Yeah, this right here. AIG and its employees are now welfare queens, so I'm perfectly fine dictating the money owed to its employees. ESPECIALLY since just about by definition, none of the people receiving these bonuses are working class. If they can make more money by quitting and working somewhere else, I'm all for it and suggest they do so.
The problem is that was their option last year. They could have quit, and gone looking for employment at firms that were not failing. However AIG offered them more money to stay, to compensate them for the fact that they might have greater difficulty finding work later.
They upheld their end of the bargain. Pay them and move on.
Then AIG promised money that is honestly, not theirs to give. They are perfectly free to quit now, and take the salary they have been paid.
We gave AIG money to cover their contractual obligations, right? And the bonuses are contractual obligations, right?
I think we're ignoring the forest for the trees. We're cutting off our nose to spite our face. We're making a mountain out of a (relative) molehill.
Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's unfair. But we can't change it without breaking contracts (which we really don't want to do). Let's get this over with and focus on things we can change instead of raging about things we cannot.
They could've paid me a straight salary to do nothing all year and gotten the same or better performance than they got out of their "talent".
Seriously, the AIG CEO was warning about a brain drain if they didn't continue paying bonuses. If that did happen, would we fucking notice? We need to get all of those fuckers the hell out of the industry, not retain them. They suck at their jobs.
That's true. There are plenty of very good employees at AIG who turned nice profits. They are getting bonuses they deserve. Plus, a lot of people who screwed things up have expertise we need to fix our financial markets. We can't purge everyone we don't like without thinking about the unintended consequences.
This is what I mean when I say that I'm worried about populist outrage actually hurting us. We cannot, as Obama says, govern from anger. Our anger is justified, yes, but it doesn't help us make the policies necessary to fix things.
Honestly, I think the people employed in AIG's Financial Products division need to get nothing, even the "good" employees. Where were these "good" employees when the bad ones were running the operation off the rails? They certainly weren't trying to make sure that AIG was conducting business responsibly.
Yeah, this right here. AIG and its employees are now welfare queens, so I'm perfectly fine dictating the money owed to its employees. ESPECIALLY since just about by definition, none of the people receiving these bonuses are working class. If they can make more money by quitting and working somewhere else, I'm all for it and suggest they do so.
The problem is that was their option last year. They could have quit, and gone looking for employment at firms that were not failing. However AIG offered them more money to stay, to compensate them for the fact that they might have greater difficulty finding work later.
They upheld their end of the bargain. Pay them and move on.
Then AIG promised money that is honestly, not theirs to give. They are perfectly free to quit now, and take the salary they have been paid.
We gave AIG money to cover their contractual obligations, right? And the bonuses are contractual obligations, right?
I think we're ignoring the forest for the trees. We're cutting off our nose to spite our face. We're making a mountain out of a (relative) molehill.
Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's unfair. But we can't change it without breaking contracts (which we really don't want to do). Let's get this over with and focus on things we can change instead of raging about things we cannot.
Were these contracts made before or after they received bailout money?
Even if they are, I don't count employee bonuses as in the same ballpark as external obligations. When you don't have the money to pay people, you let them go. They should have been let go in the first place. This whole thing stinks like a scam - even if it's not, it LOOKS really bad.
And it sounds to me like it's being changed fairly well, since Obama has instructed the treasury to cut off the money for the bonuses.
And it sounds to me like it's being changed fairly well, since Obama has instructed the treasury to cut off the money for the bonuses.
How does that work? The treasury doesn't get to free people from contractual obligations, so AIG by law still has to pay these people what they promised them. We can give them less money, but that doesn't mean they can't choose to break their obligations with other parties instead?
Then AIG promised money that is honestly, not theirs to give. They are perfectly free to quit now, and take the salary they have been paid.
No AIG promised money that they are contractually obligated to give. Those people are free to quit now, and would still be owned the money they have yet to be paid.
These people have already completed their contractual obligation, where ever AIG has to get the money is irrelevant. These people are owed. Plus how is the company supposed to recover if it cannot retain employees able to do the job?
The point of the "bailout" is to keep these companies afloat. Paying your employees helps that end. Otherwise they leave, and even if you could have recovered you no longer can because you cannot even hire someone to answer the phones. Heck not only do they leave they sue you for the money you are contractually obligated to pay. So now you have legal fees.
So in order to actually get anywhere the government would not only have to say "you cannot pay these promised, and earned bonuses to retain the people you need to function in business, you also cannot pay any lawsuits against you for this very same money."
Frankly the government needs to step back and figure out what it really wants to do. Anything currently tossed in is sunk. They need to figure out if they want to continue funding this adventure, or back out and try something else.
AIG does owe them this money, nobody disputes that.
I don't think that's true. A lot of people, inlcuding Barack Obama, are trying very hard to stop payment.
Yes, thanks to Pants' white paper, these are standard retention bonuses and not end of year bonuses. It is common practice during any period of unusual change (merger/acquisition, bankruptcy, tarp, etc.) to offer certain people extra money in order to forgo their natural inclination to get the fuck out of Dodge. They stayed despite the risk of staying.
Now, there is definitely logic to the fact that the government guaranteed AIG's existence, and since the government effectively took care of the risk side of the retention agreement, then they should take care of the reward side of it, too. In other words, people signed retention agreements because they were on a sinking ship and knew it, but since the government stepped in and stopped the sinking, then the government ought to be able to hold onto the money being paid out for those who took the risk.
But that still leaves someone who could have jumped ship long ago (and maybe they weren't individuals that cause of all this mess., we don't know) but stayed on for a bonus, and now the market has really tanked and their opportunities to leave are greatly diminshed, and now we want to take the money they were promised for staying.
Yeah, this right here. AIG and its employees are now welfare queens, so I'm perfectly fine dictating the money owed to its employees. ESPECIALLY since just about by definition, none of the people receiving these bonuses are working class. If they can make more money by quitting and working somewhere else, I'm all for it and suggest they do so.
The problem is that was their option last year. They could have quit, and gone looking for employment at firms that were not failing. However AIG offered them more money to stay, to compensate them for the fact that they might have greater difficulty finding work later.
They upheld their end of the bargain. Pay them and move on.
Then AIG promised money that is honestly, not theirs to give. They are perfectly free to quit now, and take the salary they have been paid.
We gave AIG money to cover their contractual obligations, right? And the bonuses are contractual obligations, right?
I think we're ignoring the forest for the trees. We're cutting off our nose to spite our face. We're making a mountain out of a (relative) molehill.
Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's unfair. But we can't change it without breaking contracts (which we really don't want to do). Let's get this over with and focus on things we can change instead of raging about things we cannot.
Were these contracts made before or after they received bailout money?
Even if they are, I don't count employee bonuses as in the same ballpark as external obligations. When you don't have the money to pay people, you let them go. They should have been let go in the first place. This whole thing stinks like a scam - even if it's not, it LOOKS really bad.
And it sounds to me like it's being changed fairly well, since Obama has instructed the treasury to cut off the money for the bonuses.
If it's contractual and not an incentive decision/plan made by management, it would be paid even if employees need to go to court.
And it sounds to me like it's being changed fairly well, since Obama has instructed the treasury to cut off the money for the bonuses.
How does that work? The treasury doesn't get to free people from contractual obligations, so AIG by law still has to pay these people what they promised them. We can give them less money, but that doesn't mean they can't choose to break their obligations with other parties instead?
It means that AIG had better figure out how to pay back the bonus money. The alternatives aren't pretty otherwise.
Yeah, this right here. AIG and its employees are now welfare queens, so I'm perfectly fine dictating the money owed to its employees. ESPECIALLY since just about by definition, none of the people receiving these bonuses are working class. If they can make more money by quitting and working somewhere else, I'm all for it and suggest they do so.
The problem is that was their option last year. They could have quit, and gone looking for employment at firms that were not failing. However AIG offered them more money to stay, to compensate them for the fact that they might have greater difficulty finding work later.
They upheld their end of the bargain. Pay them and move on.
Then AIG promised money that is honestly, not theirs to give. They are perfectly free to quit now, and take the salary they have been paid.
We gave AIG money to cover their contractual obligations, right? And the bonuses are contractual obligations, right?
I think we're ignoring the forest for the trees. We're cutting off our nose to spite our face. We're making a mountain out of a (relative) molehill.
Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's unfair. But we can't change it without breaking contracts (which we really don't want to do). Let's get this over with and focus on things we can change instead of raging about things we cannot.
Were these contracts made before or after they received bailout money?
Even if they are, I don't count employee bonuses as in the same ballpark as external obligations. When you don't have the money to pay people, you let them go. They should have been let go in the first place. This whole thing stinks like a scam - even if it's not, it LOOKS really bad.
And it sounds to me like it's being changed fairly well, since Obama has instructed the treasury to cut off the money for the bonuses.
I believe they were made last year, but it doesn't really matter either way. Obama has instructed treasury to explore every LEGAL avenue for stopping the bonuses. I honestly think he's going through the motions, expressing dignified outrage, and using it as a way to overhaul compensation and regulation for the financial industry.
If he can harness popular anger and use it to further his agenda, then this will be a win. But if popular anger derails necessary bailouts (and there will be more), then we're all going to pay the price.
Well these brokers now have the choice of insisting on getting their bonuses, possibly only after a long drawn out legal battle or not getting ramrodded by both a popular US President, angry Congress, angry populace and AG of NY State who wants to run for either Governor or Senator in two years.
And it sounds to me like it's being changed fairly well, since Obama has instructed the treasury to cut off the money for the bonuses.
How does that work? The treasury doesn't get to free people from contractual obligations, so AIG by law still has to pay these people what they promised them. We can give them less money, but that doesn't mean they can't choose to break their obligations with other parties instead?
It means that AIG had better figure out how to pay back the bonus money. The alternatives aren't pretty otherwise.
Yes, because people are behaving irrationally or just never actually had event the slightest understanding of how city compensation works. From the lowest asset management company to the big banks.
I've said many harsh things about bonuses in financial institutions and reform HAS to happen, but there is no way a company can walk out of paying what it currently owns.
It seems like the Financial Products people were inspired geniuses at protecting themselves in case of failure.
They aren't stupid, they're just fuckers in the truest sense of the word.
Though it took all of 10 minutes for this fact to be known before the internet came back with a solution: Allow AIG to pay the bonuses and levy a huge tax on all bonuses of over X (make X like 20k so you don't get any sob stories about poor, poor people making only 60k before their bonus). Make it conditional on the company having received stimulus money if you need to play nice, fuck everyone who's compensation was based on bonuses to get around other tax restrictions if you're feeling like getting your pound of flesh from the market.
Yeah, this right here. AIG and its employees are now welfare queens, so I'm perfectly fine dictating the money owed to its employees. ESPECIALLY since just about by definition, none of the people receiving these bonuses are working class. If they can make more money by quitting and working somewhere else, I'm all for it and suggest they do so.
The problem is that was their option last year. They could have quit, and gone looking for employment at firms that were not failing. However AIG offered them more money to stay, to compensate them for the fact that they might have greater difficulty finding work later.
They upheld their end of the bargain. Pay them and move on.
Then AIG promised money that is honestly, not theirs to give. They are perfectly free to quit now, and take the salary they have been paid.
We gave AIG money to cover their contractual obligations, right? And the bonuses are contractual obligations, right?
I think we're ignoring the forest for the trees. We're cutting off our nose to spite our face. We're making a mountain out of a (relative) molehill.
Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's unfair. But we can't change it without breaking contracts (which we really don't want to do). Let's get this over with and focus on things we can change instead of raging about things we cannot.
We bailed out AIG to prevent everything from breaking down. Because AIG insured a lot of this financial BS and got so heavily involved without having the cash on hand if they went down they'd take the entire financial sector with them. In addition AIG is the largest player in the insurance industry, and they legally need to have enough cash on hand to back the items they insure, so if we did not inject cash into them they would have taken down the entire insurance industry as well.
The purpose was never to cover the retention bonuses ect. It was to unfuck their financial mess and prevent the destruction of the financial and insurance markets. They held a gun to their own head and said "no strings", and then promptly took the money and blew it on bonuses for these people, and when called on it said "but we had to"... yeah right, if we had put the strings on it they wouldn't have had to.
It is a big deal. Because unless we start cracking down on this crap there is nothing to prevent them from doing it again. In the future give the money only to be used to back insured items, and fix their financial problems. If they can't make a profit to pay the bonuses the CEO can sue his own damn company for it in public court and look like an idiot.
Well these brokers now have the choice of insisting on getting their bonuses, possibly only after a long drawn out legal battle or not getting ramrodded by both a popular US President, angry Congress, angry populace and AG of NY State who wants to run for either Governor or Senator in two years.
They'll fight for their money and they'll probably win. But with any luck, for those of them who really and truly screwed up, this will be the last big payday of their lives.
Well these brokers now have the choice of insisting on getting their bonuses, possibly only after a long drawn out legal battle or not getting ramrodded by both a popular US President, angry Congress, angry populace and AG of NY State who wants to run for either Governor or Senator in two years.
Can we at least have them fight to the death in gladiatorial combat? Think of the on demand and ticket sales and merchandising opportunities, it's really what the economy needs right now.
Frankly I'd like to charge the fuckers with fraud.
We could. It would be extremely easy to simply say "we are launching an FBI investigation into the FP division management of AIG and an IRS investigation. if you take a bonus we are going to be looking doubly hard at you".
They aren't contractually obligated to take the bonus, and nothing is out there to stop the government from making their life hell. But any mention of doing something along those lines and we get the standard "but if these people quit our company will fail", which honestly is laughable now.
I just want to point out that like 12 billion of the bailout money went to a single foreign bank who gave out massively risky loans and then took out insurance on those loans from AIG. That we think is just dandy, pay them every last dollar of taxpayer money to cover the insruance policy on all those loans they gave out. But use 1% of that to pay some AIG employees contractual compensation for sticking around instead of leaving back when the ship started sinking? BASTARDS!
I hate it when you start working up a real populist anger head of steam and then people get all reasonable with "we have to focus on fixing the problems, not revenge" and that kind of nonsense.
They don't call it an angry, unthinking mob for nothing! Who wants a calm, thoughtful mob? No one! What's the point?
I just want to point out that like 12 billion of the bailout money went to a single foreign bank who gave out massively risky loans and then took out insurance on those loans from AIG. That we think is just dandy, pay them every last dollar of taxpayer money to cover the insruance policy on all those loans they gave out. But use 1% of that to pay some AIG employees contractual compensation for sticking around instead of leaving back when the ship started sinking? BASTARDS!
Look this boils down to what was the purpose of the bailout.
AIG had no money, those bonuses were gone when AIG ran out of cash.
So did we bail them out to keep them from taking down the financial and insurance sectors, and should the money be spent on that? Or did we bail them out for the purpose of putting their FP sector on a government paycheck?
You seem to think the latter was the purpose of this.
I just want to point out that like 12 billion of the bailout money went to a single foreign bank who gave out massively risky loans and then took out insurance on those loans from AIG. That we think is just dandy, pay them every last dollar of taxpayer money to cover the insruance policy on all those loans they gave out. But use 1% of that to pay some AIG employees contractual compensation for sticking around instead of leaving back when the ship started sinking? BASTARDS!
Ok. We shouldn't give them that money either. I don't think either group should get the money.
I just want to point out that like 12 billion of the bailout money went to a single foreign bank who gave out massively risky loans and then took out insurance on those loans from AIG. That we think is just dandy, pay them every last dollar of taxpayer money to cover the insruance policy on all those loans they gave out. But use 1% of that to pay some AIG employees contractual compensation for sticking around instead of leaving back when the ship started sinking? BASTARDS!
Which department of AIG decided to insure those horribly risky loans? Is that department getting a retention bonus?
Why didn't we just buy AIG and nationalize it or give it to another bank? Those contracts would be no good if another company was in control. Go all slash and burn on what was left of AIG and keep whatever is needed to keep the insurance industry afloat.
What would happen? How much of the entire economy would come down with it?
I am specifically wondering about other firms or companies in the financial field.
What are these guys doing after getting their bonuses? Fucking off completely to another firm?
Could that firm theoretically stay afloat if AIG collapses?
Wouldn't it be in their best interest to keep AIG in the black (lol)? Even if they did want to go somewhere else?
If AIG collapses, is it the middle/lower class that takes it in the face (mortgages, personal loans and lines of credit etc)?
At the very least it would be a stern rebuke of such practices and might pave the way for far-reaching reform.
I'm confused. How does that help even a bit?
Edit: As in, what is the positive side of what he's suggesting?
We'd be able to get some of the bailout money back because AIG would not be able to deduct them against future profits. Plus, classifying the bonuses as unreasonable compensation would open the door for shareholder lawsuits against AIG's board to get back the unreasonable compensation (in this case, the bonuses.
So it would be a win win. I'm sure Obama is thinking about this but it seems like a good idea on its face.
The way I understand it, entire businesses would lose the insurance they have on their assets and without that fallback they would be forced to operate much more frugally to the point of massive layoffs. It is much bigger than individuals losing the ability to get loans.
What would happen? How much of the entire economy would come down with it?
I am specifically wondering about other firms or companies in the financial field.
What are these guys doing after getting their bonuses? Fucking off completely to another firm?
Could that firm theoretically stay afloat if AIG collapses?
Wouldn't it be in their best interest to keep AIG in the black (lol)? Even if they did want to go somewhere else?
If AIG collapses, is it the middle/lower class that takes it in the face (mortgages, personal loans and lines of credit etc)?
It would cause a chain reaction that would make Lehman Brothers' collapse look like a Jenga set.
Well these brokers now have the choice of insisting on getting their bonuses, possibly only after a long drawn out legal battle or not getting ramrodded by both a popular US President, angry Congress, angry populace and AG of NY State who wants to run for either Governor or Senator in two years.
True. Tough choice.
I'd have my bonus now. 10x k bye.
OK, you'll be expected for depositions 9-5 for the next three weeks. Also the IRS is going to be auditing you during this federal investigation. Any one who interviews you in the financial or corporate sector will need to be questioned by federal agents. It is not recommended you attempt to leave the country.
Oh and you will not be paid right now, that will be held pending the outcome of the fraud investigation. Hope you enjoy lawyers fees.
Its rarely financially worth it to go toe to toe with the federal government, especially with massive public disapproval.
Why didn't we just buy AIG and nationalize it or give it to another bank? Those contracts would be no good if another company was in control. Go all slash and burn on what was left of AIG and keep whatever is needed to keep the insurance industry afloat.
What? Yes they would. A change in ownership doesn't automagically dissolve contracts. There are specific mechanisms for unwinding contracts when there is no ability to pay, but generally employee pay is at the top of the repayment heap for good reason. I'm not entirely sure if that applies to contractual agreements involving retention bonuses or not.
At the very least it would be a stern rebuke of such practices and might pave the way for far-reaching reform.
I'm confused. How does that help even a bit?
Edit: As in, what is the positive side of what he's suggesting?
We'd be able to get some of the bailout money back because AIG would not be able to deduct them against future profits. Plus, classifying the bonuses as unreasonable compensation would open the door for shareholder lawsuits against AIG's board to get back the unreasonable compensation (in this case, the bonuses.
So it would be a win win. I'm sure Obama is thinking about this but it seems like a good idea on its face.
This absolutely defeats the point in saving the AIG stock from the 0.000001$ pricetag and has very, very slim chances of success.
Also, we want the company to keep going, recoup losses and pay back. The whole suggestion is absolutely counter productive.
Well these brokers now have the choice of insisting on getting their bonuses, possibly only after a long drawn out legal battle or not getting ramrodded by both a popular US President, angry Congress, angry populace and AG of NY State who wants to run for either Governor or Senator in two years.
True. Tough choice.
I'd have my bonus now. 10x k bye.
OK, you'll be expected for depositions 9-5 for the next three weeks. Also the IRS is going to be auditing you during this federal investigation. Any one who interviews you in the financial or corporate sector will need to be questioned by federal agents. It is not recommended you attempt to leave the country.
Oh and you will not be paid right now, that will be held pending the outcome of the fraud investigation. Hope you enjoy lawyers fees.
Its rarely financially worth it to go toe to toe with the federal government, especially with massive public disapproval.
What would happen? How much of the entire economy would come down with it?
I am specifically wondering about other firms or companies in the financial field.
What are these guys doing after getting their bonuses? Fucking off completely to another firm?
Could that firm theoretically stay afloat if AIG collapses?
Wouldn't it be in their best interest to keep AIG in the black (lol)? Even if they did want to go somewhere else?
If AIG collapses, is it the middle/lower class that takes it in the face (mortgages, personal loans and lines of credit etc)?
It would cause a chain reaction that would make Lehman Brothers' collapse look like a Jenga set.
In the financial field, this is a pretty well known fact then I'd imagine right? So if AIG pays out all these bonuses, they will fail (most likely), right?
Can these people not see the forest for the trees?
Sure they'll get some money, but what about after that? When everything is truly and completely fucked?
How long will that money last them?
Where the fuck are they going to put it? Under their mattress? What about the bank that has THAT money?
How can AIG be contractually obligated to give people bonuses when they lost $61B last year? Don't you get a bonus when the company does well?
Depends on the criteria for awarding the bonus. It's perfectly possible for individuals to do their jobs well, and meet the goals asked of them and for the company to still do badly.
Apparently all of them did!
We had a big legislative fight in Texas over the University of Texas' endowment management. The managers were given bonuses because of fiscal year timing, and how performance was up as of July '08, and they felt obligated to pay the bonuses in October because of the financial period, despite knowing at that later time that the fund was in the tank.
How can AIG be contractually obligated to give people bonuses when they lost $61B last year? Don't you get a bonus when the company does well?
Depends on the criteria for awarding the bonus. It's perfectly possible for individuals to do their jobs well, and meet the goals asked of them and for the company to still do badly.
Apparently all of them did!
We had a big legislative fight in Texas over the University of Texas' endowment management. The managers were given bonuses because of fiscal year timing, and how performance was up as of July '08, and they felt obligated to pay the bonuses in October because of the financial period, despite knowing at that later time that the fund was in the tank.
We'd be able to get some of the bailout money back because AIG would not be able to deduct them against future profits. Plus, classifying the bonuses as unreasonable compensation would open the door for shareholder lawsuits against AIG's board to get back the unreasonable compensation (in this case, the bonuses.
So it would be a win win. I'm sure Obama is thinking about this but it seems like a good idea on its face.
Hey genius, the government has a large stake in AIG. So we would be reducing profits that would go back into a company the US government owns an 80% stake in and has a huge interest in keeping solvent. Sounds like a winning plan.
We should definately be engaged in witch hunts for marginal gain. I mean, that is basically a pillar of good government. People rightly pointed out that it was a waste to go nutso about earmarks and they represented over 20 times the amount of these bonuses. I mean, what would the point of any action be? To spend a bunch of time pursuing a course of action that may recoup a portion of the money and is pretty likely to do absolutely fuck all out of a sense of spite? These sorts of arrangements are already forbidden going forward.
What would happen? How much of the entire economy would come down with it?
I am specifically wondering about other firms or companies in the financial field.
What are these guys doing after getting their bonuses? Fucking off completely to another firm?
Could that firm theoretically stay afloat if AIG collapses?
Wouldn't it be in their best interest to keep AIG in the black (lol)? Even if they did want to go somewhere else?
If AIG collapses, is it the middle/lower class that takes it in the face (mortgages, personal loans and lines of credit etc)?
The real problem with AIG is that they are the largest insurer in the world, and this isn't just insuring financial assets. For normal insurance you have to have X cash on hand to back insurance of X. This arm of AIG was doing well. But when AIG's FP arm ran the company into the ground this branch would have gone under as well which would have caused real damage.
It would have taken out the private sector and the insurance sector overnight.
Why didn't we just buy AIG and nationalize it or give it to another bank? Those contracts would be no good if another company was in control. Go all slash and burn on what was left of AIG and keep whatever is needed to keep the insurance industry afloat.
What? Yes they would. A change in ownership doesn't automagically dissolve contracts. There are specific mechanisms for unwinding contracts when there is no ability to pay, but generally employee pay is at the top of the repayment heap for good reason. I'm not entirely sure if that applies to contractual agreements involving retention bonuses or not.
But that's the thing. They had no ability to pay until the government stepped in.
I admit I'm not an expert at this, but the hotel my dad works at was owned by this foreign company who racked up debt and stopped paying its employees at its 200+ hotels and buggered off to south asia without paying any of its employees federal taxes. A bank took over control of the hotel and while everyone is getting paid now, some employees there are out over a month's pay because the new company refuses to pay what the old company owed employees. They way they put it was that if they really wanted their money, they could join the line in attempting to sue a company which no longer has any holdings in the US. One of the housekeepers actually went to jail for unpaid child support because the company didn't pay it but was deducting it from her (bouncing) paychecks.
Now, this may just be one of those times where being rich means you can afford a lawyer so people don't bullshit you. In which case I still want to burn some AIG holdings.
Posts
We gave AIG money to cover their contractual obligations, right? And the bonuses are contractual obligations, right?
I think we're ignoring the forest for the trees. We're cutting off our nose to spite our face. We're making a mountain out of a (relative) molehill.
Yes, it sucks. Yes, it's unfair. But we can't change it without breaking contracts (which we really don't want to do). Let's get this over with and focus on things we can change instead of raging about things we cannot.
Honestly, I think the people employed in AIG's Financial Products division need to get nothing, even the "good" employees. Where were these "good" employees when the bad ones were running the operation off the rails? They certainly weren't trying to make sure that AIG was conducting business responsibly.
Were these contracts made before or after they received bailout money?
Even if they are, I don't count employee bonuses as in the same ballpark as external obligations. When you don't have the money to pay people, you let them go. They should have been let go in the first place. This whole thing stinks like a scam - even if it's not, it LOOKS really bad.
And it sounds to me like it's being changed fairly well, since Obama has instructed the treasury to cut off the money for the bonuses.
How does that work? The treasury doesn't get to free people from contractual obligations, so AIG by law still has to pay these people what they promised them. We can give them less money, but that doesn't mean they can't choose to break their obligations with other parties instead?
No AIG promised money that they are contractually obligated to give. Those people are free to quit now, and would still be owned the money they have yet to be paid.
These people have already completed their contractual obligation, where ever AIG has to get the money is irrelevant. These people are owed. Plus how is the company supposed to recover if it cannot retain employees able to do the job?
The point of the "bailout" is to keep these companies afloat. Paying your employees helps that end. Otherwise they leave, and even if you could have recovered you no longer can because you cannot even hire someone to answer the phones. Heck not only do they leave they sue you for the money you are contractually obligated to pay. So now you have legal fees.
So in order to actually get anywhere the government would not only have to say "you cannot pay these promised, and earned bonuses to retain the people you need to function in business, you also cannot pay any lawsuits against you for this very same money."
Frankly the government needs to step back and figure out what it really wants to do. Anything currently tossed in is sunk. They need to figure out if they want to continue funding this adventure, or back out and try something else.
Yes, thanks to Pants' white paper, these are standard retention bonuses and not end of year bonuses. It is common practice during any period of unusual change (merger/acquisition, bankruptcy, tarp, etc.) to offer certain people extra money in order to forgo their natural inclination to get the fuck out of Dodge. They stayed despite the risk of staying.
Now, there is definitely logic to the fact that the government guaranteed AIG's existence, and since the government effectively took care of the risk side of the retention agreement, then they should take care of the reward side of it, too. In other words, people signed retention agreements because they were on a sinking ship and knew it, but since the government stepped in and stopped the sinking, then the government ought to be able to hold onto the money being paid out for those who took the risk.
But that still leaves someone who could have jumped ship long ago (and maybe they weren't individuals that cause of all this mess., we don't know) but stayed on for a bonus, and now the market has really tanked and their opportunities to leave are greatly diminshed, and now we want to take the money they were promised for staying.
If it's contractual and not an incentive decision/plan made by management, it would be paid even if employees need to go to court.
It means that AIG had better figure out how to pay back the bonus money. The alternatives aren't pretty otherwise.
I believe they were made last year, but it doesn't really matter either way. Obama has instructed treasury to explore every LEGAL avenue for stopping the bonuses. I honestly think he's going through the motions, expressing dignified outrage, and using it as a way to overhaul compensation and regulation for the financial industry.
If he can harness popular anger and use it to further his agenda, then this will be a win. But if popular anger derails necessary bailouts (and there will be more), then we're all going to pay the price.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yes, because people are behaving irrationally or just never actually had event the slightest understanding of how city compensation works. From the lowest asset management company to the big banks.
I've said many harsh things about bonuses in financial institutions and reform HAS to happen, but there is no way a company can walk out of paying what it currently owns.
Do most of those people DESERVE bonuses? fuck no.
They aren't stupid, they're just fuckers in the truest sense of the word.
Though it took all of 10 minutes for this fact to be known before the internet came back with a solution: Allow AIG to pay the bonuses and levy a huge tax on all bonuses of over X (make X like 20k so you don't get any sob stories about poor, poor people making only 60k before their bonus). Make it conditional on the company having received stimulus money if you need to play nice, fuck everyone who's compensation was based on bonuses to get around other tax restrictions if you're feeling like getting your pound of flesh from the market.
We bailed out AIG to prevent everything from breaking down. Because AIG insured a lot of this financial BS and got so heavily involved without having the cash on hand if they went down they'd take the entire financial sector with them. In addition AIG is the largest player in the insurance industry, and they legally need to have enough cash on hand to back the items they insure, so if we did not inject cash into them they would have taken down the entire insurance industry as well.
The purpose was never to cover the retention bonuses ect. It was to unfuck their financial mess and prevent the destruction of the financial and insurance markets. They held a gun to their own head and said "no strings", and then promptly took the money and blew it on bonuses for these people, and when called on it said "but we had to"... yeah right, if we had put the strings on it they wouldn't have had to.
It is a big deal. Because unless we start cracking down on this crap there is nothing to prevent them from doing it again. In the future give the money only to be used to back insured items, and fix their financial problems. If they can't make a profit to pay the bonuses the CEO can sue his own damn company for it in public court and look like an idiot.
They'll fight for their money and they'll probably win. But with any luck, for those of them who really and truly screwed up, this will be the last big payday of their lives.
At least, that's what I'm hoping.
True. Tough choice.
Go all Justinian on their asses
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-zelinsky/larry-summers-stop-the-ai_b_175151.html
At the very least it would be a stern rebuke of such practices and might pave the way for far-reaching reform.
We could. It would be extremely easy to simply say "we are launching an FBI investigation into the FP division management of AIG and an IRS investigation. if you take a bonus we are going to be looking doubly hard at you".
They aren't contractually obligated to take the bonus, and nothing is out there to stop the government from making their life hell. But any mention of doing something along those lines and we get the standard "but if these people quit our company will fail", which honestly is laughable now.
They don't call it an angry, unthinking mob for nothing! Who wants a calm, thoughtful mob? No one! What's the point?
I'm confused. How does that help even a bit?
Edit: As in, what is the positive side of what he's suggesting?
Look this boils down to what was the purpose of the bailout.
AIG had no money, those bonuses were gone when AIG ran out of cash.
So did we bail them out to keep them from taking down the financial and insurance sectors, and should the money be spent on that? Or did we bail them out for the purpose of putting their FP sector on a government paycheck?
You seem to think the latter was the purpose of this.
Ok. We shouldn't give them that money either. I don't think either group should get the money.
Happy?
Which department of AIG decided to insure those horribly risky loans? Is that department getting a retention bonus?
Why didn't we just buy AIG and nationalize it or give it to another bank? Those contracts would be no good if another company was in control. Go all slash and burn on what was left of AIG and keep whatever is needed to keep the insurance industry afloat.
What would happen? How much of the entire economy would come down with it?
I am specifically wondering about other firms or companies in the financial field.
What are these guys doing after getting their bonuses? Fucking off completely to another firm?
Could that firm theoretically stay afloat if AIG collapses?
Wouldn't it be in their best interest to keep AIG in the black (lol)? Even if they did want to go somewhere else?
If AIG collapses, is it the middle/lower class that takes it in the face (mortgages, personal loans and lines of credit etc)?
We'd be able to get some of the bailout money back because AIG would not be able to deduct them against future profits. Plus, classifying the bonuses as unreasonable compensation would open the door for shareholder lawsuits against AIG's board to get back the unreasonable compensation (in this case, the bonuses.
So it would be a win win. I'm sure Obama is thinking about this but it seems like a good idea on its face.
It would cause a chain reaction that would make Lehman Brothers' collapse look like a Jenga set.
Oh and you will not be paid right now, that will be held pending the outcome of the fraud investigation. Hope you enjoy lawyers fees.
Its rarely financially worth it to go toe to toe with the federal government, especially with massive public disapproval.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
What? Yes they would. A change in ownership doesn't automagically dissolve contracts. There are specific mechanisms for unwinding contracts when there is no ability to pay, but generally employee pay is at the top of the repayment heap for good reason. I'm not entirely sure if that applies to contractual agreements involving retention bonuses or not.
This absolutely defeats the point in saving the AIG stock from the 0.000001$ pricetag and has very, very slim chances of success.
Also, we want the company to keep going, recoup losses and pay back. The whole suggestion is absolutely counter productive.
One too many movies?
In the financial field, this is a pretty well known fact then I'd imagine right? So if AIG pays out all these bonuses, they will fail (most likely), right?
Can these people not see the forest for the trees?
Sure they'll get some money, but what about after that? When everything is truly and completely fucked?
How long will that money last them?
Where the fuck are they going to put it? Under their mattress? What about the bank that has THAT money?
Horrible totp.
We had a big legislative fight in Texas over the University of Texas' endowment management. The managers were given bonuses because of fiscal year timing, and how performance was up as of July '08, and they felt obligated to pay the bonuses in October because of the financial period, despite knowing at that later time that the fund was in the tank.
How did it end?
Hey genius, the government has a large stake in AIG. So we would be reducing profits that would go back into a company the US government owns an 80% stake in and has a huge interest in keeping solvent. Sounds like a winning plan.
We should definately be engaged in witch hunts for marginal gain. I mean, that is basically a pillar of good government. People rightly pointed out that it was a waste to go nutso about earmarks and they represented over 20 times the amount of these bonuses. I mean, what would the point of any action be? To spend a bunch of time pursuing a course of action that may recoup a portion of the money and is pretty likely to do absolutely fuck all out of a sense of spite? These sorts of arrangements are already forbidden going forward.
The real problem with AIG is that they are the largest insurer in the world, and this isn't just insuring financial assets. For normal insurance you have to have X cash on hand to back insurance of X. This arm of AIG was doing well. But when AIG's FP arm ran the company into the ground this branch would have gone under as well which would have caused real damage.
It would have taken out the private sector and the insurance sector overnight.
But that's the thing. They had no ability to pay until the government stepped in.
I admit I'm not an expert at this, but the hotel my dad works at was owned by this foreign company who racked up debt and stopped paying its employees at its 200+ hotels and buggered off to south asia without paying any of its employees federal taxes. A bank took over control of the hotel and while everyone is getting paid now, some employees there are out over a month's pay because the new company refuses to pay what the old company owed employees. They way they put it was that if they really wanted their money, they could join the line in attempting to sue a company which no longer has any holdings in the US. One of the housekeepers actually went to jail for unpaid child support because the company didn't pay it but was deducting it from her (bouncing) paychecks.
Now, this may just be one of those times where being rich means you can afford a lawyer so people don't bullshit you. In which case I still want to burn some AIG holdings.