home

AIG Bonuses Cause Furor

The chances of a future TARP are hurt by news like this:

The American International Group, which has received more than $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, plans to pay about $165 million in bonuses by Sunday to executives in the same business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year. Word of the bonuses last week stirred such deep consternation inside the Obama administration that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told the firm they were unacceptable and demanded they be renegotiated, a senior administration official said. But the bonuses will go forward because lawyers said the firm was contractually obligated to pay them.

. . . The payment of so much money at a company at the heart of the financial collapse that sent the broader economy into a tailspin almost certainly will fuel a popular backlash against the government’s efforts to prop up Wall Street. Past bonuses already have prompted President Obama and Congress to impose tough rules on corporate executive compensation at firms bailed out with taxpayer money.

Some say there is legal recourse against paying these bonuses, namely bankruptcy I think that is wrong legally (I'll do a post about that later), but it does pretty much make clear that the chances of another TARP-style bailout is zero. For those institutions unable to meet their financial obligations, temporary takeover is going to be the only way out.

Speaking for me only

< Mentally Disabled Residents Forced to Fight | Sunday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    i could be wrong, (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 10:50:55 AM EST
    but i suspect those bonuses, and the specific amounts, are dependent upon certain financial targets having been met. i'm hard pressed to believe, given the financial trainwreck that AIG is, that those targets were actually met.

    if this is not the case, and the bonuses bear no relation to the business results of the respective divisions, then i'd question the legitimacy of them to begin with.

    clearly, the only way to be certain of a fixed, contractual obligation, is to see the contracts themselves.

    I'd sure like to take a look (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 10:52:25 AM EST
    at the contracts.

    Parent
    Sometimes employment compensation... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by santarita on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:29:17 AM EST
    contracts are structured with a deferred component to encourage employees to stay.  So, for example, the employee could get a two part bonus based on what he or she did and what the company did in 2007.  One part would be given in 2008 and the second part in 2009 as long as the employee remained an employee.  But it was based on 2007 performance levels.  

    Since the contracts were reviewed by outside specialists firms, I suspect that what is being paid out is required.  I hope that it is the minimum required.  

    Of course, to the extent that the compensation scheme allows for payouts when the company needs government assistance, the contracts were not structured very well.  

    Parent

    Are you suggesting the contract (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 01:48:48 PM EST
    drafters should have anticipated federal bailout funds to AIG?  Now that would be quite prescient.

    Parent
    Not at all... (none / 0) (#37)
    by santarita on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    I've just seen several employment contracts designed for employee retention with deferred payouts.

    Parent
    I think AIG.. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by santarita on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:27:05 PM EST
    got in to trouble because its Financial Products division was making  trades in derivatives and doing credit swaps without adequate reserves.  And, of course, senior management and the board allowed behavior that could and did sink the company.

    I don't know how those employment deals were structured but there should have been clauses that conditioned full payment on the financial health of the overall company.  The only good that will come out of this fiasco is that now maybe people will pay attention to those that have been upset over how executive compensation is determined.

    Parent

    Read the Article from the Village Voice ... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by santarita on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 08:42:42 PM EST
    cited below in one of the comments.  

    Saying that AIG was a victim of the world wide meltdown is another way of saying that it didn't carry enough reserves for that eventuality.  Sure it was a worst case scenario but good management takes steps to protect from the worst case scenario or to at least have a good idea of what signs to look out for and start building capital just in case.  The FP unit of AIG strayed far afield from the usual lines of business and management didn't rein the unit in.

    As to financial health, I suppose I could throw around some financial ratios that they would have had to meet.  Profitability wouldn't be one of them.  

    Parent

    I understand what you are saying (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by otherlisa on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:08:25 AM EST
    but I can't make it matter in the face of this crisis, when I and a lot of people have lost our jobs because of it, when no one is bailing us out, when we are in danger of losing our homes, whatever small nest eggs we once had, our health care, you name it.

    Sh**, I didn't do anything wrong. I did a good job. Give ME one of these bonuses. I'd be set for the rest of my life. No joke. My house would be paid for, and I could always find work to cover the rest.

    It's insulting. Our system is a bad joke, played at the expense of the majority of us, while the people responsible for the crisis continue to enrich themselves at our expense. Draining every last drop out of the public treasury.

    Parent

    Wrong? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by SOS on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:04:21 AM EST
    It's freaking outrageous.

    What is outrageous (3.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:40:27 AM EST

    about paying a bonus that you have a contractual obligation to pay?

    There is nothing outrageous about paying say, a two million dollar bonus to a sales rep that doubled quota and brought in 20 billion in business.  On the contrary, it would be outrageous to stiff rep when the size of the bonus was an agreed condition of employment.  Sales bonuses tied to exceeding quota are common.  

    BTW, why is this "outrage" limited to TARP companies?  Federal funds go to many places where salary and bonuses exceed $500,000.  

    Parent

    But what if that sales rep (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by sj on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    not only did NOT meet quota but soured the deals of other sales reps and thereby brought down the business unit?  That's a little closer to the actual situation than bringing in 20 billion in business.  Bonuses tied to exceeding quota ARE common and sales reps work hard for that money.  A contractual agreement to provide a bonus to a management level employee regardless of performance is another kettle of fish entirely.

    Parent
    Because it is the business unit... (none / 0) (#102)
    by sj on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 09:17:50 AM EST
    ... selling the toxic assets whose executives are being rewarded.

    Parent
    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 01:43:07 PM EST
    Your reference is to a commission not a deferred bonus. It would be a bit outrageous to tell an employee that they'll be paid later for what was coming to them immediately.

    If a commission isn't involved then the bonus for good performance arrangement (something I've been involved in and paid) is more subjective and is usually cancelled if the company is doing badly.

    Inasmuch as the receipt of federal funds is concerned it should be obvious that AIG didn't get its funds for rendering some service to the government or under an incentive to behave in a certain manner.  The funds received by AIG were to prop up the company. To suggest these are the same is way past ridiculous.

    Parent

    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 09:22:33 PM EST

    Paying bonuses for exceeding quota is routine and normally contractually agreed to.  All the sales reps where I work get base pay, commission on sales, and bonuses for exceeding quota.  If the company did not pay all three when earned, they would be sued and lose.  These bonuses are paid solely for measureable sales performance and do not depend on profitability.

    Parent
    Well, not exactly (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 09:17:36 AM EST
    He IS talking about a bonus.  But it's not a deferred or contractual bonus.  

    But again, those bonuses are awarded for superior performance.

    Parent

    The outrage is... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 08:29:18 AM EST
    AIG doesn't have the money to pay the bonuses.  Any contractual obligations are mute when you technically should be out of business.

    Parent
    Have you forgotten (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by SOS on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:07:00 AM EST
    when Paulson forced this thing down everyone's throats last fall he threatened congress with imprisonment and suspension of civil law?

    The bonuses are a symptom.. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    ... and only in the hundreds of millions, so trivial (except for their nature as incentives).

    Under those symptoms is one disease -- hundreds of billion to pay off the gambling debts of bankster counter-parties (Times editorial today).

    And under that disease the environmental stressor -- trillions in bailots, the largest transfer of wealth in American history, with no legislation and no public debate (Ritholz).

    But how about that Bobby Jindal? Look! Over there! Bernie Madoff!

    Does this mean I don't get my pony?

    NOTE Hard to stigmatize the Times and Ritholtz as "conspiracy theorists" but no doubt some will try.

    lambert (none / 0) (#36)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    what happens when a bookie can't pay off?

    Parent
    The bookie, er... (none / 0) (#38)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:41:18 PM EST
    ... takes a long vacation. Why?

    Parent
    Be nice (none / 0) (#98)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 02:16:47 AM EST
    if certain institutions got nationalized and their officers (bookies) were sent away on a permanent vacation.

    Parent
    Here's a thought: (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:43:21 AM EST
    maybe Congress could void the contracts. I'm sure that would make for some interesting litigation.

    Something tells me (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:45:59 AM EST
    that wouldn't fly.

    Parent
    Since there's presumably been (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:48:11 AM EST
    performance and reliance, I doubt it would work. Honestly, I don't even know if Congress can do it (it would seem suspiciously close to being a bill of attainder).

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:52:59 AM EST
    Because imagine the precedent that would set -  a Republican Congress could invalidate union contracts.

    No, thanks.

    Parent

    Well, Congress does arguably allow the states (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 12:04:24 PM EST
    to disallow certain kinds of employment contracts under Taft-Hartley, right?

    I think the biggest problem here would be one of retroactivity.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 12:27:43 PM EST
    I just don't want a future Republican Congress to come in one day and say "We think the autoworkers are making too much money, and since we gave them government loans, we are officially declaring that all UAW contracts are null and void."

    Parent
    I think if the government nationalizes (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 12:34:55 PM EST
    businesses for one reason or another, it has to be able to modify employment contracts. How that should be allowed is a different question.  

    Parent
    What about specifying that bailout funds (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 01:12:35 PM EST
    can't be used for bonuses? Only cash on hand AFTER all business matters are covered?

    Let's get real here, I've worked for many a company that stopped giving bonuses. What makes these losers so freakin' special? If the money isn't there, the money isn't freakin' there.

    Parent

    Well, that's why you need strong unions (none / 0) (#39)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:51:15 PM EST
    The Republlicans are going to do what they do regardless, so there's no point worrying about provoking them.

    Parent
    The Government should remind AIG that (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 12:39:39 PM EST
    we the people are the #1 creditor right now, and that we the people would like our money paid before this ridiculousness is paid...

    there is no way that anyone could convince me that these people deserve a bonus for their 2008 performance that literally put our country into a recession...

    it's almost as if they were supposed to f up in order to make the bonus...

    they should feel quite lucky they are not fired...I know I would be at my job if I lost the company more money than it had...

    Congress could have conditioned (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 12:41:39 PM EST
    receipt of bailout funds by AIG on elimination of bonuses.  It didn't.  Kind of silly for their to be such a furor after the fact.

    Parent
    I wonder whether it could have (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 12:43:15 PM EST
    With adequate political courage: yes. (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 12:46:04 PM EST
    Legal?  Contract clause applies to states, not federal government.  Who knoes?

    Parent
    Voiding Contractual Obligations... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by santarita on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 01:11:52 PM EST
    ex post facto (assuming that the right to the bonus had already vested) wouldn't that be a taking without due process?  

    Parent
    I'm more interested in the legal question (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 12:47:45 PM EST
    I don't really have any clue about the answer.

    Parent
    Possible topic for law review article? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 12:49:54 PM EST
    What is the basis on which NY (none / 0) (#88)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:37:16 PM EST
    Attorney General's office has been getting certain concessions from financial institutions? If NYAG can do it, why can't the federal government?  Lack of will....

    Parent
    U.S. Attorney is too busy (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:44:54 PM EST
    filing briefs reiterating Bush DOJ's positions.

    Parent
    At AG website (none / 0) (#92)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:31:00 AM EST
    there is a copy of a joint statement issued by AG Cuomo & AIG's Liddy back in Oct 2008. Parts of the statement:
       
    ....Andrew M. Cuomo met today with Edward M. Liddy, the new Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ...AIG...

       

    ... the Attorney General laid out his serious concerns regarding executive compensation issues and exorbitant expenses at AIG. The meeting ... occurred one day after ... Cuomo informed AIG that it must recover improper bonuses and other payments and perks from its former executives or Cuomo would do so pursuant to New York law.

         

    ...Mr. Liddy agreed to take several significant actions.... First, AIG has agreed to provide the New York Attorney General's Office with an accounting of all compensation paid to its senior executives and has agreed to assist the Attorney General's Office in recovering any illegal expenditures....

    The joint statement indicates that AIG also agreed to establish a Special Governance Committee to institute new expense management controls and to issue a new Expense Policy Guidebook.

         

    These controls and protections will be designed at the Board level to prevent any future unwarranted expenditures, such as salaries, bonuses, stock options....

    It will be interesting to see what the NY Attorney General's office has to say this week about the latest AIG bonus payments.  

    Parent

    I guess we'll soon know: (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:51:12 AM EST
    and has agreed to assist the Attorney General's Office in recovering any illegal expenditures....


    Parent
    According to (none / 0) (#100)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 08:35:02 AM EST
    Erin Burnett of MSNBC this a.m., AIG spent 2 months trying to figure out how not to pay bonuses, but U.K. law applies and non-payment would have cost AIG twice as much.  Editor from U.S. News & World Report on Morning Joe said this a.m. that the bonuses went to rogue unit in U.K. that caused the problems.  Query why this unit wasn't spun off, closed, put into bankruptcy, etc.
    Editor said the activities of the rogue unit were not known by headquarters.  Is this possible?  If so, why weren't there firings?

    Parent
    This is the end of recovery and Obama (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Saul on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 12:53:30 PM EST
    unless Obama screams in disgust over this.  He should demand for this not to happen.  I would call AIG to congress and put them out in public.  

    If Obama allows this to happen then I am through with Obama.  

    One word: Plutocracy (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 01:36:14 PM EST
    AIG will be bailed out again, over and over, and us little guys will pay the price.  AIG has it's claws in Congress because they handle the retirement packages.  Which means they also have their hands around our necks.  The financial industry, like the medical industry, the telecommunications industry and the war profiteers have already bought and sold most of Congress.  Just look at the lobbyists and contribution switchover this past two years from elected Republican to our Democrats.

    This latest pilfering is nothing new, and will be a small blip when it's time for the next wealth redistribution scheme from the middle class to the super rich.  We have allowed the largest transfer of wealth in American history without preconditions to provide accountability or recouping of costs.  In our glorification of capitalism, we have allowed stealth plutocracy to destroy our economy, and the sooner upper middle class Americans realize it hurts them as much as the rest of us, the sooner we'll unite in revolt and put an end to our government's thievery.


    Another word: Kleptocracy (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:52:09 PM EST
    Not just rule by the rich -- rule by thieves.

    Parent
    The company may be contractually (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    obligated to pay the bonuses, but why can't Congress require they be paid back?

    With bonuses being suspiciously close in amount to what AIG has received in TARP funds, you know the public's take on it is that giving AIG this money is what is allowing them to pay the bonuses.

    And, if one of the goals of the government coming to the aid of these companies was to bolster the public's confidence in them, this is not going to help that cause.

    Congress could also condition... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:52:41 PM EST
    .. the receipt of bailout money on clawbacks, er, voluntary contributions.

    Parent
    The banks, the insurance companies... (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 04:58:11 PM EST
    ... everybody who's collecting a fee (a "rent") -- they are the new fermiers généraux.

    The banks that charge the unemployed a $3.00 ATM fee to get their own unemployment checks are just one small example of this. There are many others, all seeking to preserve their revenue streams through the political process.

    What's Very Troubling (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:10:38 PM EST
    is that Geithner did not know, or claims not to have known, that the latest round of AIG bailout money would be used to pay bonuses. He's painting himself as either incompetent or a liar.  Isn't it Geithner's job to know why the bailout money was needed and thus the uses to which it would be put?

    What's more, if I were Geithner, I'd demand copies of the supposedly binding contracts requiring payment of bonuses to executives, & go to court to get them if I had to.  I would nt take AIG's statements on face value.

    It seems to me that Geithner is part of the problem.

    "Show us the contracts" (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:01:52 PM EST
    Well said! Great idea!

    Parent
    According to the Ny Times Article... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by santarita on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:19:52 PM EST
    the contracts were reviewed by an outside law firm hired by Geithner.

    Of course, it is a little late in the game for the US Government to be doing its due diligence.  It should have reviewed the contracts before it provided the financing and bought the common stock.  It might then have been able to structure some conditions to the use of funds.  

    Parent

    Times on the legal analysis (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:43:20 PM EST
    Here's the quote:

    The administration official said the Treasury Department did its own legal analysis and concluded that those contracts could not be broken. The official noted that even a provision recently pushed through Congress by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, had an exemption for such bonus agreements already in place.

    I don't see "its own legal analysis" as being as the same as seeking outside counsel.

    In any case, presumably the Treasury's lawyers looked at actual contracts, right? (I mean, they didn't offer a boilerplate opinion). Therefore, it's easy to get copies of the contracts -- subpoena Treasury.

    Parent

    You're Right... (none / 0) (#77)
    by santarita on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:55:41 PM EST
    The Times article said that the outside firm was hired by Liddy.  The Treasury Department's lawyers reviews the bonus arrangments, not outside counsel hired by Treasury.

    What is the purpose of getting the contracts?

    Parent

    Well, as a baseline (none / 0) (#85)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 10:16:55 PM EST
    I'd like to know if Timmy and Larry the Bailout Guy are telling the truth.

    Parent
    It's also possible (none / 0) (#86)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:25:36 PM EST
    that the internal review missed things.  For example, if bonuses are, as reported, going to many reponsible for AIG's problems, query whether there isn't a termination for cause or similar provision which could call into question the obligation to pay the bonus, or indeed, continue the employment.  Contract provisions can seem to be something if not read in conjunction with all other relevant provisions.  It may now be to late to terminate for cause before the date the bonuses were due, but would show that the government had some leverage.

    How come, when the subject of bailing out Detroit comes up, union contracts are not deemed inviolate, and bailout $ is conditioned on Detroit's achieving concessions from the unions? But, when the subject of bailing out Wall Street comes up, no pressure is put on Wall St to obtain concessions from management employees?

    Parent

    Liddy is in London (none / 0) (#89)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:44:14 PM EST
    isn't he?  Is he looking at U.K. law? & U.S. bailout $ with conditions as to its use should be enforceable.  If AIG's failure to pay bonuses due to financial condition puts AIG in breach of contract, let the employees sue AIG, whose inability to pay arose despite prior bailout $ and before all rounds of bailout monies.  

    If the U.S. govt gives $ to a State for medical care for State residents, can the State use the money for any other purpose?  And can U.S. government be held liable when a party in contract with the State sues the State for breach of a contract, unrelated to medical care for which State residents are covered under medicaid or medicare?

    The problem appears to be that insufficient conditions were placed on payment of the bailout $.

    Parent

    Of course, of course (none / 0) (#73)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:33:13 PM EST
    More self-dealing by insiders.

    Parent
    Why not subpoena all the salespeople... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:13:43 PM EST
    ... who got the bonuses, and find out what they did to earn the money?

    Given that the bonuses are in the financial products division at the heart of AIG's collapse, some very interesting information might be produced.

    I think that's a good idea (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:22:47 PM EST
    Everyone who accepts this bonus gets a subpoena to appear before the relevant House committees. They should be sure to bring their previous 5 years of tax returns and all business correspondence.

    Parent
    Throwing Good Money (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:30:17 PM EST
    After Bad, imo. Although if the gov gets into the movie biz they could recoup some of the layout.

    Parent
    The point is to make these individuals (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:32:22 PM EST
    think twice about accepting the money.

    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:35:56 PM EST
    Doubt they have a even a smidgen of guilt, and given the chance they would try to game the system over and over again for sport.  That is why we need regulation.

    Parent
    The threat of a Congressional hearing (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:38:03 PM EST
    should make anyone think twice. Those who do not are ever more deserving of being called to DC.

    Parent
    Waste Of Time (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:49:30 PM EST
    And our money, imo. If the bonus monkeys have a contract that guarantees a bonus we bought it. Buyer beware.

    At this point I would prefer to get all the BushCo leftovers out and all Obama's nominees in. Then we can start the fishfry starting from the top.

    Parent

    Waste of whose time (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:54:14 PM EST
    Let me ask you a question? What do you think Congressional committees do?

    Parent
    Soviet Style (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:03:18 PM EST
    Truth commissions?

    Parent
    Seems to me that's what the people (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:07:33 PM EST
    are demanding.

    I mean, really, even $500M in a pittance for Uncle Sam.

    Parent

    Watch your language, squeaky (none / 0) (#57)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:10:38 PM EST
    you have made it quite clear there is only one definition for the name calling you just did.


    Parent
    Moron? (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:17:35 PM EST
    And to build the case for fraud (none / 0) (#63)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:52:35 PM EST
    See here on looting.

    Parent
    Well, that's for the FBI (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:59:40 PM EST
    or the SEC. Congressional committees can barely find lunch if the staff doesn't provide directions.

    Parent
    Build the case in the public mind (none / 0) (#68)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:08:28 PM EST
    As in the Pecora Commission.

    There are already 26 ongoing FBI investigations of the debacle -- though oddly, or not, we haven't heard anything about them in the new administration.

    Parent

    How Nostalgic (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:08:12 PM EST
    Coincidence? Albeit, this time around it is as if the Silverado and Arbusto scams are on crack.

    Parent
    This is such an absurd (none / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 08:15:15 PM EST
    idea that I thought it was snark, but I see that you're serious.

    Parent
    Depends on what your goal is (none / 0) (#82)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 08:32:18 PM EST
    Probably won't stop the money being spent, bit it could seriously embarrass the wrongdoers--if that's possible.

    Parent
    What's absurd about it? (none / 0) (#103)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    We own 80% of the company. Although maybe that's the absurd thing.

    Parent
    Is it true that many (none / 0) (#51)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:48:44 PM EST
    of the employees receiving bonuses work in England?

    Parent
    Yes, the money's going to the London unit (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:00:40 PM EST
    AFP:

    The Wall Street Journal said Sunday that government-appointed AIG boss Edward Liddy was paying 450 million dollars to executives at a London-based financial products division blamed for the insurer's fall from grace.

    That would be this London unit:

    The heart of darkness was the AIG Financial Products (AIGFP) office in London, where a large proportion of the derivatives were written. AIG had placed this unit outside American borders, which meant that it would not have to abide by American insurance reserve requirements. In other words, the derivatives clerks in London could sell as many products as they could write--even if it would bankrupt the company.

    The president of AIGFP, a tyrannical super-salesman named Joseph Cassano, certainly had the experience. In the 1980s, he was an executive at Drexel Burnham Lambert, the now-defunct brokerage that became the pivot of the junk-bond scandal that led to the jailing of Michael Milken, David Levine, and Ivan Boesky.

    During the peak years of derivatives trading, the 400 or so employees of the London unit reportedly averaged earnings in excess of a million dollars a year. They sold "protection"--this Runyonesque term was favored--worth more than three times the value of parent company AIG. How could they have not known that they were putting at risk the largest insurer in the world and all the businesses and individuals that it covered?

    This scheme that smacks of securities fraud facilitated the dreams of buyers called "counterparties" willing to ante up. Hedge fund offices sprouted in Kensington and Mayfair like mushrooms after a summer shower. Revenue from premiums for derivatives at AIGFP rose from $737 million in 1999 to $3.26 billion in 2005. Cassano reportedly hectored ever-willing counterparties to "play the power game"--in other words, gobble up all the credit derivatives backing CDOs that they could grab. As the bundled adjustable-rate mortgages ballooned, stretched home buyers defaulted, and the exciting power game became about as risky as blasting sitting ducks with a Glock.

    People still seem surprised to read that hedge principals have raked in billions of dollars in a single year. They shouldn't be. These subprime-time players knew how to score. The scam bled AIG white. In mid-September, when it was on the ropes, AIG received an astonishing $85 billion emergency line of credit from the Fed. Soon, that was supplemented by another $67 billion. Much of that money, to use the government's euphemism, has already been "drawn down." Shamefully, neither Washington nor AIG will explain where the billions went. But the answer is increasingly clear: It went to counterparties who bought derivatives from Cassano's shop in London.


    So, again, the rage on compensation, while justified, is rage at the looting of millions.

    But it's the looting of BILLIONS, as the taxpayers, by bailing out AIG, are really bailing out AIG's counterparties -- and the government still won't tell us who those counterparties are, even though it's our money going to the bailout.

    Parent

    Good question (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:54:29 PM EST
    I have no idea.

    Parent
    But who could have predicted (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:24:30 PM EST
    that a company that was so irresponsible with money would continue to be so irresponsible with money?

    Please read the timeline (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:58:18 PM EST
    over at nakedcapitalism.com

    /2009/03/token-reining-in-of-aig-bonuses-banana.html

    If detailed timeline provided here is crrect, bonuses were agreed to after 1st bailout money received and other bonuses announced before latest round of bailout $ received. How could U.S. Treasury not have known?

    Parent

    I think they are all lying. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 06:34:20 PM EST
    Liddy, Geithner, Summers, Goolsbee -- all of them are liars. I don't believe the administration did not know about these bonuses. I do not believe AIG must give these bonuses. And I certainly do not believe that the very people who made the deals that caused AIG to crash and burn are somehow too valuable to lose.

    And I am especially p!ssed off that this nonsense has created a situation wherein I find myself agreeing with something Mitch McConnell said.

    If these were union workers (1.33 / 3) (#33)
    by dualdiagnosis on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 01:55:02 PM EST
    there would be celebrations that they were getting paid and recriminations at any hint that compensation that was contracted would be threatened.

    and your point is? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 02:08:14 PM EST
    what?  that people who don't make anything, but simply run a company into the ground, are just as entitled to wild wealth bonuses as actual workers are to their chump change salaries or wages?

    Come on.

    Parent

    someone will have to help me out here (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 02:09:50 PM EST
    but do union workers have a contractual ability to strike?  is that something that's in the contract or is it just a well-planned event?

    seems if the ability to strike is in the contract, then the Government has shown the ability to interfere with a contract when it orders strikers back to work...for the common good...
    I'd say that fits under this heading...for the common good this part of AIG's company shouldn't be getting bonuses (but it shouldn't effect other AIG holdings, I don't think)...

    then again, like I said, my knowledge of that part of a union is limited, so maybe I'm way off base..

    also, I think a lot of us here have worked for places that decided to stop giving out bonuses for a length of time...as usual the gods (or Kings, Aristocrats whatever) on Wall Street enjoy better facets of life than us less worthy people are capable of...

    Parent

    I wonder what the premium would be (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 10:50:40 AM EST
    for buying an insurance policy backed by Uncle Sam? I doubt there could be a safer policy in the world.

    The Answers to Whys (none / 0) (#8)
    by Oceandweller on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 11:30:21 AM EST
    In the US we have often wondered why a supposedly civilized country as France would have gone over sheer madness and ended up with Madame Guillotine over what was mainly something as simple as No taxation without real Representation, No money for Fat Aristocratic Cats.
    In 2009, if those bankers carry on this ongoing course, we may end up with the very same rage building up in the heart and minds of american taxpayers, and mind you a few other european countries.
    China is acting like a ssuspicious landlord and why shouldn't she as she ows so much of our economy.
    I would muse that the safest and surest way to prevent more madness, more greed and more concern would be to freeze this WallStreet on steroids- sorry on bonuses. If they act irrational, they should not be dealing with our economy but be tucked in beds with sedatives. By the way the sordid Geckos who cantlive without bonuses should be facing financial judiciaries.
    Send to the hospital the nervousbreaks send to jail the thieves. Build uo on safe sokid grounds with sound levelheaded laws. Reassure our foreign investors that there is a new boss in town who will pay the debts and wont run in same previous mess. Dont tell me the chineses wont like to see the GECKOS in jail, after all they will pay less intermediaries...

    WSJ: Bonus figure $450 mil, not $165 (none / 0) (#43)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 05:02:03 PM EST
    Worst case scenario: (none / 0) (#70)
    by magnetics on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    Obama/Geithner continue to allow AIG to bleed the taxpayers, and commit themselves to an open ended package that at some point spills several trillion dollars of taxpayer obligations onto the balance sheets of AIG's counterparties.

    This raises alarms internationally, and China stops buying US debt at current interest rates which are then forced upwards as an enticement.  The surge in interest rates echoes through the economy, deepening the recession, and tax revenues plummet.  

    At that point, unable to cover the interest payments on its national debt, the US government defaults.  

    The sequel:  Economic life as we now know it in this country ends, never to be revived.

    Another Possibility... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by santarita on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:33:37 PM EST
    US Government declares that the bond holders and other unsecured creditors will not be fully repaid.  China and other nations that hold these bonds and debt (or their citizens) decide that US contracts are not worth the paper they are written on if the US government can dishonor contracts and if they continue to do business with us, do it only at an enormous premium.  

    Parent
    Why AIG? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Rakesh on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:26:42 PM EST
    I am going to ask AIG if it's willing to pay me $500,000 for keeping my mouth shut as a taxpayer and not raise hell.  If they can't pay me, then they better stop ALL bonuses.  After all I'm busting my chops as a responsible taxpayer to help bail them out.

    Parent
    The XYZ Affair II (none / 0) (#71)
    by Pro Se on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:24:22 PM EST
    The XYZ Affair II -- Billions for Hank's unjust enrichment, not a cent for his prosecution.

    Not since 1798 in the XYZ Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYZ_Affair) has there been an extortion threat of this magnitude against the national financial security of the the United States. The objective of the extortion is to gain more than $100,000,000,000 in tribute from the U.S. Treasury by one multinational corporation, otherwise a greater depression than The Great Depression will be  triggered.

    Unlike the XYZ Affair, the extortionist is not France nor any other country, it is American International Group, Inc. ("AIG") (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group), a company that has "globalized" public corruption into a "new world order" of complicit government officials that have been bribed into treasonously breaching their fiduciary duties to their countries' citizens' national financial security interests. The architect of and the prime-mover in this web of corruption has been Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_R._Greenberg), who had corked his bat for decades to create a false image that his home-runs were due to some superior business acumen.

    While it is good that the United States Department of Justice ("DoJ") is investigating and prosecuting the relatively small-fish like Bernard Lawrence Madoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff) and Robert Allen Stanford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Stanford), a reformed DoJ will not turn a blind-eye to the law enforcement agencies' mandate to go after big-fish like AIG and Greenberg. The DoJ can begin with the obvious violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), that underlie the well-developed civil litigation taking place in Fort Worth, Texas that has exposed evidence that AIG has defrauded the victims' families of a corporate jet crash that occurred more than seventeen years ago of the justified benefits of a  $100,000,000 aviation liability insurance policy that AIG sold to the crash victims' employers, DuPont and Conoco (n.k.a. ConocoPhillips). (See http://Iran-Conoco-Affair.US and http://TexasBarWatch.US)

    However, the DoJ should be forewarned that AIG and Greenberg will continue to use the benefits of years of unjust enrichment to evade equal justice under the law through the bribery of corrupt public officials who are in a position to  derail the investigation and prosecution. In Texas, a well established method is to channel the bribe money through a compliant law firm that launders the money as incoming "legal fees" and then pass it out as a political contribution to the targeted public official. If the size of the bribe for the quid pro quo is too large, public officials who are also lawyers can be rewarded later in "retirement" with lucrative employment at the same law firms in jobs subsidized by the briber. This mechanism for bribery is widely used in Texas and has gained AIG "respect" for its ruthlessness among most members of the lawyers' union known as the State Bar of Texas. (See http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/03/there_will_never_be_a_paper_tr.php and http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txn/PressRel09/lewis_john_DCC_ple_pr.html)

    Actually, it's probably AIG's counterparties (none / 0) (#76)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 07:47:38 PM EST
    We throw money into the bottomless pit that is AIG, and the money goes to AIG's counterparties who are.... We don't know, really.

    To my non-expert eyes, it looks like AIG is a beard/straw/shield or the real extortionists. AIG takes our money with one hand, turns it over to them with the other.

    On exortion, see this post on the Sopranos: 09/23/2008. And yes, the business model is extortion; alas, extortion is a truly post-partisan affair.

    Parent

    Counterparty (none / 0) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 08:16:47 PM EST
    list is here.  Do try just a little harder to keep up.

    Parent
    Good. WaPo confirms on 3/15 (none / 0) (#81)
    by lambert on Sun Mar 15, 2009 at 08:31:47 PM EST
    this information from 3/8.

    Parent
    So we, the US taxpayer (none / 0) (#93)
    by Amiss on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:32:08 AM EST
    are bonuses to these failures of businesses under the AIG umbrella all over the freaking world.

    What a sham and a disgrace that our government sat and sits idly by while we are virtually being robbed by every country in the world.......this is just freaking insane.

    Parent

    Re-negotiate tjheir contracts? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Amiss on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 12:39:42 AM EST
    Is there a simple business way that this could have been handled?

    As a stipulation of receiving funds , there could have been a requirement to renegotiate contracts about bonuses. And as for claims they would lose talent, aren't we in a buyers market for the work force, and even more so for the banking industry.

     

    Parent

    Some bonuses were as low as 1,000 (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:38:03 AM EST
    you can't tell me that a person was going to walk from their job over 1 grand. Especially when banks and finacial firms are collapsing around them . . .

    They should have stipulated the funds were to be used for the actual act of doing financial business, not salaries, bonuses, extras, etc. What a freakin' mess. . . . the stupidity is mind boggling if that's what they really want us to believe it is . . .

    Parent

    You don't compensate for not doing a job (none / 0) (#104)
    by Rakesh on Mon Mar 16, 2009 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    I am going to ask AIG if it's willing to pay me $500,000 for keeping my mouth shut as a taxpayer and not raise hell.  If they can't pay me, then they better stop ALL bonuses.  After all I'm busting my chops as a responsible taxpayer to help bail them out.