PDA

View Full Version : Economics Dear AIG--I QUIT


SBK
03-25-2009, 02:29 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all

<nyt_kicker>Op-Ed Contributor</nyt_kicker>
<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" "> Dear A.I.G., I Quit! </nyt_headline>

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/03/25/opinion/25oped_span.jpg
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">writePost();</script> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">if (acm.cc) acm.cc.write();</script>


<nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "> </nyt_byline> Published: March 24, 2009


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.”
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.”


Sincerely,
Jake DeSantis

KC native
03-25-2009, 02:35 PM
Good Riddance. He may not have been one of the people who got the company in trouble but if they wouldn't have been bailed out this wouldn't even be an issue.

It is sheer arrogance that he feels he is due his bonus because he worked hard. I've got screwed out of a bonus because my company at the time missed performance metrics (that they finagled with and changed at the last minute) and I didn't write a whiny resignation letter about not getting my bonus. When you're company fails you don't get a bonus. Simple as that.

***SPRAYER
03-25-2009, 02:40 PM
B.O.'s economic strategy: We won't let you fail, but if you succeed, we will punish you

Garcia Bronco
03-25-2009, 02:52 PM
Good Riddance. He may not have been one of the people who got the company in trouble but if they wouldn't have been bailed out this wouldn't even be an issue.

It is sheer arrogance that he feels he is due his bonus because he worked hard. I've got screwed out of a bonus because my company at the time missed performance metrics (that they finagled with and changed at the last minute) and I didn't write a whiny resignation letter about not getting my bonus. When you're company fails you don't get a bonus. Simple as that.

I guess you missed the part where he's working for 1 dollar/year. It didn't come off as whining to me. I guess you also missed the part where he did make his performace metrics. Gosh. It seems like you didn't read the letter at all. He's there to help wind the company down so they can sell it off and hopefully recoup our investment. This is why what Congress did last week and this week is ****ing stupid for 165 million, when billions are at stake.

SBK
03-25-2009, 02:52 PM
Good Riddance. He may not have been one of the people who got the company in trouble but if they wouldn't have been bailed out this wouldn't even be an issue.

It is sheer arrogance that he feels he is due his bonus because he worked hard. I've got screwed out of a bonus because my company at the time missed performance metrics (that they finagled with and changed at the last minute) and I didn't write a whiny resignation letter about not getting my bonus. When you're company fails you don't get a bonus. Simple as that.

So I'm guessing you agreed to work for $1 for the year, and were threatened by the government both locally and nationally.

KC native
03-25-2009, 03:05 PM
I guess you missed the part where he's working for 1 dollar/year. It didn't come off as whining to me. I guess you also missed the part where he did make his performace metrics. Gosh. It seems like you didn't read the letter at all. He's there to help wind the company down so they can sell it off and hopefully recoup our investment. This is why what Congress did last week and this week is ****ing stupid for 165 million, when billions are at stake.

Oh, so let's make an analogy. Let's say he was a deck hand on the Titanic. Should he receive a bonus because even though the ship went down he didn't have anything to do with that directly?

When you work for a company, especially one as large as AIG, then you have to accept the fact that other parts of the company can get you screwed over (one reason to do extensive DD before accepting a job). If the government wouldn't have bailed out AIG then he wouldn't even have a contract to bitch about. It's not the tax payers' fault he chose to work at a crappy firm.

KC native
03-25-2009, 03:06 PM
So I'm guessing you agreed to work for $1 for the year, and were threatened by the government both locally and nationally.

He could have always went to another firm if he didn't feel it was fair.

SBK
03-25-2009, 03:09 PM
He could have always went to another firm if he didn't feel it was fair.

This is what he decided to do. Did you even read his letter?

Brock
03-25-2009, 03:10 PM
Oh, so let's make an analogy. Let's say he was a deck hand on the Titanic. Should he receive a bonus because even though the ship went down he didn't have anything to do with that directly?


Sure, if his piece of the boat was the only thing actually working.

jAZ
03-25-2009, 03:10 PM
There is an unseemliness about the letter and publishing it. But there is merit to his point. The outrage over the bonus (the attacks and the counter attacks) miss the point that these weren't peformance bonuses, but retention bonuses to keep these people around as the company closed down.

The manipulation of this story by the media and both sides, has been a huge disservice to the real issues of the crisis.

SBK
03-25-2009, 03:12 PM
There is an unseemliness about the letter and publishing it. But there is merit to his point. The outrage over the bonus (the attacks and the counter attacks) miss the point that these weren't peformance bonuses, but retention bonuses to keep these people around as the company closed down.

The manipulation of this story by the media and both sides, has been a huge disservice to the real issues of the crisis.

I didn't think I'd ever agree with you on anything. Guess I was wrong.

alnorth
03-25-2009, 03:13 PM
Oh, so let's make an analogy. Let's say he was a deck hand on the Titanic. Should he receive a bonus because even though the ship went down he didn't have anything to do with that directly?

When you work for a company, especially one as large as AIG, then you have to accept the fact that other parts of the company can get you screwed over (one reason to do extensive DD before accepting a job). If the government wouldn't have bailed out AIG then he wouldn't even have a contract to bitch about. It's not the tax payers' fault he chose to work at a crappy firm.

When you "work" 12-14 hour days for $1 a year, then its not really a bonus, is it? For this situation, I'd call the whole thing salary in every way but name.

If you want to argue that what he got was too high and should be reduced to $250k, whatever thats one thing. To say he should be forced to give it all back when he was not responsible for credit default swaps is crazy.

KC native
03-25-2009, 03:19 PM
This is what he decided to do. Did you even read his letter?

He was never forced to take the offer. He could have left when that offer was made instead of clinging to a sinking ship.

KC native
03-25-2009, 03:20 PM
When you "work" 12-14 hour days for $1 a year, then its not really a bonus, is it? For this situation, I'd call the whole thing salary in every way but name.

If you want to argue that what he got was too high and should be reduced to $250k, whatever thats one thing. To say he should be forced to give it all back when he was not responsible for credit default swaps is crazy.

So, if the government wouldn't have given AIG the money do you think he'd be seeing that bonus?

alnorth
03-25-2009, 03:22 PM
So, if the government wouldn't have given AIG the money do you think he'd be seeing that bonus?

actually, yes he would. In a bankruptcy situation when assets are liquidated, employee pay is FIRST in line in front of all creditors. I think the feds MIGHT be in front of employees to collect corporate taxes, but that's it.

KC native
03-25-2009, 03:24 PM
actually, yes he would. In a bankruptcy situation when assets are liquidated, employee pay is FIRST in line in front of all creditors. I think the feds MIGHT be in front of wages for taxes, but that's it.

The bonus wasn't wages owed. If the company would have failed he would have to get in line with the other creditors (government, bond holders, etc). If this was his salary and drawn up as a salary then I would have no problem with it.

SBK
03-25-2009, 03:26 PM
The bonus wasn't wages owed. If the company would have failed he would have to get in line with the other creditors (government, bond holders, etc). If this was his salary and drawn up as a salary then I would have no problem with it.

There are very few people who wanted these guys bailed out. But they were, so they should be paid how they were supposed to be paid.

Should China regulate everything our gov't does because we owe them a trillion dollars?

Garcia Bronco
03-25-2009, 03:29 PM
There is an unseemliness about the letter and publishing it. But there is merit to his point. The outrage over the bonus (the attacks and the counter attacks) miss the point that these weren't peformance bonuses, but retention bonuses to keep these people around as the company closed down.

The manipulation of this story by the media and both sides, has been a huge disservice to the real issues of the crisis.

Agreed.

alnorth
03-25-2009, 03:32 PM
The bonus wasn't wages owed. If the company would have failed he would have to get in line with the other creditors (government, bond holders, etc). If this was his salary and drawn up as a salary then I would have no problem with it.

I do not believe this is correct. Wages is something you get no matter what. Bonuses are something you are entitled to if certain conditions are met. There were no performance bonuses so we don't have to worry about that, this was a retention bonus, meaning he gets it if he stays for X amount of time. If there is nothing in the contract stating the bonuses also are not paid if the company goes into bankruptcy, then this compensation is due every bit as much as salary. As I understand it, bonuses are effectively just salary with preconditions that have to be met. Once they are met, he is in front of bondholders, stockholders, debt-holders, etc etc etc. The sale of the AIG building itself may have been enough to pay off the employees.

So, effectively, the American taxpayers arent really paying these bonuses because they would have received them anyway. We are paying off the other parties who would have lost money in these CDS contracts.

***SPRAYER
03-25-2009, 04:24 PM
Oh, so let's make an analogy. Let's say

Let's just say you are a moron, and let it go at that.

:drool:

Chief Henry
03-25-2009, 04:28 PM
Let's just say you are a moron, and let it go at that.

:drool:

You are being dam rude to morons !

petegz28
03-25-2009, 04:29 PM
Well.......bye.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2009, 04:39 PM
Think I changed my mind on this. Good letter. Cast some balance on the issue.
Still, if AIG were allowed to go bankrupt, how much would he have received? It's still taxpayer, not company money.

Hydrae
03-25-2009, 04:44 PM
He was never forced to take the offer. He could have left when that offer was made instead of clinging to a sinking ship.

Which offer? The one where he pays back everything or the one where he get's taxed at 90%? From the tone of the letter he was told several times that there would be no issue in receiving money due to him via contract. Now that he knows that the money is this huge issue he is indeed leaving. So when do you think he should have known about this problem and left?

wild1
03-25-2009, 04:45 PM
Sounds like this guy's business unit was profitable and not to blame, he still agreed to work for $1, and now they will take away what remains of his compensation for an entire year. I don't blame him.

It's too bad real people, who did their jobs well, are being caught up in the interference being run for the massive spending bills.

Baby Lee
03-25-2009, 04:59 PM
Anyone know if those poor underpaid nurses, EMTs and teachers ever worked a year for $1?

Calcountry
03-25-2009, 05:07 PM
I guess you missed the part where he's working for 1 dollar/year. It didn't come off as whining to me. I guess you also missed the part where he did make his performace metrics. Gosh. It seems like you didn't read the letter at all. He's there to help wind the company down so they can sell it off and hopefully recoup our investment. This is why what Congress did last week and this week is ****ing stupid for 165 million, when billions are at stake.You mean trillions.

wild1
03-25-2009, 05:09 PM
A lot of people may not know this, but the current government may make this required information in the future: the order of magnitude that comes after trillion is "quadrillion".

petegz28
03-25-2009, 06:04 PM
I guess you missed the part where he's working for 1 dollar/year. It didn't come off as whining to me. I guess you also missed the part where he did make his performace metrics. Gosh. It seems like you didn't read the letter at all. He's there to help wind the company down so they can sell it off and hopefully recoup our investment. This is why what Congress did last week and this week is ****ing stupid for 165 million, when billions are at stake.


You know, a lot of people I work with at Sprint just got their job whacked. They were not responsible for the bad decisions the company made and yet they lost their job, not quit, got cut. So I think when the altrenative is to have to pay taxes on a very nice bonus, they would take that as opposed to no job at all.


What Congress did was stupid and would never have held up in court. That being said, this guy is free to quit and go work elsewhere. At least he has that luxury of making a choice and not just having his job whacked.

wild1
03-25-2009, 06:08 PM
You know, a lot of people I work with at Sprint just got their job whacked. They were not responsible for the bad decisions the company made and yet they lost their job, not quit, got cut. So I think when the altrenative is to have to pay taxes on a very nice bonus, they would take that as opposed to no job at all.


What Congress did was stupid and would never have held up in court. That being said, this guy is free to quit and go work elsewhere. At least he has that luxury of making a choice and not just having his job whacked.

a better analogy would be if those people instead of getting laid off had agreed to keep working and defer all their compensation for a year, and then when the year had lapsed, the company said "aw shucks, can't pay you."

Garcia Bronco
03-25-2009, 06:15 PM
You know, a lot of people I work with at Sprint just got their job whacked. They were not responsible for the bad decisions the company made and yet they lost their job, not quit, got cut. So I think when the altrenative is to have to pay taxes on a very nice bonus, they would take that as opposed to no job at all.


What Congress did was stupid and would never have held up in court. That being said, this guy is free to quit and go work elsewhere. At least he has that luxury of making a choice and not just having his job whacked.

It's not even the samething. Those were at will jobs, this is a contracted situation. He earned his money. I think the guy is all class.

banyon
03-25-2009, 06:33 PM
actually, yes he would. In a bankruptcy situation when assets are liquidated, employee pay is FIRST in line in front of all creditors. I think the feds MIGHT be in front of employees to collect corporate taxes, but that's it.

Wouldn't the secured creditors be in front of unsecured debts to employees?

Also are these companies really so stupid that their bonus contracts are written without a contingency for liquidation of the company rendering bonuses invalid? That seems like a pretty basic provision to draft to me.

Rain Man
03-25-2009, 06:33 PM
I'd work for a $1 a year if I could get a non-performance-based bonus of $742,000 after taxes.

petegz28
03-25-2009, 09:37 PM
It's not even the samething. Those were at will jobs, this is a contracted situation. He earned his money. I think the guy is all class.

I see no difference. Who would get his money regardless because as you said, it was a contract situation and the courts would not go for the tax cause it was unconstitutional.

petegz28
03-25-2009, 09:39 PM
Wouldn't the secured creditors be in front of unsecured debts to employees?

Also are these companies really so stupid that their bonus contracts are written without a contingency for liquidation of the company rendering bonuses invalid? That seems like a pretty basic provision to draft to me.

That is because these boards rape the shareholder and fuck over the employee for their select group of executives. If the boards were really fulfilling their fuduciary responsibility these ignorant contracts would never be drawn up in the first place.

alnorth
03-25-2009, 09:41 PM
Wouldn't the secured creditors be in front of unsecured debts to employees?

Also are these companies really so stupid that their bonus contracts are written without a contingency for liquidation of the company rendering bonuses invalid? That seems like a pretty basic provision to draft to me.

I did a bit of research on this a few hours ago, and it looks like I was a little bit right, but mostly wrong.

After the recent bankruptcy reform, back employee compensation has a very high priority by law near the front of the line... but only up to $10,000 per employee. It gets murky on what the rules are for that on where in line they are for back pay greater than 10 grand, apparently it's up to the bankruptcy court.

I guess they wrote the law like that to make sure the blue-collar front-line guys get their money (how many people would have back wages > $10,000), but would not necessarily guarantee the larger salaries and compensation usually received by executives.

KC native
03-25-2009, 09:41 PM
That is because these boards rape the shareholder and **** over the employee for their select group of executives. If the boards were really fulfilling their fuduciary responsibility these ignorant contracts would never be drawn up in the first place.

You, sir, are correct.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-25-2009, 09:45 PM
You mean trillions.

This! I mean were enraged over 100 mil or so and the bill calls for over a trillion, sounds like a distraction to me.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-25-2009, 09:47 PM
I'd work for a $1 a year if I could get a non-performance-based bonus of $742,000 after taxes.

Man are you selling yourself short, i wouldn't take that!

J Diddy
03-25-2009, 09:47 PM
I'd work for a $1 a year if I could get a non-performance-based bonus of $742,000 after taxes.

I'd do it for free.

Nightfyre
03-25-2009, 10:45 PM
The guy is obviously bright. He could probably have moved on to any number of high 6 figure jobs at any point. But he stayed, presumably out of loyalty to his company and to see his company properly liquidated and deferred his compensation. Its a RETENTION bonus. I'd be pissed if I was him as well.

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 06:09 AM
Anyone know if those poor underpaid nurses, EMTs and teachers ever worked a year for $1?


Don't worry they will, as soon as B.O. comes to the conclusion that raising the taxes on the top 2% won't pay for all of his social engineering.

Garcia Bronco
03-26-2009, 08:56 AM
So Acorn rented and organized the protests at this guy's house. Unreal.

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2009, 09:40 AM
I hope poor babby can afford some bootstraps.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 11:35 AM
Good Riddance. He may not have been one of the people who got the company in trouble but if they wouldn't have been bailed out this wouldn't even be an issue.

It is sheer arrogance that he feels he is due his bonus because he worked hard. I've got screwed out of a bonus because my company at the time missed performance metrics (that they finagled with and changed at the last minute) and I didn't write a whiny resignation letter about not getting my bonus. When you're company fails you don't get a bonus. Simple as that.

You didn't get screwed out of a bonus. You didn't earn the bonus because in your case the bonus was based on performance metrics that were missed. His bonus was earned. He IS getting screwed out of a bonus (assuming it is either not paid or it is taxed to death). It is simple, but it's apparently not simple enough for you.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 11:38 AM
He could have always went to another firm if he didn't feel it was fair.

Good lord, you're resistant to information. He felt it was fair because his compensation package was a combination of $1 salary PLUS a year end retention bonus if he stuck with it for the full year. If he'd have known that demagogues and simpletons were going to try to screw him out of the backend, he probably would have gone to another firm and the ability of AIG to unwind and repay the federal government would have been incrementally damaged.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 11:41 AM
There is an unseemliness about the letter and publishing it. But there is merit to his point. The outrage over the bonus (the attacks and the counter attacks) miss the point that these weren't peformance bonuses, but retention bonuses to keep these people around as the company closed down.

The manipulation of this story by the media and both sides, has been a huge disservice to the real issues of the crisis.

I'm not sure about why the letter (or publishing it) is unseemly, but there's a huge amount of unseemliness on the part of Obama and members of both parties in Congress as they demagogue this issue by painting a picture of greedy fat cats stealing bailout funds. The letter (and publishing it) help to bring the truth into focus.

BTW, for petegz28's sake, Rush Limbaugh got it right.

petegz28
03-26-2009, 11:51 AM
I'm not sure about why the letter (or publishing it) is unseemly, but there's a huge amount of unseemliness on the part of Obama and members of both parties in Congress as they demagogue this issue by painting a picture of greedy fat cats stealing bailout funds. The letter (and publishing it) help to bring the truth into focus.

BTW, for petegz28's sake, Rush Limbaugh got it right.


Wow, how the world turns even! If this was a worker or worse yet a liberal low-wage worker, crying about not being treated good, Rush, you and others would say "then get another job", "life isn't fair", bla bla bla......

Now this guys publicized whining is a beacon of truth?

So once again, when an exec works hard yet gets treated unfairly, you and Rush come to their defense. But when a lower wage laborer works hard and gets treated unfairly you sing a different tune. ROFL

patteeu
03-26-2009, 11:59 AM
Wow, how the world turns even! If this was a worker or worse yet a liberal low-wage worker, crying about not being treated good, Rush, you and others would say "then get another job", "life isn't fair", bla bla bla......

Now this guys publicized whining is a beacon of truth?

So once again, when an exec works hard yet gets treated unfairly, you and Rush come to their defense. But when a lower wage laborer works hard and gets treated unfairly you sing a different tune. ROFL

Sounds strawmanish to me.

headsnap
03-26-2009, 12:04 PM
So once again, when an exec works hard yet gets treated unfairly, you and Rush come to their defense. But when a lower wage laborer works hard and gets treated unfairly you sing a different tune. ROFL

you will find out the next time there is a story about a waitress that didn't deserve a 15% tip that dominates a week+ long news cycle...

Mr. Flopnuts
03-26-2009, 12:10 PM
Oh, so let's make an analogy. Let's say he was a deck hand on the Titanic. Should he receive a bonus because even though the ship went down he didn't have anything to do with that directly?

When you work for a company, especially one as large as AIG, then you have to accept the fact that other parts of the company can get you screwed over (one reason to do extensive DD before accepting a job). If the government wouldn't have bailed out AIG then he wouldn't even have a contract to bitch about. It's not the tax payers' fault he chose to work at a crappy firm.

Yeah, you'd totally work for a dollar a year to try and help your company, and furthermore, your country. Your view point here is a prime example of what is wrong with this country. No one, and I mean NO ONE wants to take personal responsibility for this mess. Everyone needs someone else to blame. It's the motherfuckin American way.

vailpass
03-26-2009, 12:26 PM
Upper income earners are bad! They are ruining this country.
The economy will only recover when all the high income individuals are eradicated!

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 12:28 PM
Upper income earners are bad! They are ruining this country.
The economy will only recover when all the high income individuals are eradicated!


Very true, comrade! We must return wealth to its rightful owners!

KC native
03-26-2009, 12:51 PM
Good lord, you're resistant to information. He felt it was fair because his compensation package was a combination of $1 salary PLUS a year end retention bonus if he stuck with it for the full year. If he'd have known that demagogues and simpletons were going to try to screw him out of the backend, he probably would have gone to another firm and the ability of AIG to unwind and repay the federal government would have been incrementally damaged.

That would be nice but originally they weren't retention bonuses. They were annual executive bonuses. They renamed them after the fact because of the scrutiny that annual executive bonuses were receiving. This wasn't a retention bonus despite this guy's attempt to characterize it that way. Note the date of the article which is November. AIG announced they were going to pay the bonuses in September.



AIG Gives ‘Retention’ Pay After Scrapping Bonuses (Update2)
Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Hugh Son

Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- American International Group Inc., the insurer that said yesterday it scrapped bonuses for top executives after a U.S. bailout, will still pay 130 managers “cash awards” to stay with the firm, including $3 million to retirement services chief Jay Wintrob.

Wintrob, 51, will get the “retention” payment in two installments, the first in April 2009 and the rest a year later, New York-based AIG said today in a regulatory filing. The firm previously disclosed the program in a Sept. 26 filing and said today that Wintrob and Chief Financial Officer David Herzog elected to get the payments four months later than planned.

“The expectation from the public and Congress was that they weren’t getting bonuses, not that they’d be pushed off by several months,” said David Schmidt, a consultant at executive pay firm James F. Reda & Associates. “That clearly violates the spirit of AIG saying they’ll forgo their bonuses.”

Chief Executive Officer Edward Liddy is encouraging top employees at AIG subsidiaries to remain so the units retain their value while he finds buyers. The insurer is selling businesses, including the U.S. retirement group Wintrob heads, to repay a $60 billion loan included in the expanded government rescue package AIG got this month.

“We’ve said they aren’t eligible for annual bonuses, and they’re not,” Nicholas Ashooh, spokesman for AIG, said today in an interview. “What we’re talking about are retention agreements -- they’ve been pushed back by several months -- and it’s our hope that those businesses will be sold in several months.”

Looking for Buyers

If the units are sold before payments are due, AIG won’t have to give the awards, Ashooh said. Under the agreement announced this week, top executives are eligible for either severance or retention payments, not both, he said.

Wintrob is CEO of AIG Retirement Services Inc., the division that sells annuities. He was chief operating officer of SunAmerica when AIG bought the firm for $19.7 billion in 1998. The business he now heads may sell for about $12 billion, according to Gary Ransom, analyst at Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia Waller. Wintrob didn’t return two calls seeking comment.

Wintrob was one of six top-paid AIG executives in 2007, with total compensation valued at $7.63 million. He earned a salary of $775,000 and a $1.74 million bonus in addition to stock and options, according to an April regulatory filing.

AIG said yesterday it won’t give 2008 bonuses for seven top leaders after New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo demanded last week that it disclose compensation plans. The firm’s next 50 highest-ranked executives will forgo salary raises through 2009. A call to Cuomo’s office today seeking comment wasn’t returned.

‘Act Prudently’

Liddy, appointed by the government to run AIG after the insurer agreed to turn over an 80 percent stake, said yesterday the firm is “mindful that it must act prudently.” He will get a $1 a year salary through 2009 and an unspecified number of equity grants.

AIG has declined about 97 percent in New York trading this year. The company climbed 18 cents to $1.95 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

To contact the reporter on this story: Hugh Son in New York at hson1@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: November 26, 2008 17:39 EST

KC native
03-26-2009, 12:52 PM
Yeah, you'd totally work for a dollar a year to try and help your company, and furthermore, your country. Your view point here is a prime example of what is wrong with this country. No one, and I mean NO ONE wants to take personal responsibility for this mess. Everyone needs someone else to blame. It's the mother****in American way.

This guy wasn't there to help out his country nor his company. He stayed because he anticipated a big paycheck.

L.A. Chieffan
03-26-2009, 12:56 PM
I'd work for a $1 a year if I could get a non-performance-based bonus of $742,000 after taxes.

BUT YOU'RE WORKING FOR A DOLLAR RAIN MAN! A DOLLAR! IF YOU DID THAT PEOPLE WOULD THINK YOU WERE GOOD.

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 12:59 PM
This guy wasn't there to help out his country nor his company. He stayed because he anticipated a big paycheck.

He had other offers with other companies dipshit. :rolleyes:

KC native
03-26-2009, 01:01 PM
He had other offers with other companies dipshit. :rolleyes:

He anticipated a big bonus at AIG so he stayed. If he was concerned about not being paid then he would have went somewhere else.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-26-2009, 01:05 PM
This guy wasn't there to help out his country nor his company. He stayed because he anticipated a big paycheck.

Yeah, that totally makes sense now that he's said he's going to donate every dollar that isn't taxed, effectively meaning he's worked for free for the last 9 months trying to help his company, and his country.

I'm all for stringing every bastard up that created this problem, I just think a lot of folks who had nothing to do with it are now being unfairly persecuted.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 01:12 PM
That would be nice but originally they weren't retention bonuses. They were annual executive bonuses. They renamed them after the fact because of the scrutiny that annual executive bonuses were receiving. This wasn't a retention bonus despite this guy's attempt to characterize it that way. Note the date of the article which is November. AIG announced they were going to pay the bonuses in September.

That article doesn't say what you say it says.

beavis
03-26-2009, 01:16 PM
I'm not worried. There's some government bureaucrat right behind him willing to do an incompetent job for twice his salary.

petegz28
03-26-2009, 01:41 PM
He had other offers with other companies dipshit. :rolleyes:

Then it is his own fault for not taking them. I am sorry, but this shit happens in the lower ranks all the time. Why should I give a fuck cause it is happening at the top of the chain now?

petegz28
03-26-2009, 01:41 PM
Sounds strawmanish to me.

In other words I pegged you to the "T" and you are trying to squirm out of your take.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 01:45 PM
In other words I pegged you to the "T" and you are trying to squirm out of your take.

No, in other words, you made up a story about the way you imagine that I'd react to a hypothetical situation and then proceeded to criticize the fictional patteeu in your fairy tale story.

petegz28
03-26-2009, 02:01 PM
No, in other words, you made up a story about the way you imagine that I'd react to a hypothetical situation and then proceeded to criticize the fictional patteeu in your fairy tale story.

Sorry, I think Rush's history and your posts over time in this forum support my argument.

And let's add this twist...if this were some union worker who had a signed contract you would be screaming about how bad unions are because of such.

Face it patteeu, you will defend the rich exectuive against the very thing you condone doing to the working laborer.

KC native
03-26-2009, 02:03 PM
That article doesn't say what you say it says.

Context whore comes back for more. These bonuses were announced in September. After the outrage over the bonuses AIG executives announced they would fore go their annual bonuses. About a month later this article comes out and now they are being paid retention bonuses. Now, if you to take the AIG execs at their word that these are really "retention" bonuses then I have a bridge in brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Baby Lee
03-26-2009, 02:23 PM
Wow, how the world turns even! If this was a worker or worse yet a liberal low-wage worker, crying about not being treated good, Rush, you and others would say "then get another job", "life isn't fair", bla bla bla......

Now this guys publicized whining is a beacon of truth?

So once again, when an exec works hard yet gets treated unfairly, you and Rush come to their defense. But when a lower wage laborer works hard and gets treated unfairly you sing a different tune. ROFL

Difference being 'a lower wage laborer' getting screwed generally consists of him doing his work and getting paid biweekly, then his job being eliminated, note all without him working but not receiving wages.

In this case, the guy completed his contractual obligation and is not getting his contractual compensation.

Bring me a case of a 'lower wage laborer' working an entire year for a dollar, and then getting told he's not gonna get his back wages, and we'll have something to discuss.

KC native
03-26-2009, 03:11 PM
This is a nice rebuttal to this guy's letter.

http://www.businessweek.com/careers/managementiq/archives/2009/03/the_mindset_of.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis
The Mindset of an AIG executive

Posted by: Diane Brady on March 25

A few things struck me in the “resignation letter” of Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit. (People don’t normally forward their letters of resignation to The New York Times)

First, of course, is his justified sense of outrage at having been abandoned by his boss, AIG chief Ed Liddy, before Congress and at having his bonus essentially taken away. “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.”

But a few other sentences stand out in my mind as emblematic of the mindset that has created some of this mess.

“I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G.” The list of who to vilify grows ever smaller. Even colleagues in the financial products unit are determined to distance themselves from the credit default swaps. These were highly profitable products produced by highly compensated (and, I would guess, much celebrated) people when times were good. Now, it would appear that a handful of largely anonymous—and now departed—executives are responsible for AIG’s downfall, not an institution that fostered and rewarded a culture of risk.

“The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation.” This is the argument that has so many people feeling so angry. Just because you write enough transactions to rack up, say, $100 million in profits for your firm doesn’t mean you’re automatically entitled to millions in compensation. By that logic, producing millions in losses should send you reaching into your own pocket to repay your salary. For too long, there have been excessive rewards for short-term profits and little if any incentive to protect against the downside.

“I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise.” How could anyone have lived through the last six months at AIG and thought there wouldn’t be a strong reaction to bonuses? This is a company that would have been bankrupt if not for taxpayer support. Would everyone have immediately fled if not for the guarantee of millions in compensation? (And to where? Despite the claim of abandoned job offers, I don’t know of a firm that’s expanding in the financial products arena at the moment.) Everyone at AIG should have been conscious of the impact that public disclosure of these bonuses would have.

“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.” True, but if a house has burned down and the owners are left financially destitute, the plumber may have a hard time getting his full pay. And if you’re both part of the same company that carelessly causes the house to burn down, you may get much less.

“I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom.” If there was a correlation between hard work and pay, then many people in this country would be far richer than those on Wall Street.

“Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.” But not you, right?

“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.” While the instincts are noble, the reality is that taxpayers now own most of AIG. Giving money back to the company is essentially tantamount to helping people suffering from the downturn.

“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.” Indeed.

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2009, 03:15 PM
Difference being 'a lower wage laborer' getting screwed generally consists of him doing his work and getting paid biweekly, then his job being eliminated, note all without him working but not receiving wages.

In this case, the guy completed his contractual obligation and is not getting his contractual compensation.

Bring me a case of a 'lower wage laborer' working an entire year for a dollar, and then getting told he's not gonna get his back wages, and we'll have something to discuss.Lower wage workers aren't asked to symbolically work for $1 (plus hundreds of thousands in bonuses, natch) for a year because they need their $20,000 to fucking eat.

Baby Lee
03-26-2009, 03:34 PM
Lower wage workers aren't asked to symbolically work for $1 (plus hundreds of thousands in bonuses, natch) for a year because they need their $20,000 to fucking eat.

Nourishment has jack shit to do with it.
First off, I was pointing out how pete's equivocation of the two scenarios is flawed, and no rationalization, no matter how empathetic, is going to erase the flaw.
Second, lower wage workers aren't asked to sacrifice their hour to wage quid pro quo, not because they're making 'eatin' money,' but because they aren't part of the risk and reward part of entrepreneurship. They come in and do what's asked of them for xxx hours and make xxx hours wages. They don't have to worry about whether what they're doing is worthwhile or profitable, management does. They just have to do what management wishes of them, and the wages come in hour by hour.
In this case, while it's not as risky as a performance bonus, the guy risked not being able to fulfill his retention obligation with the contractual expectation of retention obligation fulfillment compensation. And he fulfilled his obligation.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 04:47 PM
Sorry, I think Rush's history and your posts over time in this forum support my argument.

And let's add this twist...if this were some union worker who had a signed contract you would be screaming about how bad unions are because of such.

Face it patteeu, you will defend the rich exectuive against the very thing you condone doing to the working laborer.

I might criticize the union and I might criticize the contract, but I wouldn't criticize a union member just because he wanted to be paid what he was due under the contract after putting in the work.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 04:55 PM
Context whore comes back for more. These bonuses were announced in September. After the outrage over the bonuses AIG executives announced they would fore go their annual bonuses. About a month later this article comes out and now they are being paid retention bonuses. Now, if you to take the AIG execs at their word that these are really "retention" bonuses then I have a bridge in brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Your article doesn't establish that the retention bonuses, of the type described in the OP, are recharacterized "annual bonuses" that were purportedly scrapped. In fact, it quotes an AIG spokesperson indicating that the retention bonuses and the annual bonuses are two different things. IOW, it appears as though they scrapped the annual bonuses and deferred but didn't scrap the retention bonuses.

I'm afraid that all I have to go on is the word of the people who know what they're talking about. They could be lying, but I'd be foolish to take the word of someone like yourself who is operating in the dark on the basis of populist emotion over theirs at this point. Let me know if you come across any kind of convincing evidence that I've been led astray.

petegz28
03-26-2009, 05:30 PM
Difference being 'a lower wage laborer' getting screwed generally consists of him doing his work and getting paid biweekly, then his job being eliminated, note all without him working but not receiving wages.

In this case, the guy completed his contractual obligation and is not getting his contractual compensation.

Bring me a case of a 'lower wage laborer' working an entire year for a dollar, and then getting told he's not gonna get his back wages, and we'll have something to discuss.

But he is getting his compensation. And if he doesn't he can sue. Sorry, nice try.

petegz28
03-26-2009, 05:31 PM
I might criticize the union and I might criticize the contract, but I wouldn't criticize a union member just because he wanted to be paid what he was due under the contract after putting in the work.

This, I will remember you said.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 05:59 PM
This, I will remember you said.

Yes, but don't confuse it for something else.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 06:19 PM
He could have always went to another firm if he didn't feel it was fair.

It was fair until the point that they yanked his compensation out from under him.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 06:27 PM
That would be nice but originally they weren't retention bonuses. They were annual executive bonuses. They renamed them after the fact because of the scrutiny that annual executive bonuses were receiving. This wasn't a retention bonus despite this guy's attempt to characterize it that way. Note the date of the article which is November. AIG announced they were going to pay the bonuses in September.

Really? So his salary was just $1 per year, huh?

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 06:28 PM
This guy wasn't there to help out his country nor his company. He stayed because he anticipated a big paycheck.

The guy has some nerve. What kind of asshole goes to work just because they expect to be paid?

KC native
03-26-2009, 07:28 PM
Really? So his salary was just $1 per year, huh?

Only after the bailout and only for this year. I don't feel the least bit of sympathy for him. He was in a position to know where the company stood and should have known there was a chance he wouldn't get paid. He could have went to another firm when they offered him the $1 and his bonus potential.