LINK

Quote:

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Tuesday that American International Group Inc. (AIG) granted retention bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 people in its AIG Financial Products subsidiary, including 11 who no longer work at the company.

In a letter to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank on Tuesday, Cuomo said the top 10 bonus recipients combined received $42 million, with the top recipient getting more than $6.4 million.

Cuomo has blamed the unit for the insurer's near collapse last year. The attorney general said 11 people who have left the company received retention bonuses of $1 million or more, with one person getting $4.6 million.

"Again, these payments were all made to individuals in the subsidiary whose performance led to crushing losses and the near failure of AIG," Cuomo said in the letter. "Thus, last week, AIG made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing taxpayer bailout. Something is deeply wrong with this outcome."

On Monday, Cuomo subpoenaed AIG seeking details on who received retention bonuses in the financial products unit and copies of the contracts underlying the bonuses. In his letter, Cuomo said AIG has refused to provide the names of those who received bonuses.

Over the weekend, news surfaced that AIG had paid $165 million in retention bonuses to individuals in the financial products unit on Friday.

The $165 million is the latest installment of a retention program that is slated to pay the unit's employees about $450 million. AIG had previously paid out $55 million, and an additional $230 million is pending for 2009.

The bonuses have sparked outrage on Capitol Hill and among taxpayers.

"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed," President Barack Obama said Monday. "Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay."

On Tuesday, Frank, D-Mass., told reporters in Washington that the U.S. government, which now controls an 80% equity stake in AIG, should assert its ownership of the insurer in order to block the retention payments. Frank said the government had a better chance of prevailing in court if it acted as an owner, rather than as a regulator intervening in the private sector.

Frank's committee is expected to hold a hearing on the AIG bonuses on Wednesday.

AIG has said it is contractually obligated to pay the bonuses and will make efforts to reduce the retention payments by at least 30% in 2009. The bonuses were negotiated in the first quarter of 2008 when the financial products business was expected to have a "significant ongoing role" at AIG, Chief Executive Edward Liddy said in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Saturday.

An AIG spokesman declined to comment Tuesday.

The insurer has accepted more than $170 billion in U.S. government funding, and government officials have said they may have to pump more money into the insurer if the economy continues to worsen. Earlier this month, it reported a $ 61.7 billion fourth-quarter loss.

In his letter Tuesday, Cuomo said the contracts his office has reviewed contained a provision that required most individuals' bonuses to be 100% of their 2007 bonuses.

"Thus, in the spring of last year, AIG chose to lock in bonuses for 2008 at 2007 levels despite obvious signs that 2008 performance would be disastrous in comparison to the year before," Cuomo said. "My office has thus begun to closely examine the circumstances under which the plan was created."

Cuomo also said AIG was able to bargain with some of its financial products employees, with those employees taking salaries of $1 in 2009 in exchange for their retention bonus packages.

"The fact that AIG engaged in this negotiation flies in the face of AIG's assertion that it had no choice but to make these lavish multi-million dollar bonus payments," Cuomo said. "It appears that AIG had far more leverage than they now claim."

Thoughts? I know we shouldn't HAVE to bail out companies who are fiscally irresponsible, but at the same time think of all the other companies and industries that would be adversely affected if this giant went down in flames. And now that we've given them billions of dollars to stay afloat, this happens? 11 people receiving these bonuses don't even work for the company anymore.

To me, this is AIG biting the hand that feeds.

Lets try to have a discussion this time, instead of a pissing contest mmmkay?

you know this info has been available for months right? Why is it only now people are caring?

PS - Cuomo is @!#$ idiot.

People only care now because it is making those politicians that have supported these companies look bad.

FYI, these are contractually obligated bonuses, and in the stimulus plan, Chris Dodd put a clause in the salary cap specificly stating that any salaries and bonuses due under previous countracts will be exempt from this ruling.

This is just another attempt at vilifying Corporate America, and trying to divert attention away from current issues. The whole AIG bailout thing is riddled with fraud on the part of the government, anyway. I am on my way out the door and don't have time to get into it, but if you feel like digging up info on your own, look at where the money went from the $170 billion. They only kept about half of it.

so the same CEOs who caused the problem, are now rewarded?
And who’s going to pay their reward? The tax payers?

Give that money back and go under

Obligated boneses? Don’t care, go under!!!!!!! The hell with them!
They lied to investors and now they want to be rewared, I'm sick of their lies and lies and lies screw this CEOs and their scams

Spoiler, you've been listening to the MSM reports again, haven't you?

Just to clarify, it wasn't 73 CEOs, it was executives within the company, who performed their jobs per their contract, and the bonuses were for their specific performance.

Please educate yourself and stop posting foolishness about things you don't understand.

You are missing the point entirely of what is going on. The government knew of, and OK'd these bonuses, but is now trying to create more hatred toward the corporations with the vilification of these executives recieving bonuses. This is a ploy that Obama, Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Reid, etc. (I'm forgetting a few) are using to advance their agenda of spreading corporate hatred and class envy, for the sole purpose of trying to gain support for more government control over everything.

Andrew Cuomo is a complete moron, if for no other reason than this: If the government somehow succeeds at getting back all of the bonuses (AKA steeling income from employees who earned it according to their contracts!), it will result in the loss of over $12 million of state income tax revenue. If Cuomo was smart, he'd be trying to fight for the company, so that the taxes would come to his state.

Also, what you fail to understand is that if they can take away these bonuses, it sets the precident for them to start coming up with other incomes to take, or to cap, based on some justification. This would only spread once unleashed.

I still think AIG is doing the wrong thing.

I work for a bank, our stocks are not as high, people are not spending and that's why our revenue is down. We're not doing good but not as bad as those banks who asked for bailout money.
The company is cutting back on spending, we got a 3 to 5% pay cut, no bonuses this year regardless of your performance, and we did not make bad stinky loans to people who could not afford to buy a house. We want to deal with the recession with out the government's help.

AIG on the other hand, they asked for bail out money, they made bad stinky loans, they're still getting their bonus and they didn't even earn that bonus.

so where the hell is my bonus? Where's my freaking raise! LOL oh yeah, we didn't make bad loans

Until they pay all that bailout money back and get back on their feet, then they can restart their bonus program and do whatever they want with THEIR money, not tax payers money. They need to learn more discipline, regulation and control. The party is over!
No wonder why they wen't down.

and maybe it is not about the money,
If other companies and people are all making sacrifices everyday, why can't AIG make their own damn sacrifice?
They're not worth 4.5 million dollars each IMO
They are not.

AIG disclosed to the government that they were going to do this. The government didnt do anything about it and are only now "outraged" because it is the only way they can save face with the public.

If it was a contractual obligation to the employees ( as far as I have been able to determine) and the government approved of it, they have no room to rightfully bitch about it now.

spoiler wrote:I still think AIG is doing the wrong thing.

I work for a bank, our stocks are not as high, people are not spending and that's why our revenue is down. We're not doing good but not as bad as those banks who asked for bailout money.
The company is cutting back on spending, we got a 3 to 5% pay cut, no bonuses this year regardless of your performance, and we did not make bad stinky loans to people who could not afford to buy a house. We want to deal with the recession with out the government's help.

AIG on the other hand, they asked for bail out money, they made bad stinky loans, they're still getting their bonus and they didn't even earn that bonus.

so where the hell is my bonus? Where's my freaking raise! LOL oh yeah, we didn't make bad loans

Until they pay all that bailout money back and get back on their feet, then they can restart their bonus program and do whatever they want with THEIR money, not tax payers money. They need to learn more discipline, regulation and control. The party is over!
No wonder why they wen't down.

and maybe it is not about the money,
If other companies and people are all making sacrifices everyday, why can't AIG make their own damn sacrifice?
They're not worth 4.5 million dollars each IMO
They are not.

See, you're doing it again. : "Where's my bonus, where's my raise"......everyone is not equal dude, get that thru your head.
You don't necessarily deserve what everyone else has, but yet you assume you do.

The govt. @!#$ up, and are trying to save face with the public by making this an issue after the fact. Do you know why? Because it is polling high right now.

If the govt. can sign a contract, then down the line go back on that contract because the people found out they messed up, we have officially become Socialists.

mitdr774 wrote:AIG disclosed to the government that they were going to do this. The government didnt do anything about it and are only now "outraged" because it is the only way they can save face with the public.

If it was a contractual obligation to the employees ( as far as I have been able to determine) and the government approved of it, they have no room to rightfully bitch about it now.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH!



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

When are all the stupid Obama supporters going to call him out on just how bad he is!? He is Outraged at AIG for 73 million demanding it back but I don't hear him saying anything about all his hand in the cookie jar bretheren adding 8,570 earmarks worth $7.7 billion in the Fiscal Year 2009 budget bill.

7.7billon > 73million



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Im not sure where you get your math information from but 7.7 billion in government projects is not greater than 73 million. Well according to politicians trying to cover their ass anyways.

its the goverment covering their asses for something they agreed to, but at the same time i dont think they should get the bonus wether there was a contract or not. kinda like im on contract to get a bonus, but if my company is taking a nose dive and had to get money from the goverment to be bailed out, i wouldnt expect to get that money myself. you would think that aid would be made to go back and renegotiate all contracts before it got a boatload of cash from the goverment. well atleast if i myself was lending them money i would make them go thru everything, but im one to sit down and go over it before i just hand out money, apparently the goverment decided it was a "rush" and they "had to do it now" so they did it without much thought or research and now they have pie on their face.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

J03Y wrote:See, you're doing it again. : "Where's my bonus, where's my raise"......everyone is not equal dude, get that thru your head.
You don't necessarily deserve what everyone else has, but yet you assume you do.

Hey,
the "where is my bonus, where's my raise" part was a joke"
I know everyone is not equal
and I do not think I deserve what everyone else has.

A few things on this:

Here's a thought to consider: AIG has over 100,000 employees. These bonuses are being paid to only 73 of them. Isn't anyone capable of understanding the concept that not every employee was responsible for the bad decisions? Don't you think it's possible for some of the employees to have performed their jobs well, and deserve their bonus? Think about it this way: you work on a sales team in a store with 9 other sales personell. You, and a few other of your coworkers exceed your personal sales goals, but the store misses it's goal because of complete sh!tty performance of some of the sales force. Your compensation plan entitles you to a certain bonus, but someone tells you that you don't deserve your bonus because the overall store performance sucked. Is that fair?

This isn't about the government covering their asses. The way the government covers their ass is to try and get the attention off of it, not run around giving speech after speech after speech. This is both a diversion from some of the other bullsh!t they're pulling (such as trying to make private insurance pay for medical treatment for war injuries), as well as a way to spread more corporate hatred, so they can advance their agenda for being able to step in and decide when people should be able to keep their money, and how much of it. Anyone hear the speeches made by some of these people over the past few days, or what they are trying to do? They are threatening to tax those bonuses at a rate of 90%. What you have to understand is that if this kind of thing goes through, it's just opening another door for them deciding on how much people should have. This is absolutely unacceptable, and highly unconstitutional!

Also, let's consider one more interesting fact, since two of the major mouths screaming about this right now are Obama and Chris Dodd. They were the two highest recipients of campaign contributions from AIG. This is obviously why Chris Dodd slipped in his little amendment to the stimulus bill exempting these very bonuses, and also why the company was allowed to get so much money in the first place. Just as much of the stimulus bill was, this was another payback for campaign contributors. But take a look at how AIG is now treated, when it is potentially politically beneficial, the polititians who were supported by the company are now bashing it for their own gain. Complete bullsh!t, and politics as usual for Washington. So much for bringing new ethical and moral standards, huh?

Quiklilcav wrote:
This is absolutely unacceptable, and highly unconstitutional!

Nothing Else but that FACT matters here.

Chris







"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

Quiklilcav wrote:you work on a sales team in a store with 9 other sales personell. You, and a few other of your coworkers exceed your personal sales goals, but the store misses it's goal because of complete sh!tty performance of some of the sales force. Your compensation plan entitles you to a certain bonus, but someone tells you that you don't deserve your bonus because the overall store performance sucked. Is that fair?

If the company still keeps the sh!tty performance employees and that’s why you’re not getting a bonus, then the answer is not fair.
Not fair because now you have to work with people who can not perform as good as you and it is not fair that the company puts high standards on one group and low standards on the other.
so Why not get rid of those who did a sh!tty performance and replace them with new sales rep who can perform as good as you?
If the company ends up failing because of the sh!tty performance people then that’s the companies fault; for not getting rid of the sh!tty performer employees. That's my POV

Now, if the company fails, and they have to borrow money from tax payers, no one gets a bonus regardless of performance until all the money is paid back and the company gets back on their feet.

If the company never failed, and never had to borrow money from tax payers, the company can do whatever they want with their money because they'd earn it on their own.

Right now for me to keep my job and not get laid off is a bonus.



and also when you get laid, that's a bonus lol

(sorry, thought that was funny)

Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:12 PM

spoiler wrote:

Quiklilcav wrote:you work on a sales team in a store with 9 other sales personell. You, and a few other of your coworkers exceed your personal sales goals, but the store misses it's goal because of complete sh!tty performance of some of the sales force. Your compensation plan entitles you to a certain bonus, but someone tells you that you don't deserve your bonus because the overall store performance sucked. Is that fair?

If the company still keeps the sh!tty performance employees and that’s why you’re not getting a bonus, then the answer is not fair.
Not fair because now you have to work with people who can not perform as good as you and it is not fair that the company puts high standards on one group and low standards on the other.
so Why not get rid of those who did a sh!tty performance and replace them with new sales rep who can perform as good as you?
If the company ends up failing because of the sh!tty performance people then that’s the companies fault; for not getting rid of the sh!tty performer employees. That's my POV

Now, if the company fails, and they have to borrow money from tax payers, no one gets a bonus regardless of performance until all the money is paid back and the company gets back on their feet.

If the company never failed, and never had to borrow money from tax payers, the company can do whatever they want with their money because they'd earn it on their own.

Right now for me to keep my job and not get laid off is a bonus.



and also when you get laid, that's a bonus lol

(sorry, thought that was funny)

so you sound like a capitalist, but defend socialism?

J03Y wrote:so you sound like a capitalist, but defend socialism?

I do not defend socialism

Here's a protest against the first wallstreet bailout

HAHAHAHA!

Quote:

In a dramatic reversal Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd confessed to adding language to a spending cap in the stimulus bill last month that specifically excluded executive bonuses included in contracts signed before the bill's passage.

Dodd, D-Conn., told FOX News that Treasury officials forced him to make the change.

"As many know, the administration was, among others, not happy with the language. They wanted some modifications to it," he said. "They came to us, our staff, and asked for changes, and the changes at the time did not seem that obnoxious or onerous."

But the provision has become a flash point for criticism amid the controversy over $165 million in bonuses given out by AIG after securing more than $170 billion in federal aid. The language in the stimulus bill wasn't specific to AIG, but some have expressed outrage that it appears to have created a loophole.

Dodd said the argument put forward by Treasury was that a "flood of lawsuits" would come forward if the change was not made.

Dodd said he was unaware of the AIG bonuses at the time the bill was being written back in early February. He also said he has no reason to believe Treasury officials making the argument knew about the AIG bonuses.

When asked how administration officials have this kind of leverage over members of Congress, Dodd said, "The administration has veto power. ... No one suggested a veto to me, I don't want to imply that to you. But certainly that's not an insignificant tool."

On Tuesday, Dodd told FOX News that he didn't add the exemption.

"When the language went to the conference and came back, there was different language," he said then. "I can tell you this much, when my language left the Senate, it did not include it. When it came back, it did."

Dodd still thinks the Treasury can get the bonuses back, despite the inclusion of a date in the stimulus bill, and he said officials are, in fact, using his very language to claw back the money.

"There is language after that date that says explicitly that the Treasury has the right to modify, reaching back, those bonuses, compensations, if it's inconsistent with the TARP legislation or contrary to the public interest," he said.

"In fact, it's that phrase that the administration is relying on this evening as a means by which they can reach back and maybe get these bonuses back," he said.

Still, Dodd has his enemies. The Senate Republican re-election campaign quickly shot out a statement on the Dodd reversal, as he is a prime target in the 2010 midterm elections and is facing a Republican opponent who, in one poll, is in a statistical tie with him.

"Senator Dodd's reversal on this issue is both astonishing and alarming," the National Republican Senatorial Campaign said in a written statement. "Contrary to his statements and denials over the last 24 hours, Senator Dodd has now admitted that he and his staff did in fact change the language in the stimulus bill to include a loophole for AIG executive bonuses."

The group added that Dodd had "misled voters and equivocated on his statements ."

taken from here:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/



Desert Tuners

“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”

how many of these Congressional jackasses have a "friend" at AIG I wonder?



Desert Tuners

“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”

FReQ GTO eSquIRE wrote:how many of these Congressional jackasses have a "friend" at AIG I wonder?

You would be surprised who took campaign money from AIG folks......cough Obama, cough Dodd....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123742426774379307.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

so in essence, all of Obama's contributions came from the taxpayers, whether they wanted him for President or not. it's Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae all over again.

now Joe, can you tell me why people voted for Obama again?

and before some of you fly off the handle, I am not by any means defending McCain. I know he took contributions too.

Ron Paul, 2012.



Desert Tuners

“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”

FReQ GTO eSquIRE wrote:so in essence, all of Obama's contributions came from the taxpayers, whether they wanted him for President or not. it's Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae all over again.

now Joe, can you tell me why people voted for Obama again?

and before some of you fly off the handle, I am not by any means defending McCain. I know he took contributions too.

Why people voted for Obama? He's a good speaker, talks a great game, is fairly easy to identify with, makes himself out to be the polar opposite to Bush, and can easily manipulate the minds of the less inteligent by telling them what they want to hear based on poll numbers, and doing the exact opposite?

inb4flaming

FReQ GTO eSquIRE wrote:Ron Paul, 2012.

yup


the first person to quote me spelling intelligent wrong is a total douche....yes it was done on purpose

J03Y wrote:Why people voted for Obama? He's a good speaker, talks a great game, is fairly easy to identify with, makes himself out to be the polar opposite to Bush, and can easily manipulate the minds of the less inteligent by telling them what they want to hear based on poll numbers, and doing the exact opposite?

FTMFW

but remember... the man is just a pawn being moved by someone else.



Desert Tuners

“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”