PDA

View Full Version : AIG Bonus



StoopTroup
3/16/2009, 11:35 AM
Barry says the Treasury Secretary is doing everything to block the bonus.

There.

So don't worry.

Go back to work. Unless your on unemployment...

OUHOMER
3/16/2009, 03:37 PM
i would like to see this contract for a bonus...

How does it read, Show up to work at least 2 days a week and you get a Million dollar bonus, no matter how much we lose?

OUMallen
3/16/2009, 05:09 PM
I think we're seeing some sensationalism. I'd like to see the per-person avg bonus. They do need these retention bonuses...maybe they're over-paying, but it's not like they should be wiped. Their best guys will leave and go elsewhere.

OUHOMER
3/16/2009, 05:23 PM
I think we're seeing some sensationalism. I'd like to see the per-person avg bonus. They do need these retention bonuses...maybe they're over-paying, but it's not like they should be wiped. Their best guys will leave and go elsewhere.

Doesnt sound like they had any best guys:mad:

i can hear their interview, yea i was an exec at AIG, i help run it into the ground and they would not pay me my bonus.

OUMallen
3/16/2009, 05:31 PM
It happens, though. If their individuals can leave and go somewhere else for better money they will. If getting AIG back in shape is a goal, then bleeding their best employees is not conducive to that goal.

That being said, I'd still bet dollars to donuts they're overpaying plenty of people that don't deserve it.

Frozen Sooner
3/16/2009, 07:00 PM
That being said, I'd still bet dollars to donuts they're overpaying plenty of people that don't deserve it.

Probably the fault of some union.

Not sure what AIG or the administration can do about it.

If someone met all the terms of their employment contract and the contract specifies a bonus for meeting those terms, then I don't see any reasonable to way to get out of paying the bonus short of banko.

OUHOMER
3/16/2009, 07:08 PM
I would still like to see the terms of these contract. When you lose,BILLIONS quarter after quarter, I dont see how any goals were meet.

So banko sounds good to me. Now, i am not sure how this bail out thing works.

i thought AIG was basically a insurance out fit, that cover loses at the likes of Citi corp and other financial institutions and such. If thats the case I would think if we bailed out AIG, they would cover the loses at the financial institutions

Sorry this just pisses me off to no end

Frozen Sooner
3/16/2009, 07:11 PM
Could very well be simply that's it a retention bonus-if the employee simply managed to not get fired, he qualifies for the bonus. Dunno. AIG's board is claiming they are contractually obligated to pay them, whatever the terms are.

I agree that it shocks the conscience to think that people who drove a massive company into the ground will receive bonuses. Executive compensation at the larger companies gets really hinky. A lot of their compensation is paid outside of normal salary for tax reasons. I'm nowhere near competent to discuss those reasons, though.

soonerboomer93
3/16/2009, 07:17 PM
I like they fact how they say it's part of ensuring they're employing "the best and the brightest"

yet they lost 61 billion

StoopTroup
3/17/2009, 01:21 AM
And people think Union contracts are bad.

Let me see...I'll contract you to work at my Corporation. You are part of a Team that loses the Corporation 61 billion dollars. So much it requires I seek help from the Federal Government so I can keep the doors open and now I owe you because I tried to keep you retained?

I'm thinking some folks were retained for way to long...lol.

jkjsooner
3/17/2009, 09:03 AM
Probably the fault of some union.

Not sure what AIG or the administration can do about it.

If someone met all the terms of their employment contract and the contract specifies a bonus for meeting those terms, then I don't see any reasonable to way to get out of paying the bonus short of banko.

I would bet there is room here for some good policy makers and attorneys to find ways to control these bonus payouts.

If it were not for the government, this company would be in bankruptcy and these people would never see their bonuses.

If these are just simply retention bonuses to employees who did not create the mess and are just cleaning it up, then I have no problem with it. I know a lot of the employees work in business units that are not responsible for the huge losses. I do have a problem with the fact that in many cases they're saying they need the people who created the mess because they're the only ones who can understand it.

I like the idea someone proposed to have bonuses paid to employees of companies receiving TARP funds to be at a 100% tax rate. It won' happen of course but I liked the idea.

I would bet a good attorney can find some wiggle room to invalidate these contracts. Maybe they could argue that the company is essentially in something equivalent of a special bankruptcy. (I just made that up but it sounds good. ;-)

I bet considering the billions taxpayers funneled into AIG there's 100 ways they can approach this without breaking contract law. Even if it is questionable and a novel approach, I would bet judges will be willing to entertain the idea considering the circumstances.

And, by the way, the govt does have quite a bit of bargaining power here. AIG will need more public money to stay afloat and if their employees want to play hardball with the govt then that's a game they will lose. And there are ways we can cover AIG's obligations and keep an economic tsunami from occuring while still allowing AIG to fail...

badger
3/17/2009, 09:45 AM
This just popped up on the news wire a few hours ago - an Iowa Senator speaking on a radio show gave them a suggestion. (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090317_298_0_hrimgs939171)

OUDoc
3/17/2009, 09:48 AM
Pay the bonus out of any money that wasn't taxpayer money.
That should be a negative figure, shouldn't it?

1890MilesToNorman
3/17/2009, 09:57 AM
The tax payers never entered into any agreements with AIG execs! Let them eat cake.

sitzpinkler
3/17/2009, 10:34 AM
I HATE being a grammar nazi, but seriously, some of you need a few remedial English classes.

1890MilesToNorman
3/17/2009, 10:45 AM
I HATE being a grammar nazi, but seriously, some of you need a few remedial English classes.

You are on a message board for crying out loud!!

badger
3/17/2009, 10:46 AM
some of you need a few remedial English classes.

what country do you think this is?

Jello Biafra
3/17/2009, 11:15 AM
I HATE being a grammar nazi, but seriously, some of you need a few remedial English classes.



fugg off {he who sits while peeing} ;)


btw, how are your pole dancing lessons doing?

sitzpinkler
3/17/2009, 11:35 AM
Why, they're going fantastic! Do you plan to see me in action?

How's the 72nd treating you?

Frozen Sooner
3/17/2009, 12:00 PM
I would bet there is room here for some good policy makers and attorneys to find ways to control these bonus payouts.

If it were not for the government, this company would be in bankruptcy and these people would never see their bonuses.

Possibly.


If these are just simply retention bonuses to employees who did not create the mess and are just cleaning it up, then I have no problem with it. I know a lot of the employees work in business units that are not responsible for the huge losses. I do have a problem with the fact that in many cases they're saying they need the people who created the mess because they're the only ones who can understand it.

Agreed.


I like the idea someone proposed to have bonuses paid to employees of companies receiving TARP funds to be at a 100% tax rate. It won' happen of course but I liked the idea.

Sounds good. Wouldn't survive an equal protection challenge in the courts.


I would bet a good attorney can find some wiggle room to invalidate these contracts. Maybe they could argue that the company is essentially in something equivalent of a special bankruptcy. (I just made that up but it sounds good. ;-)

Heh. Congress could pretty easily tack an addendum to the BK laws for a new type of BK involving TARP funds. Of course, entering BK means that AIG can default on all of their contracts, not just the bonus contracts. Which is what we were trying to avoid in the first place.


I bet considering the billions taxpayers funneled into AIG there's 100 ways they can approach this without breaking contract law. Even if it is questionable and a novel approach, I would bet judges will be willing to entertain the idea considering the circumstances.

Possibly. Depends on the wording of the contract.


And, by the way, the govt does have quite a bit of bargaining power here. AIG will need more public money to stay afloat and if their employees want to play hardball with the govt then that's a game they will lose. And there are ways we can cover AIG's obligations and keep an economic tsunami from occuring while still allowing AIG to fail...

Yes, the government does have leverage to not provide future funding. Game it out in your head: if you're an AIG employee, and were given the choice between a $150k bonus or the company surviving, I'll bet you'd take the former. You can always find another job.

soonerhubs
3/17/2009, 12:34 PM
I HATE being a grammar nazi, but seriously, some of you need a few remedial English classes.

The word hate should not be capitalized. Am I right?

Also, the word Nazi should be capitalized.

Jello Biafra
3/17/2009, 01:11 PM
Why, they're going fantastic! Do you plan to see me in action?

How's the 72nd treating you?



yes. yes i do....i have one hand on my bag of pennies and the other hand on my other bag.....


of pennies....



meh, jobs still here, im still beating down mental midgets. you know.

sitzpinkler
3/17/2009, 01:19 PM
The word hate should not be capitalized. Am I right?

Also, the word Nazi should be capitalized.

You are right.

Damn, pwned twice in one day. :(

I hate my life. :D

Vaevictis
3/17/2009, 01:20 PM
Sounds good. Wouldn't survive an equal protection challenge in the courts.

Not saying it would, but why not?

It's already established that the government can vary tax rates depending on source (eg, foreign, capital gains, earned, etc.) Why wouldn't this one survive an equal protection clause -- assuming it applies to TARP funds in general instead of just say, AIG.

sitzpinkler
3/17/2009, 01:23 PM
yes. yes i do....i have one hand on my bag of pennies and the other hand on my other bag.....


of pennies....



meh, jobs still here, im still beating down mental midgets. you know.

I miss it out there. I felt so intelligent. Hire me, fugger.

NYC Poke
3/17/2009, 01:27 PM
This is Gerry Pasciucco, former vice chairman of Morgan Stanley and current head of the AIG Financial Products group, the unit of AIG that trades credit derivatives. Captions are welcome.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gerry-pasciucco-blog.jpg

Frozen Sooner
3/17/2009, 01:28 PM
Not saying it would, but why not?

It's already established that the government can vary tax rates depending on source (eg, foreign, capital gains, earned, etc.) Why wouldn't this one survive an equal protection clause -- assuming it applies to TARP funds in general instead of just say, AIG.

Because it's meant to single out a particular class of people vs. a particular way people earn money.

Were the government to tax all bonus income at 100%, that's not violative of EP. Taxing all bonus income of people who happen to work at recipients of TARP funds is.

It could also be argued that it's a taking without due process, as it's meant to be punitive in nature.

Frozen Sooner
3/17/2009, 01:29 PM
This is Gerry Pasciucco, former vice chairman of Morgan Stanley and current head of the AIG Financial Products group, the unit of AIG that trades credit derivatives. Captions are welcome.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/gerry-pasciucco-blog.jpg

The cognitive dissonance involved in his shirt is staggering.

sitzpinkler
3/17/2009, 01:32 PM
The word hate should not be capitalized. Am I right?

Also, the word Nazi should be capitalized.

Ultimately though, I didn't capitalize that word on purpose. You know why? Because **** those guys. Anybody who associates themselves with that party is a giganctic POS and doesn't deserve a capital letter anywhere in their title.

NYC Poke
3/17/2009, 01:37 PM
The cognitive dissonance involved in his shirt is staggering.

Even more, the picture was taken at Belle Haven.

2Dogs
3/17/2009, 09:42 PM
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig---time/

While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The provision, now called “the Dodd Amendment” by the Obama Administration provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.

Obama said it was ok by signing the stimulus. Guess he should have read it first. Oh and Dodd and Obama were the largest recipents od AIG campain contributions


Name Office Total Contributions
Dodd, Chris (D-CT) Senate $103,100
Obama, Barack (D-IL) Senate $101,332
McCain, John (R-AZ) Senate $59,499
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $35,965
Baucus, Max (D-MT) Senate $24,750
Romney, Mitt (R) Pres $20,850
Biden, Joseph R Jr (D-DE) Senate $19,975
Larson, John B (D-CT) House $19,750
Sununu, John E (R-NH) Senate $18,500
Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) Pres $13,200
Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA) House $12,000
Durbin, Dick (D-IL) Senate $11,000
Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) House $10,500
Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) House $9,000
Edwards, John (D) Pres $7,850
Corker, Bob (R-TN) Senate $7,400
Smith, Chris (R-NJ) House $6,900
Neal, Richard E (D-MA) House $6,500
Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV) Senate $6,500
Reed, Jack (D-RI) Senate $6,000
Udall, Mark (D-CO) House $5,800
Maffei, Dan (D-NY) House $5,000
Nelson, Bill (D-FL) Senate $5,000
Warner, Mark (D-VA) Senate $5,000
Bean, Melissa (D-IL) House $4,750
Shelby, Richard C (R-AL) Senate $4,500
Mahoney, Tim (D-FL) House $4,000
Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) House $3,500
Fimian, Keith S (R-VA) House $3,300
Huckabee, Mike (R) Pres $3,300
Leavitt, David O (R-UT) House $3,000
Murphy, Chris (D-CT) House $2,800
Berman, Howard L (D-CA) House $2,500
Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC) Senate $2,500
Garrett, Scott (R-NJ) House $2,500
Cornyn, John (R-TX) Senate $2,300
Culberson, John (R-TX) House $2,300
Goode, Gregory Justin (R-IN) House $2,300
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) Senate $2,300
Lummis, Cynthia Marie (R-WY) House $2,300
Shays, Christopher (R-CT) House $2,200
Davis, Tom (R-VA) House $2,000
Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) House $2,000
Inouye, Daniel K (D-HI) Senate $2,000
Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND) House $2,000
Visclosky, Pete (D-IN) House $2,000
Weiner, Anthony D (D-NY) House $2,000
King, Pete (R-NY) House $1,843
Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH) Senate $1,500
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA) Senate $1,250
Nelson, Ben (D-NE) Senate $1,200
Wicker, Roger (R-MS) Senate $1,100
Baker, Richard (R-LA) House $1,000
Barrasso, John A (R-WY) Senate $1,000
Bennett, Robert F (R-UT) Senate $1,000
Brady, Kevin (R-TX) House $1,000
Capps, Lois (D-CA) House $1,000
Coleman, Norm (R-MN) Senate $1,000
Cooper, Jim (D-TN) House $1,000
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) House $1,000
Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN) House $1,000
Engel, Eliot L (D-NY) House $1,000
Enzi, Mike (R-WY) Senate $1,000
Gillibrand, Kirsten E (D-NY) House $1,000
Gordon, Bart (D-TN) House $1,000
Harkin, Tom (D-IA) Senate $1,000
Himes, Jim (D-CT) House $1,000
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs (D-OH) House $1,000
Kind, Ron (D-WI) House $1,000
Kirk, Mark (R-IL) House $1,000
Lautenberg, Frank R (D-NJ) Senate $1,000
Lowey, Nita M (D-NY) House $1,000
Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) House $1,000
McMahon, Michael E (D-NY) House $1,000
Olson, Pete (R-TX) House $1,000
Pryor, Mark (D-AR) Senate $1,000
Salazar, Ken (D-CO) Senate $1,000
Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH) House $1,000
Towns, Edolphus (D-NY) House $1,000
Wilson, Charlie (D-OH) House $1,000
Mielke, Daniel Ernest (R-WI) House $900
Huelskamp, Timothy A (R-KS) House $750
Laesch, John (D-IL) House $750
Tinklenberg, Elwyn (D-MN) House $750
Vilsack, Thomas J (D) Pres $700
Harrison, Stephen A (D-NY) House $604
Brownback, Sam (R-KS) Senate $500
Courtney, Joe (D-CT) House $500
Crapo, Mike (R-ID) Senate $500
Davis, Geoff (R-KY) House $500
Fossella, Vito (R-NY) House $500
Gilchrest, Wayne T (R-MD) House $500
Musgrove, Ronnie (D-MS) Senate $500
Myers, Chris (R-NJ) House $500
Pierluisi, Pedro (3-PR) $500
Putnam, Adam H (R-FL) House $500
Richardson, Bill (D) Pres $500
Roggio, Robert (D-PA) House $500
Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) House $500
Wu, David (D-OR) House $500

jkjsooner
3/18/2009, 09:20 AM
In defense of Dodd, he put the amendment into the bill that restricted executive compensation. You could argue that without him there would be no restriction whatsoever. He argues that he did not put the exemption to that restriction in there and that it was placed in there by someone else. I suppose we'll find out if that is true.

I would guess there is a good argument that the exemption to the executive compensation restriction was put in there because congress can't retroactively invalidate a contract that already exists. AIG could have said that they can't legally accept the govt money w/o that exemption because by doing so would mean they were breaking legally valid contracts. Someone may have put that language in there to avoid that problem.

Don't take this to mean that I trust Dodd. He may very well have protected AIG execs because of the large donations they've given. I hope we find out. I think he and Frank are corrupt (as are many Republicans) and I would love to see them get the boot.

OUDoc
3/18/2009, 10:44 AM
If I agree to give you money, I can put any restrictions on it that I want. If you don't like them, don't take my money.

StoopTroup
3/18/2009, 11:49 AM
If I agree to give you money, I can put any restrictions on it that I want. If you don't like them, don't take my money.

Don't we wish it could be just that simple.

OklahomaTuba
3/18/2009, 01:23 PM
Just another day in Obamerica, er, I mean Teleprompter Jesusland.


Bonuses Expected at Fannie, Freddie
Fannie Mae is due to pay retention bonuses of as much $470,000 to $611,000 this year to some executives despite enormous losses at the government-backed mortgage company. Fannie's main rival, Freddie Mac, also plans to pay such bonuses but hasn't yet provided details.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123739512036672809.html

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:30 PM
If you don't agree with everything Obama does or says your racist and UN American.

Scott D
3/18/2009, 01:30 PM
And in other news Exxon-Mobil just gave their CEO another $19 Million dollar bonus ;)

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:32 PM
lol

Frozen Sooner
3/18/2009, 01:36 PM
If you don't agree with everything Obama does or says your racist and UN American.

You know, that's just amazingly hypocritical bull**** right there. Standard playbook, though-accuse your enemies of doing what you do.

OklahomaTuba
3/18/2009, 01:36 PM
The teleprompter nationalized ExxonMobil too??

SWEET!!!

I can feel the earth healing already!!

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:39 PM
You know, that's just amazingly hypocritical bull**** right there. Standard playbook, though-accuse your enemies of doing what you do.

lol, so I'm un-American and racist?

Frozen Sooner
3/18/2009, 01:47 PM
That wasn't stated nor implied by what I wrote.

I'll break it down for you if need be:

From 2001-2008, anyone who spoke out against President Bush's policies, particularly as pertains to the "War on Terror" was labeled as a terrorist sympathizer by many on the right. Not all, to be certain, but by an appreciable fraction.

Certain people on the right now claim to be distraught that they are labeled racist or un-american based on statements they have made regarding the current President. Yet those same people were either strangely silent from 2001-2008 or were active participants in this behavior. I'm not going to claim that such labels aren't applied, by the way, but I haven't seen very much of it around here except in the rare cases where someone actually DID say something that goes against America's stated principles.

KC//CRIMSON
3/18/2009, 01:47 PM
If you don't agree with everything Obama does or says your racist and UN American.


This is a great example of why stupid people shouldn't breed.

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:49 PM
I don't think Libs should breed, what you think bout that Kc?

KC//CRIMSON
3/18/2009, 01:50 PM
I don't think Libs should breed, what you think bout that Kc?

I think you ate too many paint chips.......

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:51 PM
And i see your point FZ, i for one was not ever really sold on Bush and the war thing.

I'm very far right, but when Bush messed up i would talk about him being wrong.

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:52 PM
I think you ate too many paint chips.......

Did you ever eat paint chips when you were a kid?.

SoonerAtKU
3/18/2009, 01:57 PM
I think someone's still drunk from yesterday.

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:58 PM
I'm just going through football depressions.

jkjsooner
3/18/2009, 09:55 PM
Just another day in Obamerica, er, I mean Teleprompter Jesusland.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123739512036672809.html

Yeah, because this crap wasn't going on a year ago....

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 11:56 PM
Oh Christ people...Bush was an idiot and Obama is naive...I'm thinking if Bush woulda been as smart as Obama and pursued used that intelligence from his own conservative standpoint we'd have had good common sense policies that worked for 8 years rather than the silliness we had or the silliness we have now.

As for the AIG crap and the economic issues we face, Bush sucked at it abd I'm thinking Obama might as well. When he does suck as bad and proves to be just as ineffective I'll call it even...and I predict that that's what's gonna happen.

On the other hand, I hope he does well and all this shat works and all of us end up better off.

JLEW1818
3/19/2009, 12:15 AM
I's drink beer.

KC//CRIMSON
3/19/2009, 11:12 AM
I'm just going through football depressions.

Nah, you're just going through retardation.

jkjsooner
3/19/2009, 01:24 PM
Yes, the government does have leverage to not provide future funding. Game it out in your head: if you're an AIG employee, and were given the choice between a $150k bonus or the company surviving, I'll bet you'd take the former. You can always find another job.

Are you sure about that last statement? We have an unemployed (recently laid off from a Wall Street job) Wharton MBA grad living with us now while she looks for work.

Speaking of her, I argued with her about whether the executives really needed to be retained. She argued that they are the ones who understand the complex derivatives. I know she's in the industry and I am not but in every company I've worked for the executives do not get down to the nitty gritty of things like they. They set the overall company direction (which was faulty in this case) and deal with high level financial issues. Those are not the people needed to unwind these things. My guess is that it's the lower level analysts who understand the details of these things not the 7 digit bonus executives....

On one last topic, I was listening to some conservative talk radio at lunch. They're rightly criticizing Dodd and Geitner. They are arguing that a contract is a contract and that is a valid concern. However, they seem to really be missing the boat by arguing too much for the bonuses.

The public (liberal and conservative) are not happy about the bonuses and conservative talk radio is really mistaken if they don't understand this - and it doesn't seem like many of them do. I think they did understand this up until Dodd and Obama spoke out against it and then many flipped their opinion on it. Hey, there's an ocean of room to criticize the current administration here. They don't really need to go off defending the bonuses yet they seem to be doing just that.