The Economy, stupid

[lostfan]

Overall it's both if you count the $450 million total. A few of the very, very top people have agreed to give up their bonuses because the Feds could probably make them individual scapegoats. There seems to be about $175 million in this batch going directly to the Financial Products division.

Yeah, in that case, f*** these guys. It's unfair to the rest of AIG that they get lumped in with the financial division, but that's how it goes.

[kapkomet]

Um, you do realize that the exact law I was making an issue of was one that would allow bankruptcy courts to rewrite mortgages, something that they're not allowed to do right now? That's the law that led to Santelli's whole pre-planned tea party rant.

Yes. What am I missing? I must not understand your point. All kidding aside, I have a terrible headache. Time to stop reading this stuff.

 

[mr_genius]

In fairness to AIG, I have to ask, are the execs getting the bonuses part of the insurance division or the financial division? Because the insurance division is golden, it's the financial division that's f***ed everything for the entire company.

 

Bottom line, not everyone that works at AIG sucks.

 

"It's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less 165 million dollars in extra pay," Obama said at the outset of an appearance to announce a plan to boost small businesses loans.

 

I guess it's going to derivative traders.

[StrangeSox]

BTW, these are retention bonuses, not performance bonuses.

 

I'm really beginning to hate corporatism. These business models are proving just how bad they are for the economy as a whole (but great for the individuals getting $1M to stay at AIG!)

Edited March 17, 2009 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

Every single day the lead story on CNN is either about how worried people are or a story about someone who got f***ed by the bad economy.

[bmags]

Haha Lost watches CNN.

 

 

 

[lostfan]

Not really, I go to CNN.com. I don't watch lowest-common-denominator network news anymore except for the occasional hour here and there.

[bmags]

Not really, I go to CNN.com. I don't watch lowest-common-denominator network news anymore except for the occasional hour here and there.

 

My laughter, stands.

[lostfan]

bmags, for my assignment last week one of the chapters was called "Terrorism and the Media" and it made me think of you for whatever reason.

[NorthSideSox72]

BTW, these are retention bonuses, not performance bonuses.

 

I'm really beginning to hate corporatism. These business models are proving just how bad they are for the economy as a whole (but great for the individuals getting $1M to stay at AIG!)

If AIG wasn't throwing away taxpayer dollar, I could care less. Let them be stupid. But, since we now own a big chunk of AIG, they report to us. And us doesn't want these losers who caused a part of this mess getting paid millions as a result. I am 100% in favor of the near-100% tax on AIG trader bonuses idea.

 

[StrangeSox]

If AIG wasn't throwing away taxpayer dollar, I could care less. Let them be stupid. But, since we now own a big chunk of AIG, they report to us. And us doesn't want these losers who caused a part of this mess getting paid millions as a result. I am 100% in favor of the near-100% tax on AIG trader bonuses idea.

 

So am I, as long is there aren't some unintended consequences I don't know about. I usually like to hear the criticisms of an idea like this since I don't know much at all about corporate taxation or contract law.

[StrangeSox]

This made me laugh:

 

Grassley to AIG execs: Resign or commit suicide

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A prominent U.S. senator has intimated that executives of the troubled insurer American International Group Inc might consider suicide, adopting what he called a Japanese approach to taking responsibility for their actions.

 

Senator Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, made his comments on the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, radio station WMT on Monday.

 

"The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them (is) 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," Grassley said.

 

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

 

President Barack Obama on Monday expressed "outrage" about some $165 million of bonuses paid to AIG employees, including some who worked in the unit primarily responsible for the company's troubles.

 

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has said he will subpoena AIG for more information about the bonuses, including the names of the recipients.

 

Grassley's office did not immediately return a request for comment. A spokesman, Casey Mills, told the Associated Press that the senator "doesn't want U.S. executives" to commit suicide, but that executives who "make a mess of their companies should apologize, as Japanese executives do."

 

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; editing by John Wallace)

[kapkomet]

http://www.mercurynews.com/economic-crisis...?nclick_check=1

 

Anger over AIG bonuses depletes president's political capital

By Michael D. Shear and Paul Kane

 

 

Washington Post

 

Posted: 03/16/2009 07:28:13 PM PDT

 

 

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda.

 

Politicians in both parties flocked to express outrage over $165 million in bonuses paid out to executives at the company, demanding answers from the president and swamping Monday's rollout of his efforts to spark lending to small businesses.

 

The populist anger at the executives who ran their firms into the ground is increasingly blowing back on Obama, whom aides Monday described as having little recourse in the face of legal contracts that guaranteed those bonuses.

 

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, peppered with questions about why the president had not done more to block the bonuses at a company that has received $173.3 billion in taxpayer funds, struggled for an answer Monday afternoon. He explained that government attorneys are "looking through contracts to see what can be done to wrest these bonuses from their recipients."

 

Obama sought to channel the public's sense of disbelief Monday. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" he said, declaring the bonuses an "outrage" that violate "fundamental values."

 

Attorneys working for the Fed had been examining the matter for months and determined that the bonus payments couldn't be touched because AIG would face costly lawsuits and be subject to penalties from states and foreign governments. Administration officials said over the weekend that they agreed with that assessment.

 

AIG disclosed its retention-payment program more than a year ago, and the amount of the bonuses had been widely reported. But as the payments were coming due in recent days, the White House began to express its indignation.

 

Monday, White House aides grasped for actions that could soothe sentiment on Main Street and in the halls of Congress, where the fate of the new president's sweeping agendas on health care, climate change and education will be decided. They suggested that the government will use its latest pledged installment of $30 billion for the ailing company to recover the millions in bonuses paid Friday.

 

But the damage control did not seem to satisfy incredulous lawmakers in both parties, who said the image of financial executives taking huge bonuses from a taxpayer-funded rescue puts the president in a politically impossible position.

 

"I warned them this would be met with an unprecedented level of outrage," Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the chairman of the banking committee and part of a group of senators who pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to stop the bonuses, said Monday.

 

Rep. Barney Frank said Monday that it may be time to fire some people at the insurance giant.

 

"These people may have a right to their bonuses, but they don't have a right to their jobs forever," Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who heads the House Financial Services Committee, said on NBC's "Today" program.

 

"The federal government now is the 80 percent owner (of AIG)," Frank said. "These bonuses are going to people who screwed this thing up enormously. Since the federal government now essentially owns that company, maybe it's time to fire some people."

 

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the bonus issue added to his belief that there will be almost no Republican support for any expansion of a bank-bailout program that passed Congress in the fall with broad bipartisan support.

 

"What is the government's exit strategy from this sweeping involvement in private business?" he asked in a statement. "We have done so because taxpayers are not receiving an adequate accounting from either the Treasury or the management of the companies that received taxpayer funds. Unfortunately, we have not yet seen such a plan."

 

The rhetoric grew so heated Monday that Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, suggested in a radio interview that AIG executives ought to "follow the Japanese model ... resign, or go commit suicide." An aide later explained he does not actually want executives to kill themselves.

 

More than 80 House Democrats signed a letter demanding that the money used to pay the bonuses be recouped from AIG. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced that he will subpoena the Manhattan-based company, seeking data documenting who received the bonuses and the justification for them.

 

"You could argue that if taxpayers hadn't bailed out AIG, the contracts wouldn't be worth the paper they were signed on," Cuomo said.

 

The Obama administration was already facing a skeptical public and members of Congress critical of the huge sums of money the government has allocated to shoring up the devastated financial system.

 

News of the latest AIG bonuses only compounded the political problems that the huge expenditures pose for the president. The administration has tried to manage the public anger by expressing empathy with the outrage over the large outlays to financial firms, while explaining that they are necessary to stabilize the economy.

 

Earlier this month, the administration added to the bailout money needed to keep AIG functioning, saying failure of the company would be disastrous for the larger economy. And the administration is all but certain to return to Congress for hundreds of billions dollars more to aid the financial system.

 

But the bonus issue, in particular, is hounding Obama as he pursues his larger goals, in part because of the president's own repeated declarations of outrage — offered again Monday — aimed especially at the firms that are feeding at the public trough.

 

HMMMMMMMMM! OUTRAGE! This has been known for over a year... and OH THE OUTRAGE!

 

And, why is it the porkulus bill, Dodd threw in the executive compensation clause, while exempting bonuses?

 

We are being duped, people. These people all knew this was coming. And now, they are screaming to make it an example.

 

 

 

[clyons]

My 2 cents on how contract law applies to the AIG bonuses:

 

If these bonuses have indeed been "earned" under the terms of the employment contracts, the government can't interfere through legislation. The constitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws (i.e., retroactive criminalization) as well as the deprivation of citizens' property rights, including contractual entitlements, without due process of law (hearings). Things can only be declared "illegal" going forward.

 

If they're going to put the screws to the AIG executives, it will have to be through the tax code, as we're now hearing.

Edited March 17, 2009 by PlaySumFnJurny

[NorthSideSox72]

My 2 cents on how contract law applies to the AIG bonuses:

 

If these bonuses have indeed been "earned" under the terms of the employment contracts, the government can't interfere through legislation. The constitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws (i.e., retroactive criminalization) as well as the deprivation of citizens' property rights, including contractual entitlements, without due process of law (hearings). Things can only be declared "illegal" going forward.

 

If they're going to put the screws to the AIG executives, it will have to be through the tax code, as we're now hearing.

I think you'd be right if the bonuses were actually paid out. Because they are then the property of the payee. But the haven't been (I think). So if a contravening law is passed now, the contract would then be promising something the law disallows, and that won't be valid.

 

All told though, the tax route would probably be easier.

 

[kapkomet]

I think you'd be right if the bonuses were actually paid out. Because they are then the property of the payee. But the haven't been (I think). So if a contravening law is passed now, the contract would then be promising something the law disallows, and that won't be valid.

 

All told though, the tax route would probably be easier.

They had to be paid before Sunday according to the contracts.

[lostfan]

Opposing view: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/business/17sorkin.html?em

 

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

 

Article Tools Sponsored By

By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

Published: March 16, 2009

 

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

Skip to next paragraph

Related

Obama in Effort to Undo Bonuses at A.I.G. (March 17, 2009)

Times Topics: American International Group Inc. | Credit Crisis — The Essentials

Add to Portfolio

 

* American International Group

 

Go to your Portfolio »

Readers' Comments

 

Share your thoughts.

 

* Post a Comment »

* Read All Comments (980) »

 

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.

[clyons]

I think you'd be right if the bonuses were actually paid out. Because they are then the property of the payee. But the haven't been (I think). So if a contravening law is passed now, the contract would then be promising something the law disallows, and that won't be valid.

 

All told though, the tax route would probably be easier.

 

I don't think it matters if they've been paid out. Once vested, the contractual entitlement to the bonuses is a property right in and of itself. If the bonuses was legal when the contract was entered and the bonuses were earned, that property right can't be taken away without due process.

 

If Nevada outlaws gambling tomorrow, the casinos can still enforce and collect on all of Charles Barkley's past debts.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.mercurynews.com/economic-crisis...?nclick_check=1

 

 

HMMMMMMMMM! OUTRAGE! This has been known for over a year... and OH THE OUTRAGE!

 

And, why is it the porkulus bill, Dodd threw in the executive compensation clause, while exempting bonuses?

 

We are being duped, people. These people all knew this was coming. And now, they are screaming to make it an example.

 

AIG disclosed its retention-payment program more than a year ago, and the amount of the bonuses had been widely reported. But as the payments were coming due in recent days, the White House began to express its indignation.

 

I was just about to get on here and say a couple of things, and this was actually one of them. There is zero chance that a government bails out a multibillion dollar aid package without knowing every single detail of their business, especially 9 figures worth of an expense. This outrage timing is pretty interesting, because this is what I have gleened over the last two weeks.

 

Wasting $9 billion in taxpayer money=part of doing business. Wasting $165 or 450 million, outrageous and we aren't going to take it.

 

Seriously?

 

Nine billion dollars get tacked on to our budget for earmarks, and we get told that despite the flaws in the bill, Obama isn't going to stand in its way, when he actually has the legal authority to try to stop it. Even though he doesn't like it, he will fix it in the future. $165 million gets paid out in contractual obligations that we knew about, and Larry Summers goes on CBNC to tell the nation that they are going to get "creative" to figure out a way to get that money back.

 

This is a joke, and everyone who is all upset about this is just going the lemming parade right off of the cliff. Realize that the government just did the exact same thing to us on a magnitude of about a thousand times, and politicians were falling all over themselves to make excuses for it.

 

Please forgive me if this seems like a cute little campaign to distract people away from the negatives towards the Congress and the President's job performance so far.

[kapkomet]

I was just about to get on here and say a couple of things, and this was actually one of them. There is zero chance that a government bails out a multibillion dollar aid package without knowing every single detail of their business, especially 9 figures worth of an expense. This outrage timing is pretty interesting, because this is what I have gleened over the last two weeks.

 

Wasting $9 billion in taxpayer money=part of doing business. Wasting $165 or 450 million, outrageous and we aren't going to take it.

Seriously?

 

Nine billion dollars get tacked on to our budget for earmarks, and we get told that despite the flaws in the bill, Obama isn't going to stand in its way, when he actually has the legal authority to try to stop it. Even though he doesn't like it, he will fix it in the future. $165 million gets paid out in contractual obligations that we knew about, and Larry Summers goes on CBNC to tell the nation that they are going to get "creative" to figure out a way to get that money back.

 

This is a joke, and everyone who is all upset about this is just going the lemming parade right off of the cliff. Realize that the government just did the exact same thing to us on a magnitude of about a thousand times, and politicians were falling all over themselves to make excuses for it.

 

Please forgive me if this seems like a cute little campaign to distract people away from the negatives towards the Congress and the President's job performance so far.

You just beat me to it. I was JUST thinking the same thing.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think it matters if they've been paid out. Once vested, the contractual entitlement to the bonuses is a property right in and of itself. If the bonuses was legal when the contract was entered and the bonuses were earned, that property right can't be taken away without due process.

 

If Nevada outlaws gambling tomorrow, the casinos can still enforce and collect on all of Charles Barkley's past debts.

That would be different because the illegal act (gambling) already occurred.

 

But I see what you are saying, and I am sure you know more about the law than I do. I just think there are two conflicting legal pillars here - ex post facto laws, and contractual obligation in violation of law. I don't know which wins. Case law might tell you I suppose.

 

In any case, it sounds like the bonuses are already paid out, so, it doesn't matter. Just go the tax route.

 

[Balta1701]

I was just about to get on here and say a couple of things, and this was actually one of them. There is zero chance that a government bails out a multibillion dollar aid package without knowing every single detail of their business, especially 9 figures worth of an expense. This outrage timing is pretty interesting, because this is what I have gleened over the last two weeks.

Frankly, with AIG, I don't think they had a clue what they were doing, they just realized that they needed to do something.

 

Let's review the schedule here:

Friday, September 12th: Markets close with Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch teetering on the edge. Over the weekend, Lehman and Merrill have their books opened to the world to try to find a buyer, similar to what happened to Bear a few months beforehand. The Fed is able to convince BofA to take on Merrill's debacle, but Lehman is in worse shape and no one will take them on without a guarantee from the Fed similar to what they gave when Bear went down. Sunday night, Paulson says no.

Monday, September 15th: Markets re-open. Merrill is in BofA's hands, but Lehman files bankruptcy for the largest in corporate history. DJIA drops 504 points. AIG is hammered. Its stock drops 60% in 1 day.

Tuesday September 16th: The calamity of the Credit Default swap contracts AIG had put out covering Lehman bros has become clear to the Fed and to Paulson. They've realized their mistake. At 10:00 in the morning, the Fed rushes in with an $85 billion loan and takes an 80% stake in AIG to prevent the complete collapse of the financial system.

 

A few days later the $700 billion bailout plan was announced.

 

Just think through that. People had an inkling the week before that if Lehman went down, AIG would have problems, but the Fed and the Treasury had no idea how deep of a hole there was. Otherwise they never, ever would have let Lehman fall, they would have given it the same deal they gave Bear. Less than 36 hours pass from Paulson making the final call that they weren't going to bail out Lehman Brothers to the huge money infusion in to AIG. 1 business day. They went from basically knowing nothing about AIG's financial products to realizing the company was going down hard in less than 24 hours.

 

I doubt they had a clue about 95% of AIG's business when they nationalized it. There just wasn't anywhere close to enough time. They just knew there was a hole on the scale of hundreds of billions of dollars in AIG's books after Lehman went down, and that if they didn't do something then Barclay's, Goldman Sachs (conveniently enough Paulson's former employer), Societe Generale of France, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Citigroup, BofA, and a dozen others would have holes ranging from $5 to $10 billion suddenly appearing in their balance sheets as all of Lehman's bonds that they thought they had insured would go worthless...and God only knows how big those holes would be if all of AIG's debt went worthless as well.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wasting $9 billion in taxpayer money=part of doing business. Wasting $165 or 450 million, outrageous and we aren't going to take it.

 

Seriously?

 

 

You just beat me to it. I was JUST thinking the same thing.

 

Back up the bus. I've seen you two agree with me that earmarks are a major problem, even though they are only 2% or whatever of the porkulus bill (tip of cap to Kap). And yet, you are saying we should ignore this $160M because of some other amount spent elsewhere being $9B? I call foul. Which is it?

 

IMO, they are both bogus and should be dealt with.

 

[kapkomet]

Back up the bus. I've seen you two agree with me that earmarks are a major problem, even though they are only 2% or whatever of the porkulus bill (tip of cap to Kap). And yet, you are saying we should ignore this $160M because of some other amount spent elsewhere being $9B? I call foul. Which is it?

 

IMO, they are both bogus and should be dealt with.

No, it's the message that is being sent. Obama complicitly authorized that the earmarks were ok - many Dems even said that it was so small that it didn't matter. But this AIG money, which is essentially "earmarks", if you think if it that way, WE GOT TO GET THAT MONEY BACK! OUTRAGE! And Balta, they may not have known about the bonuses back in September, but they sure as hell did in February. Why did Dodd put in the clause exempting bonuses? They knew damn well what was going on across the financial industry.

 

You know what this is? Two things.

 

#1 - it's class warfare. They are going to get those rich f***ers. Just for you little people!

 

#2 - who are rich people? White men, by in large. This resonates really well with "minorities", who taken as a whole, are the "majority" of the voting block.

 

The is brilliant, seriously. The Democrats are playing people like a fiddle, and right now it's working like a charm.

[southsider2k5]

Back up the bus. I've seen you two agree with me that earmarks are a major problem, even though they are only 2% or whatever of the porkulus bill (tip of cap to Kap). And yet, you are saying we should ignore this $160M because of some other amount spent elsewhere being $9B? I call foul. Which is it?

 

IMO, they are both bogus and should be dealt with.

 

Personally I don't like the bonuses, but I don't buy the outrage for a second. I think Rick Santelli said it best this morning. He talked about the M's, the B's and the T's. We are more worried about the M's than we are the B's. We are also worried more about the B's than the T's. M's are millions, B's are billions, and T's are trillions.