Straw Poll: AIG Bonuses
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:03 am
I wasn't sure where to put this, really. I was perusing SDN given recent commentary about it and came across a thread regarding the AIG bonuses.
There was an excellent letter by a fellow who was leaving after people started getting upset about his bonus and those of many other AIG employees.
Well, here:
A contract is a contract. A small government's main role in regards to business is to prevent people from screwing each other and to provide legal force to contracts. Instead, the rapidly-expanding US Government is actively pooping on contracts.
Let's say you're at the Ford assembly line putting in steering columns. In your contract, it says that if you do your job well ... say, you do 1500 columns yourself this month and they all pass inspection ... you get an extra $1,000 at the end of each month.
You do 1546 columns and every single one passed inspection. But some guy on the gas tank line screwed up and made the cars into Pinto-bombs.
How in the name of hell does that mean your $1,000 is forfeit?
What amazed me even more is the reactions of the SDN people, ranging from the uninformed to the clearly insane:
Besides which, this isn't Madoff we're talking about, who was an intentional lying bastard. The part of AIG that got in trouble happened when stuff that was working and making money in a risky-but-theoretically-doable fashion suddenly stopped making money.
Yeah, it was BS. So is most of the higher financial system. Even Obama the other day was lamenting the funny-money aspect of GDP calculation, where a "financial product" (as if something was produced in the normal sense) gets sold and re-sold and sold again and so by the time its done this silly piece of paper with a $1000 sticker on it makes up $20,000 worth of GDP.
And yet, that's how the stuff works. I'm not keen on it, but right this second is not the time to bitch about it, since China is the factory (e.g. real product-maker) of the world right now.
But I digress:
In any case, it's up for Dear Leader to decide.
Just about the only one of the SDN regulars who made sense was Ender, for crying out loud.
But really, it's unfair to poop on SDN folks, and I apologize to them for singling them out. After all, it's folks in Congress, too . . . targeting a specific group of people for 90% taxation, with the idea that the other 10% will be taken by New York state?
Hell, why not simply pass a 90% tax on everyone who voted for McCain in 2008, and release Obama voters from taxation? The precedent thus set, the losers can pay all the taxes each term. Right now, for instance, that's something like 62 million folks who'd be paying all the personal income taxes. Way to put your money where your vote is, eh?
But I digress again . . .
I'm going to try to bow out of the thread at this point, since (barring intentional obfuscation by others) I think my meaning is plain. Discuss amongst yourselves. I'm curious as to the responses.
There was an excellent letter by a fellow who was leaving after people started getting upset about his bonus and those of many other AIG employees.
Well, here:
What you see above is classic conservatism . . . classical liberalism, for any old-timers out there.The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.
DEAR Mr. Liddy,
It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:
I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.
After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.
I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.
You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.
I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.
The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.
I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.
But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.
My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment†to honor the contract guarantees.
That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.â€
That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.
At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.
I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.
You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.
As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.
Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.
The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,†and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.
So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.
That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.
On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.
This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.
Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.â€
Sincerely,
Jake DeSantis
A contract is a contract. A small government's main role in regards to business is to prevent people from screwing each other and to provide legal force to contracts. Instead, the rapidly-expanding US Government is actively pooping on contracts.
Let's say you're at the Ford assembly line putting in steering columns. In your contract, it says that if you do your job well ... say, you do 1500 columns yourself this month and they all pass inspection ... you get an extra $1,000 at the end of each month.
You do 1546 columns and every single one passed inspection. But some guy on the gas tank line screwed up and made the cars into Pinto-bombs.
How in the name of hell does that mean your $1,000 is forfeit?
What amazed me even more is the reactions of the SDN people, ranging from the uninformed to the clearly insane:
What, make money?"From where I stand he should slink off with his tail between his legs and be glad he hasn't truly been held accountable for what he and his did."
That's scary shit right there."Did he walk out in handcuffs? No? Well, there is always later for that sort of thing."
More scary shit there at the end."narcissist"
"That smells like a mountainous pile of bullshit to me."
"If he's so upset and disappointed, then why the fuck doesn't he name some names and get the guilty jackasses put in jail? {...} How hard could it be to get together with the HR folks and find out who those fuckers are?"
Besides which, this isn't Madoff we're talking about, who was an intentional lying bastard. The part of AIG that got in trouble happened when stuff that was working and making money in a risky-but-theoretically-doable fashion suddenly stopped making money.
Yeah, it was BS. So is most of the higher financial system. Even Obama the other day was lamenting the funny-money aspect of GDP calculation, where a "financial product" (as if something was produced in the normal sense) gets sold and re-sold and sold again and so by the time its done this silly piece of paper with a $1000 sticker on it makes up $20,000 worth of GDP.
And yet, that's how the stuff works. I'm not keen on it, but right this second is not the time to bitch about it, since China is the factory (e.g. real product-maker) of the world right now.
But I digress:
Jake the Trader wasn't even involved in that division, yet this guy claims he's responsible and that his underlings were doing the deeds that blew up in their faces." "The Buck Stops Here". He is absolutely responsible for what his underlings were doing. Hell part of what he was getting paid for was to make sure his underlings kept doing that stuff because it was profitable. So it doesn't matter if he didn't do it, or if other people took what he was doing and ran it into the ground, he was in charge so he is still responsible."
I think people who make over $5,000 should be taxed so hard they only make $5,000, so that we're all even. So if you're getting minimum wage in July at forty hours a week and 52 weeks a year, that's a gross pay of 15,080 a year, meaning you'll be in a 66% tax bracket. If you make $1,000,000, you're in the 99.5% tax bracket. Work harder, kids! Make sure your tax bracket is higher than the next guy!"I think people who make over $1 million should be stripped off bonuses, the rest can have it. In any case, that's up for the legislators to decide."
In any case, it's up for Dear Leader to decide.
"{...} Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. {...}""The employees' entitlement to their contracts & pay ended the moment they got bailed out & taken over by the government. Don't like your pay? Fine, go find another job, cause if it weren't for the government you wouldn't have a fucking job, and would've been unemployed for the last 6 months. In fact, how about we fire your ass and claw back the last 6 months of your pay, benefits, and expenses including all bonuses?"
Everyone richer than you is evil and must be punished. Today that amount for you might be $20,000 a year . . . but if tomorrow you get a raise, that amount will climb commensurately."I couldn't believe the gall of the man either. Someone making that amount of money even ONCE in their life should be fucking set for the next 20 years! It's amazing how their mindset makes it sound like a common salary they were "owed"."
Quote of the year."These guys are so utterly disconnected from reality that they really have no shame at all."
Just about the only one of the SDN regulars who made sense was Ender, for crying out loud.
But really, it's unfair to poop on SDN folks, and I apologize to them for singling them out. After all, it's folks in Congress, too . . . targeting a specific group of people for 90% taxation, with the idea that the other 10% will be taken by New York state?
Hell, why not simply pass a 90% tax on everyone who voted for McCain in 2008, and release Obama voters from taxation? The precedent thus set, the losers can pay all the taxes each term. Right now, for instance, that's something like 62 million folks who'd be paying all the personal income taxes. Way to put your money where your vote is, eh?
But I digress again . . .
I'm going to try to bow out of the thread at this point, since (barring intentional obfuscation by others) I think my meaning is plain. Discuss amongst yourselves. I'm curious as to the responses.