AIG and the Bonus

iceroadtrucker

Veteran Expediter
Driver
WASHINGTON -- American International Group is giving its executives tens of millions of dollars in new bonuses even though it received a taxpayer bailout of more than $170 billion dollars.
AIG is paying out the executive bonuses to meet a Sunday deadline, but the troubled insurance giant has agreed to administration requests to restrain future payments.
The Treasury Department determined that the government did not have the legal authority to block the current payments by the company. AIG declared earlier this month that it had suffered a loss of $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of last year, the largest corporate loss in history.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has asked that the company scale back future bonus payments where legally possible, an administration official said Saturday.
This official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that Geithner had called AIG Chairman Edward Liddy on Wednesday to demand that Liddy renegotiate AIG's current bonus structure.
Geithner termed the current bonus structure unacceptable in view of the billions of dollars of taxpayer support the company is receiving, this official said.
In a letter to Geithner dated Saturday, Liddy informed Treasury that outside lawyers had informed the company that AIG had contractual obligations to make the bonus payments and could face lawsuits if it did not do so.
Liddy said in his letter that "quite frankly, AIG's hands are tied" although he said that in light of the company's current situation he found it "distasteful and difficult" to recommend going forward with the payments.
Liddy said the company had entered into the bonus agreements in early 2008 before AIG got into severe financial straits and was forced to obtain a government bailout last fall.
The large bulk of the payments at issue cover AIG Financial Products, the unit of the company that sold credit default swaps, the risky contracts that caused massive losses for the insurer.
A white paper prepared by the company says that AIG is contractually obligated to pay a total of about $165 million of previously awarded "retention pay" to employees in this unit by Sunday, March 15. The document says that another $55 million in retention pay has already been distributed to about 400 AIG Financial Products employees.
The company says in the paper it will work to reduce the amounts paid for 2009 and believes it can trim those payments by at least 30 percent.
Bonus programs at financial companies have come under harsh scrutiny after the government began loaning them billions of dollars to keep the institutions afloat. AIG is the largest recipient of government support in the current financial crisis.
AIG also pledged to Geithner that it would also restructure $9.6 million in bonuses scheduled to go a group that covers the top 50 executives. Liddy and six other executives have agreed to forgo bonuses.
The group of top executives getting bonuses will receive half of the $9.6 million now, with the average payment around $112,000.
This group will get another 25 percent on July 14 and the final 25 percent on September 15. But these payments will be contingent on the AIG board determining that the company is meeting the goals the government has set for dealing with the company's financial troubles.
The Obama administration has vowed to put in place reforms in the $700 billion financial rescue program in an effort to deal with growing public anger over how the program was operated during the Bush administration.
That anger has focused in part on payouts of millions of dollars in bonuses by financial firms getting taxpayer support.
In his letter, Liddy told Geithner, "We believe there will be considerably greater flexibility to reduce contractual payments in respect of 2009 and AIG intends to use its best efforts to do so."
But he also told Geithner that he felt it could be harmful to the company if the government continued to press for reductions in executive compensation.
"We cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses, which are now being operated principally on behalf of the American taxpayers -- if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury," Liddy said.


CNN obtained a letter Saturday from AIG Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, in which Liddy pledges in the letter to reduce 2009 bonus payments, which AIG refers to as "retention payments," by at least 30 percent.
Liddy also addresses steps to limit compensation in AIG Financial Products, the London-based unit responsible for issuing the risky credit default swaps, which on several occasions has brought the company to the brink of collapse.
In the letter, Liddy says the unit's 25 highest-paid contract employees will reduce their salaries to $1 this year and all other officers in the unit will reduce their salaries by 10 percent. Other "non-cash compensation" will be reduced or eliminated.
Liddy, who took the helm of the company in September after it had nearly failed, also refers to a conversation he had with Geithner last week, which the AIG chief describes as "a difficult one for me."
Liddy says in the letter that he personally does not receive a bonus, but that some bonus payments are unavoidable, because they are binding legal obligations of the company, and "there are serious legal, as well as business consequences for not paying."
Some of the bonus payments are due on Sunday, according to the letter.
Don't Miss

At the meeting Wednesday, Geithner told Liddy that millions of dollars in bonuses to senior employees were unacceptable and needed to be renegotiated, according to a senior administration official.
While the bonuses were never a secret, the official told CNN, Geithner felt giving them "was still inappropriate, given the state of the economy and the recent restructuring of the AIG agreement." AIG received at least $170 billion in federal bailout money
advertisement.gif





Liddy, however, makes clear that he made the changes with trepidation, saying in the letter: "I would not be doing my job if I did not directly advise you of my grave concern about the long-term consequences of the actions we are taking today," specifying that if employees believe the company will have trouble attracting and retaining "the best and the brightest ... if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury."
The company, which lost a record $62 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, has more than 74 million insurance policies issued in 130 countries around the world


This is so Wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Yes IRT it is so wrong, so what are you going to do about it?

Did you vote for the incumbent in your district and state?

Did you vote?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Well, I for one, did vote. I did NOT vote for ANY incumbent at the National level and only ONE at the State level. I will most likely do the same in 2010. We need to get rid of both the Dumb-O-Crats and the RE-Bum-Licans as soon as possible. I don't know about all of you but I am very TIRED of having these goobers "Stick it to ME" sooo often. Layoutshooter
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
The entire AIG bonus payout, after giving these people billions, is obviously as outrageous as outrageous can get, BUT, heres the the thing.. They (AIG) were given those billions so as to be able to do "business as usual", aside from not having any strings attached. Well, busienss as usual includes these executives getting big bonuses. For what I don't know beacuse they certainly were not being rewarded for a making a profit. Nonetheless, it is for something that is a part of their employment contract. Where is the line drawn? Do we honor contracts in this country? Unless there was some kind of fraud perpetrated in the actual payment of the bonuses, It is perfectly legal. Is it unethical? probably. Is it Immoral? Who knows, but the fact is they got the money with out recourse. All we can do is swallow hard and move on.
 

mjolnir131

Veteran Expediter
yes but bonus are suppose to be for good performance if your company is needing bailed out it's not preforming well,So one needs to question if it's managers are actually preforming well.
 

mjolnir131

Veteran Expediter
but i don't think it's the place of the government to dictate who gets what if your going to bail them out then just do so
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Business as usual also meant political donations.

#1 - Sen. Christopher Dodd $104,300
#2 - Sen. Barack Obama $45,111

But you won't hear about those "bonuses".
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
One of the problems is the terminology. In the financial world, the term "bonus" is not used in the same way that it is in most other industries. You don't get your regular pay and then at the end of the year if the company did well, or you did a particularly good job, you get a bonus. The bonuses are part of the compensation contract for performing specific duties. In other industries, this compensation would be viewed as merely compensation, not a bonus. In finances, if you put this deal or that deal together, or facilitate two or more parties in a deal, you get what other industries would call commission, but in finance it's called a bonus.

Now, having said all of that, if it weren't for the bailouts, those commissions could not be paid at all, much less on time. In that light, common sense should dictate that they be held back until such time as the company is stable. The top 25 in the Financial Products unit will drop their salary to $1 a year, but you can bet yer butts they'll still get their "commission", or bonuses right on time. Their salary is chicken feed, anyway, a draw against commission, it's the bonus where all of their money is. The promise of a whopping 30% reduction for this fiscal year is an insult and an outrage, and if the America people had any kind of backbone we'd have several of these executives hanging from the street lamps lining Wall Street, starting with Liddy.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
The promise of a whopping 30% reduction for this fiscal year is an insult and an outrage, and if the America people had any kind of backbone we'd have several of these executives hanging from the street lamps lining Wall Street, starting with Liddy.

I've got the rope if you've got the time...
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The facts are slowly starting to leak out that some of Obama's now-cabinet and members of congress knew about these bonuses a year ago when AIG started to get into trouble. To make a long and convoluted story short, the fix was in from the beginning and to sew it up Sen. Chris Dodd added an amendment to the stimulus bill that exempted bonuses that were declared prior to Feb. 11, 2009. Now this same charlatan declares he wants to introduce legislation to tax these bonuses to the tune of 90-something percent as a means of recovering the money. Makes a good sound byte for TV, but surely he knows he can't do this unless he's not familiar with the "Bill of Attainder" clause in the US Constitution that prevents ex post facto laws being written and aimed at individual citizens. Between the amateurs in the Obama administration and the sleazy congressmen like Dodd that are imposing this massive spend-tax-borrow "stimulus" legislation, it's like watching characters from the "Gong Show" trying to run our economy and our government. Problem is, we the voters can't hit the gong until 2010 and they can do a lot of damage between now and then.

One other thing about the $173 Billion that went to AIG - a large percentage of it was passed along by AIG to other banks, both domestic and foreign. From the Wall St. Journal:

"Since September 16, AIG has sent $120 billion in cash, collateral and other payouts to banks, municipal governments and other derivative counterparties around the world. This includes at least $20 billion to European banks. The list also includes American charity cases like Goldman Sachs, which received at least $13 billion. This comes after months of claims by Goldman that all of its AIG bets were adequately hedged and that it needed no "bailout." Why take $13 billion then? This needless cover-up is one reason Americans are getting angrier as they wonder if Washington is lying to them about these bailouts."

The Real AIG Outrage - WSJ.com

This whole AIG Bonus uproar is just a populist red herring created by the Hussein Obama bunch to distract the public from more important matters. They create villans at AIG so people will worry about their outrageous bonuses instead of paying attention to what's going on with all the money being spent at record levels by our so-called leaders in Washington.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Yeah, I'm getting a big kick out of some of these senators and congressmen trying to out-outrage each other. It's the zenith of fake outrage and hypocrisy, since they all knew about it before it happened.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I go back to,
Who did you vote for? Did you vote for your incumbent?

When the local news channel decided to interview people, they went over to Chrysler's Dodge Assembly on Mound Road and started to explain that AIG got ten times the amount that the combine automakers got then ask is this fair. They didn't ask management, but UAW workers who the public views just as bad as the AIG execs. Of course they felt it wasn't earned money.

All of this stuff was redefined by Clinton, salary, bonuses and other perks when through an overhaul back in the first few years of his administration if I remember right.
 

mjolnir131

Veteran Expediter
now they want to come up with special targeted taxes for these employees not sure i like the direction that is headed.Thats not unlike taxing a truck driver of a company because he is the one driving the polluting truck and leaving the exec who decided not to tune-it up alone. A very bad slop to go down . If it would even be legal in the first place i kinda feel that they might go the Tax route knowing full well that the courts would stick it down that way they can walk away claiming that they tried.Also i worry that a Slovik-effect type thing could happen where everybody knows it's wrong and expects the person higher up then themselves to 86 it and then it does not happen and then boom
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Article 1 Section 9
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Article 1 Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
 

mjolnir131

Veteran Expediter
yes but that is more for criminal law this is tax codes that I'm not even to sure are real laws.and trying to prove a tax code is being used as a Bill of Attainder might prove difficult.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Well here is the real problem, who says that the US 'taxpayer' money was used in the first place? AIG was not without assets, I think the number was $1.6B that they held in securities and other assets, down from $2.7B. Not only that, these were retention bonuses, which in effect were contracts to complete ongoing work.

I listened to the committee yesterday and got to tell you that the people should not be upset with AIG, but with these senators. Some of them are acting like Gods, while others keep throwing words around, taxpayer, stock holders, and our money like it they were mandated to spend them money in the first place.

There is a lot to be said about why hasn't there been talk about anti-trust laws, they were not created just to break up monopolies but to protect the public's interest in ensuring that a company will not effect the publics wealth, health and security. AIG should be broken up, but the fed and treasury have been clear that this is not going to happen.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Well here is the real problem, who says that the US 'taxpayer' money was used in the first place? AIG was not without assets, I think the number was $1.6B that they held in securities and other assets, down from $2.7B. Not only that, these were retention bonuses, which in effect were contracts to complete ongoing work.
Correct. In fact, these bonuses were not paid to those in the operating unit which got AIG into trouble - the one that essentially bankrupted the company.

Those folks were gone long ago - and were not paid retention bonuses - they were let go.

I listened to the committee yesterday and got to tell you that the people should not be upset with AIG, but with these senators. Some of them are acting like Gods, while others keep throwing words around, taxpayer, stock holders, and our money like it they were mandated to spend them money in the first place.
Again, correct.

As is frequently my habit when I am at home I will turn on C-SPAN late at night and watch it prior to going to bed, eventually listening to it, as I fall asleep.

I watched, and then listened to, Liddy's testimony last night before I fell asleep - the level of political posturing and sheer stupidity of some of our elected representatives only served to confirmed my belief that these idiots ought to be taken out by the reflecting pool and tarred and feathered ..... or worse .....

AIG should be broken up, but the fed and treasury have been clear that this is not going to happen.
Yup - ain't that interesting ..... ?

It came out in the testimony, that the primary contact for AIG thru this entire debacle and government bailout was not Treasury, which is actually a part of the government ..... but the Federal Reserve, which is a private corporation (owned by banks) .......

Gee ......... wonder who owned the most stock in AIG (pre bailout) ? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Top