
Monday, March 16, 2009 7:47:00 PM
RE#3,

Yep, the job market looks great don't it??????

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

donutboy2000
Monday, March 16, 2009 7:49:00 PM
These folks are making millions a year. The job market is always good for them.
Homebrew
Monday, March 16, 2009 7:56:00 PM
RE#5,

Not in this political enviroment. Once the peons are done, REGULATING the bastards, and the Obama admin finishing taxing the rest, they will be driving cinese cars with the rest of us.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

skotbob
Monday, March 16, 2009 10:28:00 PM
The fault is on the Gov. for giving them the money. They can do business as usual with it? Apparently not; the GOV. can tell them what to do with it. CONTROL. That was the whole purpose; to nationalize the industry and tell them what they can and cannot do. Is Pelosi's fleet of jets a "bonus" ?
donutboy2000
Monday, March 16, 2009 10:39:00 PM
Pelosi is exempt as she is a part of the ruling class.
neopuritan
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 4:42:00 AM
They are gutting the company before the impending doom; just getting what they can while they can. Who can't survive with a few $mil in the bank?
Ram27
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 5:24:00 AM
Iowa Senator Says AIG Executives Should ’Resign or Commit Suicide’

Grassley says AIG executives should follow "the Japanese example" by publicly apologizing and "do one of two things: resign or commit suicide."

AP

Monday, March 16, 2009

Iowa -- Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley suggested on Monday that AIG executives should take a Japanese approach toward accepting responsibility for the collapse of the insurance giant by resigning or killing themselves.

The Republican lawmaker’s harsh comments came during an interview with Cedar Rapids, Iowa, radio station WMT. They echo remarks he has made in the past about corporate executives and public apologies, but went further in suggesting suicide.

I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed," Grassley said. "But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they’d follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide.

"And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology."

Grassley spokesman Casey Mills said the senator is not calling for AIG executives to kill themselves, but said those who accept tax dollars and spend them on travel and bonuses do so irresponsibly.

"Senator Grassley has said for some time now that generally speaking, executives who make a mess of their companies should apologize, as Japanese executives do," Mills said. "He says the Japanese might even go so far as to commit suicide but he doesn’t want U.S. executives to do that."

The senator’s remarks added to a chorus of public outrage over the disclosure that AIG intends to pay its executives $165 million in bonuses after taking billions in federal bailout money.

President Barack Obama lambasted the insurance giant for "recklessness and greed" on Monday and pledged to try to block payment of the bonuses.

lluvia
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 6:07:00 AM
eleven!!!!!!
jpotts
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 6:24:00 AM
1. Author: Thom Date: 03/16/2009 09:45 PM Reply

Save their Bonuses! They need the money. It was in the contract. Riiiight. I hope they’re ready for the take over.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This kills me.

Ok, for some of you who seem to think that this is the Soviet Union, here's a hint: there are some people who take a lower salary and supplement their income with a bonus.

Salesmen do it all the time. So do consultants. It is used to inspire people to work hard and succeed.

And here's a second newsflash: AIG (like most big companies) isn't made up of one singular division. There are LOTS of divisions, some of which are actually (*gasp*) profitable. And, they are profitable because some people - paid on commission and bonuses - don't frickin' eat UNLESS they are profitable.

I would say that it never fails to amaze me how some people buy into the propaganda about all this executive bonus crap, but then again I've seen just how easliy people are taken in by this "hate the rich" populist propaganda.

But hey, let's punish people who actually do work and accomplish crap because people want someone to pay for the actions of a few idiots.

I seem to remember it was Eliot Spitzer - Democrat AG for New York - who ran the guy who founded AIG out of his position. Three years later, the company went to crap.

And it was Obama's buddy - the current government hand-picked CEO of AIG - who allowed those bonuses to go through.

Who are the real criminals here?

plinytheelder
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 6:52:00 AM
Who was the real criminal?

Henry Paulson for giving away the Govt's money with NO OVERSIGHT.

Where the hell does he get off on that one and why aren't YOU outraged.

daveincincy
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:55:00 AM
I agree with Jpotts (#11).

And if anyone thinks Obama (a graduate of Columbia University AND Harvard LAW School, right?) and the other politicians don't understand contractual agreements (obligations) between employees and employers than you might be an idiot. Does anyone think Obama had absolutely no idea that AIG employees would not get a bonus? He may give that impression, but he knows more than he lets others believe...just like the impression he gave that he actually knew WTF he was doing during the election.

cbc812
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:59:00 AM
C&P from Dealbook:

Dealbook

The Case for Paying Out Bonuses at A.I.G.

By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

Do we really have to foot the bill for those bonuses at the American International Group?

It sure does sting. A staggering $165 million — for employees of a company that nearly took down the financial system. And heck, we, the taxpayers, own nearly 80 percent of A.I.G.

It doesn’t seem fair.

So here is a sobering thought: Maybe we have to swallow hard and pay up, partly for our own good. I can hear the howls already, so let me explain.

Everyone from President Obama down seems outraged by this. The president suggested on Monday that we just tear up those bonus contracts. He told the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, to use every legal means to recoup taxpayers’ money. Hard to argue there.

“This isn’t just a matter of dollars and cents,” he said. “It’s about our fundamental values.”

On that last issue, lawyers, Wall Street types and compensation consultants agree with the president. But from their point of view, the “fundamental value” in question here is the sanctity of contracts.

That may strike many people as a bit of convenient legalese, but maybe there is something to it. If you think this economy is a mess now, imagine what it would look like if the business community started to worry that the government would start abrogating contracts left and right.

As much as we might want to void those A.I.G. pay contracts, Pearl Meyer, a compensation consultant at Steven Hall & Partners, says it would put American business on a worse slippery slope than it already is. Business agreements of other companies that have taken taxpayer money might fall into question. Even companies that have not turned to Washington might seize the opportunity to break inconvenient contracts.

If government officials were to break the contracts, they would be “breaking a bond,” Ms. Meyer says. “They are raising a whole new question about the trust and commitment organizations have to their employees.” (The auto industry unions are facing a similar issue — but the big difference is that there is a negotiation; no one is unilaterally tearing up contracts.)

But what about the commitment to taxpayers? Here is the second, perhaps more sobering thought: A.I.G. built this bomb, and it may be the only outfit that really knows how to defuse it.

A.I.G. employees concocted complex derivatives that then wormed their way through the global financial system. If they leave — the buzz on Wall Street is that some have, and more are ready to — they might simply turn around and trade against A.I.G.’s book. Why not? They know how bad it is. They built it.

So as unpalatable as it seems, taxpayers need to keep some of these brainiacs in their seats, if only to prevent them from turning against the company. In the end, we may actually be better off if they can figure out how to unwind these tricky investments.

Not that any of this takes the bite out of paying these bonuses. For better or worse — in this case, worse — someone at A.I.G. decided this company needed to sign bonus agreements last year to keep people before the full extent of its problems became clear.

Now we can debate why A.I.G. felt it necessary to guarantee seven executives at least $3 million apiece when the economy was clearly on shaky ground. Perhaps we will find out these contracts were a bit of sleight of hand to enrich executives who knew this financial Titanic had hit the iceberg. But another possible explanation is that A.I.G. knew it needed to keep its people.

That is the explanation offered by Edward M. Liddy, who was installed as A.I.G.’s chief executive when the government effectively nationalized the company last fall. (He is being paid $1 a year.)

“We cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff” the company “if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury,” he said.

There’s some truth to what Mr. Liddy is saying. Would you want to work at A.I.G.? Sure, maybe for $3 million. But not if you could go somewhere else for even more — or even much less.

“The jobs are terrible,” said Robert M. Sedgwick, an executive compensation lawyer at Morrison Cohen who represents a number of employees of banks that have taken government money. “You have to read about yourself in the paper every day. These people are leaving as soon as they can.”

Let them leave, you say. Where would they go, given the troubles in the financial industry? But the fact is, the real moneymakers in finance always have a place to go. You can bet that someone would scoop up the talent from A.I.G. and, quite possibly, put it to work — against taxpayers’ interests.

“The word on the street is that A.I.G. employees are being heavily recruited,” Ms. Meyer says.

Of course, if taxpayers had not bailed out A.I.G., these contracts would not be worth anything. Andrew M. Cuomo, the attorney general of New York, made the point on Monday, when he subpoenaed A.I.G. for the names of the people who received the bonuses. If A.I.G. had spiraled into bankruptcy, its employees would have had to get in line with other unsecured creditors.

Mr. Cuomo wants to know who A.I.G.’s lucky employees are, and how they have been doing at their jobs. So here is a suggestion for him. Get the list, and give those big earners at A.I.G. a not-so-subtle nudge: Perhaps they will “volunteer” to give some of their bonuses back or watch their names hit the newspapers. But in the meantime, despite how offensive and painful it might be, let’s honor the contracts.

smokeeman
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 8:22:00 AM
Obama's concerns might carry a little more weight with me if he had voiced the same complaints about the earmarks in his budget, which cost about 50 times more than the bonuses. At least that's money that he has some control over.
jpotts
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 8:41:00 AM
13. Author: plinytheelder Date: 03/17/2009 10:52 AM Reply

Who was the real criminal?

Henry Paulson for giving away the Govt’s money with NO OVERSIGHT.

Where the hell does he get off on that one and why aren’t YOU outraged.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's see...

1) Pauson was nominated by the President (Bush).

2) He was approved by Congress.

3) His advice on the financial issue was accepted by the President (Bush).

4) His plan was HEAVILY lobbied and supported by the likes of Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and Barney Frank (and if you don't believe me, look at new footage from that time).

5) His plan was approved by Congress.

6) His underlings - Geither and Bernanke - and self-acknowledged architects of the TARP bailout plan were nominated by His Excellency Barack (Idi Amin) Hussein (boy whiner) Obama, and apporoved by a Deomcrat-dominated Congress.

All of these aforementioned people had the time to ask fairly important questions like, "where is all this money gonna go?", and "who has oversight over all this?" Or, more importantly, "why in the hell should I approve you for Tresury Secretary when you're involved with the TARP fiasco, and ran Citigroup into the ground?"

Sorry, but my "outrage" is just about spent. You want to beat up big business, fine. The alternative to them is far worse.

tailgater
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:13:00 AM
JPotts,

Re: 12

"And here’s a second newsflash: AIG (like most big companies) isn’t made up of one singular division. There are LOTS of divisions, some of which are actually (*gasp*) profitable"

I gotta call you on this one.

What you say is indeed true, but it is NOT a reason to allow the bonuses.

AIG, as the parent to these smaller companies, reaps the benefit of their individual profitablity. As such, the profits from those branches could be used to support the failing divisions.

Instead, the parent (AIG) received tax payer bailout cash and used it to pay these absurd bonuses.

If the bonus money was only for select divisions that are in the black and profitable, this would not be a story. And neither would we be talking about the contractual obligations.

Let's face it, without the taxpayer bailout, AIG would have no money to pay these "obligations". So it's a weak argument at best to defend the payouts as such.

I too am tired of the American perception that rich people are somehow evil.

But it is instances like this that fuel these perceptions. Not the other way around.

cbc812
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:50:00 AM
"As such, the profits from those branches could be used to support the failing divisions.

Instead, the parent (AIG) received tax payer bailout cash and used it to pay these absurd bonuses."

Most of AIG's profitable business units are its various insurance franchises, and there is a regulatory wall between these units and other areas of the company - so that, for example, bad bets on CDS transactions within the financial products unit won't weaken your insurance policy.

"If the bonus money was only for select divisions that are in the black and profitable, this would not be a story. And neither would we be talking about the contractual obligations."

What stings the most is that the bonus money is for the people that killed the company.

teelio
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:01:00 AM
"I too am tired of the American perception that rich people are somehow evil. "

I don't think Americans find rich people evil. I think Americans find evil people evil. Some of them happen to be wealthy, and got that way by rigging the system.

No one holds a grudge against hard work and creativity. But no one likes a cheater either.