New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced Monday evening that nine of the top 10 executives at AIG will return their bonuses.
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced Monday evening that nine of the top 10 executives at AIG will return their bonuses.
These guys have been painted as Devils–isn’t it something that they are returning what is contractually theirs. With the government, the construction industry and the whole world encouraging them, they made some disastrous choices. Now they have made a good choice. Maybe someone will notice…
Bill,
Yes it is something.
I know clergy in Pittsburgh (and probably elsewhere) who’ve refused cost-of-living adjustments this year on much smaller salaries.
That’s something too.
Men with guns to their heads tend to give all sorts of things to those with the guns.
Well, now Congress will have to introduce a bill to tax the one guy in the top ten who wouldn’t give it back.
Wonder how long it will be before that guy’s name gets published by the mainstream media.
Does anybody else find it ironic that the ‘stimulus bill’ was rushed through with little or no real scrutiny by Congress and now Congress is castigating the very executives for whom they, Congress, voted the bonuses?
What really makes me angry, though, is that same rushed ‘stimulus bill’ also voted pay raises for Congress. Maybe they should give their raises back – perhaps return some of the ridiculous ‘speaking fees’ (kind of a Congressional ‘bonus’) since they had a large hand in this whole economic downturn.
Well, it just goes to show extortion works. Now, the AGI folk won’t have to worry about someone publishing their names and addresses. At least that is what one congressman said.
Grandmother in SC
5, agreed. The real persons at fault are in the Congress.
I don’t especially have a problem with the bonuses as such, but what I [b]DO[/b] have a problem with is the [b]SIZE[/b] of those bonuses.
Cennydd, then, by all means, sell your AIG stock immediately.
As if I [b]HAD[/b] any AIG stock!
Will Franklin Reines Fannie Mae give back his 1.1 million dollar bonus he got while running Fannie Mae into the ground? Oh I forgot he was a buddy of Franks and supports Obama!
#11, EXACTLY! Change? No. Politics as usual? Yup!
#9 & #10: We all actually have AIG stock — $170BN worth. That is precisely the point. The taking of these bonuses is unethical and unseemly — and so is the feigned shock by Congress, the Treasury Dept. and the Administration.
#6 Grandmother: what is extorsion — the public outcry forcing these “executives” to give back their bonusus. Or Wall Street and Washington saying that we must give these wreckless institutions TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of $$$ (with no time to read the fine print and debate the underlying issues) or else the global economy will come crashing all around us.
I’m shocked, shocked to find there are bonuses being handed out here!!
SteveJax, The Bonuses were part of a contractual obligation the US government assumed when it took over AIG. Prior to the take over the US Government could have renagotiated the contract or had the contracts terminated. Senator Dodd wrote specific language into the bill that allowed the bonuses to go throught (at the behest of the White House according to Dodd). Why vilify the AIG executives?
Because they suggested the [b]size[/b] of the bonuses to be paid in the first place?
Cennydd, I could suggest the size of the raise I want to my boss, doesn’t mean he has to give it to me. If he does he can’t then say I am greedy etc becuase he agreed to the raise. If my boss thinks it is too much then nagotiate less of a raise with me. Don’t bad mouth me after the fact! The US government, in a rush through bill with no vetting, with language inserted by the Senate (Chris Dodd to be exact) with support from the executive approved the bonuses. Your gripe should be with the executive branch and the Senate, lets organize bus tours of Chris Dodd’s house and send him threatening phone calls!!!
Dave B (#14 & #16): Yes. The government should have renegotiated the contracts. Yes there is plenty of blame to around — executives, congress and administration. But just because these bonuses either got through the cracks or were pushed through cracks does not make them any more proper.
And if your boss is part of the same unethical business culture (either at AIG, or Mr. Paulson or Geithner) chances are he will not see anything wrong or improper with these bonuses. And that doesn’t make it any more correct either.
stevejax- What evidence do you have that any of the executives that recieved bonuses were of an unethical business culture? I think perhaps they failed in the old Christian virtue of prudence or made some very bad investment decisions. Some of these people may be part of the solution. I really don’t know who they are or much about their professional ethics or business practices. I do know they were given bonuses by AIG, those bonuses were retained by request of the executive office of our government and the language was inserted into legislation that passed over objections by memebers of the Finnance committee. Other than that I know little. I don’t know how deserving or undeserving these folks were. Being the recipients of the bonuses they were not in control of the amount or the authorization for them. I thinmk it may be more part of a corrupt POLITICAL culture than business culture!
Dave B — I hope I haven’t gotten too heated. Forgive me if I have. I think we have a difference of opinion… and I do respect that. As I have said before: there is plenty of blame to go around.
As far as I can tell the business culture at some of these financial institutions is comprised of 3 types of individuals: 1) unethical — either a) devising these schemes or b) going along with them while knowing there were wrong; 2) ignorant of these unethical schemes; or 3) whistleblowers. And since we have heard of only a few whistleblowers — being either an ignorant or unethical executive is not deserving of bonuses.
But I have been wrong before.
Steve, sometimes I react to sharply, apologize if I offended. I just feel like the executives are being used to distract and folks to vent anger on. I feel that being an Episcopal Bishop doesn’t make one rightous, niether does being a business person make one unprincipled. These folks were lawfully awared bonuses. People have been so quick to heep scorn on the recipiants of bonuses!
I think the President is using what could be called the “Lou Holtz strategy.” When Coach Holtz ran the Notre Dame football program, he would always talk about how, if they werent very, very careful, Notre Dame was going to lose (to whomever) by three or four touchdowns. He would “talk down” his team, expose their supposed weaknesses publicly, and in so doing, sidetrack the media and the fans from the fact that Notre Dame was tough, and they were likely going to win by 50 points. Then, after the game, he would talk about how unusually well his team had played.
The “talking-down” of the AIG executives by this administration seems similar to me. It successfully sidetracks all of us from the fact that these executives were earning their money, including trheir bonuses, by selling ‘bad assets’ and significantly reducing the losses of the AIG insurance group. No talk about that, no talk about their strengths – – only a discussion of outrage at their $165 million paid in bonuses, while not speaking at all of the fact that a large, large percentage of the TARP money went to foreign interest, for example. Good strategy; Lou Holtz used it to blow smoke at a lot of opponents. Just keep in mind, as this administration does it, that we all need to be looking carefully for the sleight-of-hand that it going on.
As I and others have pointed out repeatedly over the past week, this will all result in good people leaving AIG and going somewhere more stable and less beholden to the government.
Exhibit A would be this letter from an AIG employee who is resigning over this disgusting State action:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2
jkc1945- I think you are correct. The head of Treasury now wants the right to confiscate finnancial instituions not just banks. Much of the handling of toxic waste is, I believe , directed at retirement funds and absorption of those funds into the economy by presenting toxic assests as legitimite investment vehicles with a 15% investment and 85% gaurantee by the US taxpayers. If these “new” investments go belly up can the US taxpayers really cover that much debt? Don’t forget that Obama wants defacit spending to the tune of 10 trillion over the next four years (12% of GNP as apposed to Bush barely reaching 4% GNP deficit spending). I really think this is a recipe for disastor!