AIG paying millions in bonuses despite bailout

[Woody]

That CEO refused due to the fact that threats have been made against these people...I heard where someone threatened to take a piano wire and wrap it around the person and his family.

And with your rabid persual of this, I fear that there are others who just might kill these guys who got the bonuses...

Is this what you want, Redwood? To kill these people because they obeyed the law? Granted, it sunk a company, but these individuals didn't do anything wrong....And you are displaying encough craziness on this subject to cause me to wonder about your sanity....

Take your private vicious concerns to me in PM.

At what point does one insist that you abide by the rules of this forum?

I am beginning to see first hand how Moderators get special treatment. Would any of the rest of us ... be allowed to abuse other members on this forum?

For the last time Neil ... Just COOL it. Take it to PM.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

That CEO refused due to the fact that threats have been made against these people...I heard where someone threatened to take a piano wire and wrap it around the person and his family.

And with your rabid persual of this, I fear that there are others who just might kill these guys who got the bonuses...

Is this what you want, Redwood? To kill these people because they obeyed the law? Granted, it sunk a company, but these individuals didn't do anything wrong....And you are displaying encough craziness on this subject to cause me to wonder about your sanity....

Take your private vicious concerns to me in PM.

At what point does one insist that you abide by the rules of this forum?

I am beginning to see first hand how Moderators get special treatment. Would any of the rest of us ... be allowed to abuse other members on this forum?

For the last time Neil ... Just COOL it. Take it to PM.

What the heck are you talking about, Redwood?

There is nothing vicious here....with the exception of your pursual of the blood of these people who have accepted bonuses....and you want others to cry for these peoples blood as well....That's wrong as well.

[Dr. Shane]

The media and Congress are acting like this is some kind of scandal. No law has been broken. People are just getting bonuses that are routinely given out. This story isn't even news worthy.

[Neil D]

But this is the problem, Shane...if bonuses are given out 'routinely' then compensation is not is not adequate. And there needs to be financial reform in the financial sector of this industry.

[Amelia]

*GP

First off, the "bonuses" didn't go to joe blow employee. They went to the top executives. People who are already making more money than they know what to do with. Let me quote Liddy here:

Quote:

What also became clear is that once AIG's relationship with the government and taxpayers changed, our behavior as a company needed to change. So, of our own initiative, we suspended our federal lobbying activities and halted corporate political contributions. We also restricted executive compensation. In all, total 2008 compensation for the top 47 executives is 56 percent lower than their total 2007 compensation. My annual salary is $1. My only stake is my reputation.

See, they lowered the amt of the bonus but gave a bonus just the same.

Oh, and could you just imagine them using the tax payers bail out money to pay lobbyists to go to Washington to get more tax payer money????

Second, additional monies went to keep employees working for them. LOL Yeah, that is what I thought a salary did. Let's hear from Liddy again:

Quote:

Although we have wound down more than $1 trillion in the portfolio of the AIG Financial Products unit that is at the root of the company's troubles, there remains substantial risk in that portfolio. The financial downside for taxpayers is potentially very large, and that's why we're winding down this business.

To prevent undue risk exposure in the meantime, AIG has made a set of retention payments to employees based on a compensation system that prior management put in place. As has been reported, payments were made to employees in the Financial Products unit. Make no mistake, had I been chief executive at the time, I would never have approved the retention contracts that were put in place more than a year ago. It was distasteful to have to make these payments. But we concluded that the risks to the company, and therefore the financial system and the economy, were unacceptably high.

So they are paying the employees of this division that screwed up, additional monies to keep them from bailing out before they can get the division closed.

[bonnie]

First off, the "bonuses" didn't go to joe blow employee. They went to the top executives. People who are already making more money than they know what to do with. Let me quote Liddy here:

Prior to the bailout it was no ones business what they received as bonuses or who received them. After the bailout they were bound by contract law. A law which now congress and

the president seem to think they have the power to overturn retroactively. When the federal government can publically target private citizens and their families with a specific law

As Shumer,Frank etc have done it is more than a little scary,especially since they all knew this was in the bailout contract.

What also became clear is that once AIG's relationship with the government and taxpayers changed, our behavior as a company needed to change. So, of our own initiative, we suspended our federal lobbying activities and halted corporate political contributions. We also restricted executive compensation. In all, total 2008 compensation for the top 47 executives is 56 percent lower than their total 2007 compensation. My annual salary is $1. My only stake is my reputation.

See, they lowered the amt of the bonus but gave a bonus just the same.

They were bound by contract law. They were not performance based,they were retention bonuses and those receiving were already on their way out the door. These are given to keep a business going till they can either be replaced and prevent chaos . Before the bailout, contracts were no one's business except that of those directly involved

Oh, and could you just imagine them using the tax payers bail out money to pay lobbyists to go to Washington to get more tax payer money????

Doubtful as the recipients received retention bounus,not lobby money. Besides what difference would it make. President Obama,Barney Frank etc were happy recipients of lobby money from this group. I would think that they would be happy to refund their lobby money as that seems to be such a distasteful practise to them.

Second, additional monies went to keep employees working for them. LOL Yeah, that is what I thought a salary did. Let's hear from Liddy again:

Not quite as you have described it. Common practise for companies to pay retention bonuses,not in an effort to keep them working,a effort to keep them long enough for a smooth transition or shut down.

As Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac,the darling of Frank, Pelosi and all others huffing and puffing about known and accepted retention bonuses. Will they huff and puff then as well. Both are going to be granting retention bonuses if they have not all ready.

With the mess they have made of that maybe they want to take some of the 90,000,000 back from Franklin Reins.Maybe they should request Barney Frank and President Obama to return the lobby money taken while both companies were going down the tube.The president is the second largest recipient of that with the shortest time in political office .

Maybe Barney Frank,Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi should be fired without benefits or pension for their defense and assurance that both were financially sound. Look it up,they ridiculed President Bush and others that issued warnings that it could not continue on it's present course. Maybe Barney Franks boyfriend or what ever you call him would like to return the huge amount he made on the backs of others of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Not to worry tho,both entities have been put back in power to do more of what they did so well

Lest we forget that now those that received mortgages based on their admission of lying on the mortgage application they can have that contract made null and void. Don't worry if you bought way beyond your means or lied . Not only can you have the contract rewritten and the amount of principal you owe reduced on the say so of a judge,you will receive 1,000.00 a year for five years to further pay down your principal.

So they are paying the employees of this division that screwed up, additional monies to keep them from bailing out before they can get the division closed.

They were bound by contract law. Chris Dodd,barney Frank and President Obama all knew that was in there and needed to be paid.

You now have a president that seems to have the power to overturn a private contract between private citizens. That should concern everyone as much as the false bluster over a contract they knew had been signed.

[lazarus]

The media and Congress are acting like this is some kind of scandal. No law has been broken. People are just getting bonuses that are routinely given out. This story isn't even news worthy.

Its newsworthy because the company would have been bankrupt if it wasn't for government money. It is 80% government owned!

$1000 bonus? 50,000 bonus? 500,000 bonus? No! Millions of dollars to individuals who are part of the leadership of a company that has had to be bailed out to the tune of Billions of dollars.

I'm surprised that you would not see the irony and therefore the newsworthiness of the story.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: Shane

The media and Congress are acting like this is some kind of scandal. No law has been broken. People are just getting bonuses that are routinely given out. This story isn't even news worthy.

Its newsworthy because the company would have been bankrupt if it wasn't for government money. It is 80% government owned!

$1000 bonus? 50,000 bonus? 500,000 bonus? No! Millions of dollars to individuals who are part of the leadership of a company that has had to be bailed out to the tune of Billions of dollars.

I'm surprised that you would no see the irony and therefore the newsworthiness of the story.

I realize you responded to Shane but do you consider Fannie Ma and Freddy Mac newsworthy as they prepare to pay if they have not already done so, retention bonuses.

This is as big if not bigger mess than the AIG.They have received billions. Now they are prepared to reward those that admit or claim to lying on their mortgage application by making null and void their contracts,setting the terms and amount and then rewarding them further with 1,000.00 a year for five years to further pay down the adjusted principal

[lazarus]

I realize you responded to Shane but do you consider Fannie Ma and Freddy Mac newsworthy as they prepare to pay if they have not already done so, retention bonuses.

of course!

[phkrause]

And Bonnie I think that there turn is coming up soon. I have no problem with bonuses, but not for companies that are going under!! I heard Liddy claim that this portion of the company was the only part that didn't make any money, and the rest was profitable. So than I have 2 questions. First if this portion of the company wasn't profitable why do they deserve bonuses? and Second if the according to Liddy the rest of the company was profitable, why is it that they needed a bailout? Because from what I heard they make over a trillion dollars, and if that is the case why not redistribute the money thru out the company? Its done in other companies all the time.

pk

[bonnie]

And Bonnie I think that there turn is coming up soon. I have no problem with bonuses, but not for companies that are going under!! I heard Liddy claim that this portion of the company was the only part that didn't make any money, and the rest was profitable. So than I have 2 questions. First if this portion of the company wasn't profitable why do they deserve bonuses? and Second if the according to Liddy the rest of the company was profitable, why is it that they needed a bailout? Because from what I heard they make over a trillion dollars, and if that is the case why not redistribute the money thru out the company? Its done in other companies all the time.

pk

There will never be the uproar over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Will those like Barney Frank/Chris Dodd/Nancy Pelosi/Maxine Waters be forced to admit their wrongdoing. Their push that everyone deserved to own their own home regardless of their ability to pay? Owning a home is not a right,it is a privilege I earned by being responsible.

No verification was the brainchild that got us into this mess. It was not sub prime lenders that went to the streets and roped and dragged potential borrowers into signing and if refused broke their fingers. There were penalties for "discriminating" against those that didn't have a prayer of repayment. Secured by the federal government. Don't worry lenders we will buy your bad loans.

A friend of mine that had never worked outside the home lost her husband. Left the home free and clear.

She was not working and obtained a mortgage for 185,000.00 She was told by the lender keep your mortgage credit clean for six months and we can rewrite this to a good fixed rate loan. Guess what, she went on a spending spree,had free living for a year,lost her home and now blames that horrible mortgage lender for not making her understand. Mortgage bankers/brokers/sub prime lenders did not write the law they had to perform under. Check the biggest huffers and puffers records for that. Same ones that assured all two years ago?? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are financially solvent.

If there was to be an outrage over the retention bonuses to these employees we would have seen it when it was explained that "Those that lied on their mortgage app will be eligible to have a judge rewrite the principal amount they owe and then give them 1,000.00 a year for five years as another little reward.

Or maybe you think that Franklin Reigns and others like him will be forced to give up some of his 90,000,000.00 plus he earned for helping to run both into the ground??

Maybe Barney Frank and Maxine Waters will be asked to explain the ridicule of George Bush when he brought it to their attention. I believe if I remember right looking up the records,Bush brought it to the attention of congress 11 times . I think it was Maxine Waters and Barney Frank that made the statement the policies by Fannie Mae and Freddy mac were working just as intended. Barney Franks may want to check with his live-in whatever and find out what he knew and when he knew it. May want to have him refund bonuses he was given thru out the last few years as it was sliding under

[bonnie]

Quote:

And Bonnie I think that there turn is coming up soon. I have no problem with bonuses, but not for companies that are going under!

Prior to the bailout bonuses were no one's business.Didn't matter if any one agreed or not.

By the time the bailout took place these contracts had already been signed. Dodd and others knew in the bailout contract there was provisions for retention bonuses and at what amount.

Funny how the green eyed monster and the results will show it's head when it comes to money.

To think the federal government is only going after AIG to overturn a contract or those dishonest homeowners on their app is like saying I am only partially pregnant. When it is seen as expedient it will be others, Barney Frank will be asking for your name and the name of your children.

[lazarus]

So......do you think Fannie and Freddie employees should get their bonuses?

[bonnie]

So......do you think Fannie and Freddie employees should get their bonuses?

On a personal level,no I don't. But I am far more opposed to rewarding those that put Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac in such a precarious financial position in the first place. Have Barny frank,Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi been rewarded for at the very least their incompetence. Quite well from the looks of it.

I also am far more opposed to putting business decisions in the hands of the federal government or the man on the street that has never run a business.

I am as opposed to the federal government being able to publically brand and target one segment of society or business.

I am oppsoed to Shumer threatening a group that has not broken a existing law and says "Do as I tell you or we are coming for you" Or Barney Frank publically demands the names of those who have not broken the law and that of their children. Rspecially when they knew what was in the bailout contract and they signed on

[Woody]

This repeated phrase "they were bound by contract law" is simply not true.

When the government provides money to save a company that would otherwise go bankrupt ... the government can make ANY stipulations they want. And one of the stipulations could be that there be no use of the governments money towards bonuses.

If the company does not have the money to pay bonuses ... they can't pay them. They would have to agree to not pay them ... or go bankrupt. Which one would the employees like?

[bonnie]

This repeated phrase "they were bound by contract law" is simply not true.

When the government provides money to save a company that would otherwise go bankrupt ... the government can make ANY stipulations they want. And one of the stipulations could be that there be no use of the governments money towards bonuses.

If the company does not have the money to pay bonuses ... they can't pay them. They would have to agree to not pay them ... or go bankrupt. Which one would the employees like?

That is just what they did. The government did stipulate that the bonuses could and should be paid if agreed on and a contract signed before the government got it's hooks into the company.

Maybe we need to take Chris Dodd,Barney Frank and the president to task for paying out the bonuses

[Woody]

Ron Wyden wrote in a provision to add an additional 35% tax for the bonuses. It was our friend Chris Dodd who added it back in. First of all he lied and loudly denied doing this. But then quickly had to reverse himself and admit to it. So, yes you are right ... the government clearly authorized the bonuses ... but they did not have to. They could have taxed them or excluded the use of the bailout money for that purpose.

[bonnie]

Ron Wyden wrote in a provision to add an additional 35% tax for the bonuses. It was our friend Chris Dodd who added it back in. First of all he lied and loudly denied doing this. But then quickly had to reverse himself and admit to it. So, yes you are right ... the government clearly authorized the bonuses ... but they did not have to. They could have taxed them or excluded the use of the bailout money for that purpose.

Would,could, should is beside the point.

No one said the government had to write this in. They did and probably because of the legal actions that could have gone on for years forcing a company to break contracts they signed.

Why not go back to the ones that created this can of worms with the exemption and rake them as loudly over the coals and demand their removal.

How can Ron Wyden write a law after the fact aad make it retro active to target a certain group . What they are doing is far scarier and worse than those that paid out or those that accepted the bonus. Or maybe you think that ethis run so high in washington that once that practise is established it will be only for those they deem deserve it

[Woody]

It was not retro active. It was written in the bailout bill and then taken out by Dodd. IF they wanted the bail out money ... they would have had to accept the terms.

[bonnie]

It was not retro active. It was written in the bailout bill and then taken out by Dodd. IF they wanted the bail out money ... they would have had to accept the terms.

The desire to pass a law taxing their bonuses at 91% would be retroactive. They could not have accepted the terms without exposing themselves to some very costly lawsuits.

IT WAS A CONTRACT AGREED TO AND SIGNED.

The federal government has no right or business forcing a company to break legal contracts and face severe costly litigation.

But even if they did they might want to show by example what happens to incompetent people on capital hill.

Personally I think most politicians fit the definition of "legalized prostition"

[Woody]

It was written in the original bill and taken out by Chris Dodd. He protected AIG. It is interesting that Dodd received the most contributions from AIG for the elections.

[bonnie]

It was written in the original bill and taken out by Chris Dodd. He protected AIG. It is interesting that Dodd received the most contributions from AIG for the elections.

A few minutes ago or local news and CNN reported same.

Wondering if we are witnessing the demise of one senator.

Both reported that "THE ADMINISTRATION IS RESPONSIBLE" for seeing the exemption was included in the bill to prevent costly lawsuits and was actually felt to be a cost saving measure.

A note was made that the "administration members" were unknown at this time

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

It was written in the original bill and taken out by Chris Dodd. He protected AIG. It is interesting that Dodd received the most contributions from AIG for the elections.

A few minutes ago or local news and CNN reported same.

Wondering if we are witnessing the demise of one senator.

Both reported that "THE ADMINISTRATION IS RESPONSIBLE" for seeing the exemption was included in the bill to prevent costly lawsuits and was actually felt to be a cost saving measure.

A note was made that the "administration members" were unknown at this time

Yes. That would be true. The Administration advised Chris Dodd to do what he did. They acted on behalf of Barack Obama.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

A few minutes ago or local news and CNN reported same.

Wondering if we are witnessing the demise of one senator.

Both reported that "THE ADMINISTRATION IS RESPONSIBLE" for seeing the exemption was included in the bill to prevent costly lawsuits and was actually felt to be a cost saving measure.

A note was made that the "administration members" were unknown at this time

Yes. That would be true. The Administration advised Chris Dodd to do what he did. They acted on behalf of Barack Obama.

Well then maybe going to the source of the problem would be a good idea. Instead of the source acting so shocked and appalled.

[Woody]

Yes. First Obama said he was shocked and would do whatever it took to correct it. Then later he said that he knew all along . And now we know that HE was the original problem.

Which Obama do YOU believe?