If they had any ethics and shame, they would turn down this portion of their compensation, regardless of whether they could legally accept. Any resulting positive PR “might” help them with their future AIG Derivative Trader section of their resumes…
Oh yes? And what are you gonna put on your resume? AIG Derivatives Trader -turned down bonus because I did not deserve it
kblade Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh yes? And what are you gonna put on your > resume? > AIG Derivatives Trader > -turned down bonus because I did not deserve it “Turned down bonus in the interest of the country and my employer.”
Can you imagine if the president himself was gunning for you…specifically doing everything in his legal power to make sure YOU DON’T GET YOUR BONUS. Just walk away man, leave the money on the table and walk away ya greedy bastards.
Colonel Mustard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Here’s the full list of those who got secret > bailouts via AIG, ranked in order of gift. Read it > and weep: > > Goldman Sachs $12.90 billion 2.5 5.6 4.8 > > . > Soc Gen $11.90 billion 4.1 6.9 0.9 > > . > Deutsche Bank $11.80 billion 2.6 2.8 6.4 > > . > Barclays $8.50 billion 0.9 0.6 7 > > . > these are payouts on credit default swaps and other trading obligations (equity swaps, interest rate swaps) , not bailouts. Say you insured your car through AIG, and you had an accident, if they paid according to your policy terms would that be considered a bailout ? Off-course not. In my opinion, the company is technically bankrupt, and anyone with a liability should get in line at bankruptcy court, including those asking for their bonus. They’ll probably end with a fraction of what they’re owed, but that’s life.
they are contractual obligations, just was aig are obligated to pay counterparites. i am surprised at Obama’s stupid remarks about it, given his background as a lawyer.
jlx177 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I could care less about contract law… paying > $0.01 in bonuses is utterly ridiculous. AIG > executives should give back bonuses or go straight > to jail. > > Also, saying it’s only 0.1% of what they received > is crazy… its still $165 million. if they do not get paid as contracted, employees are walking out, and the loss would be $$Billions.
NYCZH08 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > if they do not get paid as contracted, employees > are walking out, and the loss would be $$Billions. Sorry. but that’s BS. These employees have no where to go. I am still waiting to read about one employee at Merill or AIG that walked out to a better position at a competitor firm. These guys are overpaid clowns who add no economic value to the business and they are the first to know that.
agree with mo34 in fact, is there a way to fire these clowns and take bonuses they were paid from previous years? let’s bankrupt and destroy their lives since they have directly and indirectly caused to hundreds of millions of other Americans
mo34 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NYCZH08 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > if they do not get paid as contracted, > employees > > are walking out, and the loss would be > $$Billions. > > > Sorry. but that’s BS. These employees have no > where to go. I am still waiting to read about one > employee at Merill or AIG that walked out to a > better position at a competitor firm. > > These guys are overpaid clowns who add no economic > value to the business and they are the first to > know that. the problem is tha many long time employees there don’t have to work any more if they walk out. their average pay in previous years were even better than those in GS. they have nothing to lose if they don’t get the bonus as promised this time last year…
that’s totally fine, let’s replace these people with nothing to lose with other people who have everything to gain - it would help the rest of us with more competent people in place (you can’t get more incompetent than these clowns)
A public trial should be held where executives who believe and can argue for why they DESERVE this bonus should do so. If they themselves cannot tell convincingly why they deserve the big buck, maybe they simply should not be entitled to it, at least not all of it.
I keep seeing the word “contractually” thrown around. My wife works for the State of NJ. She had a contract that included annual cost of living adjustments on her salary. Governor Corzine recently froze all wage increases including the cost of living increase so her pay next year will be the same as this year…despite her contract. If a state government can get away with breaking a contract I’m sure AIG could as well.
phBOOM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A public trial should be held where executives who > believe and can argue for why they DESERVE this > bonus should do so. If they themselves cannot tell > convincingly why they deserve the big buck, maybe > they simply should not be entitled to it, at least > not all of it. So let’s have a trial…
Pejorative language about “blackmail” aside, this is why we can’t let AIG fail: http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2009/03/the_aig_blackma.html
thepinkman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m too pissed at AIG to even join the discussion. > > > I don’t share the “it’s a contract it has to be > honored” mentality. > > They have zero cash. The bonus is being paid from > taxpayers. That’s absolute bull sh!t. This is > absolute bullsh!t. i first had the view that those from profitable areas of the business should be paid as they contributed to a profitable unit which made the loss less than it could’ve been, but i think this is the most important point. AIG should not have any equity right now. I should be completely nationalized with no outside investors speculating on a possible return. it should be COMPLETELY sold off with losses from the CDS fiasco and loss on life contracts absorbed by the govt as anything less would result in said systemic failure. no bonuses should be paid, no equity should exist. declare it insolvent, bandage the bleeding, and sell the healthy limbs. period.
What worries me more than the bonuses is the counterparty payments. The bonuses are chump change in comparison. I don’t like the idea of smarmy execs getting millions of taxpayer money, but why squabble about millions when GS and DB just walked away with billions? It seems to me that the government forking over the dough to provide money to the counterparties increases moral hazard. If banks know that the government has their back, why should they worry about the quality of their due diligence on a counterparty? If that counterparty fails, then the taxpayer will cover the tab. Am I way off here?
jg1996business Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I keep seeing the word “contractually” thrown > around. My wife works for the State of NJ. She > had a contract that included annual cost of living > adjustments on her salary. Governor Corzine > recently froze all wage increases including the > cost of living increase so her pay next year will > be the same as this year…despite her contract. > If a state government can get away with breaking a > contract I’m sure AIG could as well. I think AIG’s argument is that the bonuses being paid to the UK division, (the one that apparently caused the problems for the firm…) are bound by strict UK contract law. Maybe someone here from the UK, knows if contract law is really this strict.
So employees walk, which I highly doubt would happen in this terrible job market… big f’ing deal. There are millions of people who’d step in and take their jobs in a heartbeat. I don’t accept the arguement that profitable divisions should be paid bonuses. There are thousands of companies that had zero to do with the credit crisis that slashed bonuses & laid-off employees.
lol, this thread is great. everyone is so pi$$ed off. my 2 cents: AIG employees shouldnt be recieveing these bonuses. They are effectivley insolvent. The government now owns 80% of the company, and they would not be around if this had not happened. If i had to bail out a company like the US government has done (in fact, any taxpayer in the US is effectivley doing this), i would not be taking such a large stake without being able to make decisions over the entire company, including wages and bonuses. When a company is taken over, in many cases you are offered a new contract with the new company. Nationalise AIG for the time being, make it a government run agency (this should have happened last year and is the only reason it is an issue now), offer them new contracts with a different bonus structure. In a few years, spin off AIG and they can be the masters of their own destiny again, until then, there are plenty of unemployed people happy to pick up a paycheck rather than being concerned with bonuses. I dont think the risk is that employess will walk from a revised contract anyway.