Aig

[smoked trout]

But the rules of business survival were violated. It's how the whole issue got started.

I gotta ask you Jim, you seem upset that they're going after the executives. So I ask: Would you not clear house with this outfit?

Do you see anything proposed against AIG executives that is 'unreasonable'? Given the gravity of their actions? Be honest.

Do you only feel comfortable with rewriting the base rules for corporate survival but cringe when the brass tacks target executive compensation?

While I'll agree two wrongs don't make a right, the fear of committing a second wrong should not let the first wrong stand. You're right, we've bought AIG. Now it's time to make as many rights as we can out of this bad situation. The first step is to make sure it doesn't happen again. Almost as important, in my feeble mind, is to make sure those that screwed everything up are not rewarded. Yes, I think AIG employees (all of them) are culpable. Hit the road is the only solution.

Well, either that or publish their names and addresses and let nature take it's course. I favor that option, as it makes all the corporate pigs content (they can still get big bonuses!) and the proletariat has all the information they need to enact justice.

[jimzinsocal]

What gets me I guess is after the fact rule changes....that can have take back/punishment features. For me that equals government wasnt careful
when it should have been....which was way back with the first $.
And I admit perhaps it represents some strange "payback" in my head for Government lack of oversight.
Both Treasury Secretaries were/are real familiar with the bonus system
and retention bonuses. They missed it all. Or avoided it all.
Part of me wants to say "tough" live with the embarrassment.

The wrong time to close the barn door is after the horses have escaped.
And Im not defending AIG.
Im taking a swipe of our Treasury folks that have shown us they are even more inept
than the AIG guys they are now criticizing.

[jimzinsocal]

^^Wouldnt it have been prudent of Treasury to park a staff of auditor types at AIG last fall to review every budgeted expenditure?
Any "reasonable man" would have done so in view of the amount of money and stock ownership.
Its called protecting your investment.
The government failed in that duty/responsibility...not AIG.

And again. If any criminal charges can be proven against the AIG crew?
Any sort of deceptive behaviour? Go for it.
Let them spend time in Danbury.

[jimzinsocal]

Just noticed this piece. Perhaps what Im thinking is better articulated by these guys

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123725551430050865.html

But read the entire article

Given that the government has never defined "systemic risk," we're also starting to wonder exactly which system American taxpayers are paying to protect. It's not capitalism, in which risk-takers suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And in some cases it's not even American. The U.S. government is now in the business of distributing foreign aid to offshore financiers, laundered through a once-great American company.
The politicians also prefer to talk about AIG's latest bonus payments because they deflect attention from Washington's failure to supervise AIG. The Beltway crowd has been selling the story that AIG failed because it operated in a shadowy unregulated world and cleverly exploited gaps among Washington overseers. Said President Obama yesterday, "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed." That's true, but Washington doesn't want you to know that various arms of government approved, enabled and encouraged AIG's disastrous bet on the U.S. housing market.


And in the end? Despite all the political grandstanding? The Feds thought twice and avoided a potentially more expensive option

The checks are in the mail

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031602961.html


The payment plan had been no secret.
Beginning in the first quarter of 2008, AIG disclosed the plan to offer retention awards at Financial Products. The unit had already begun to hemorrhage money, a problem that would later grow exponentially. The unit's executives, fearing they might lose valuable employees in the tumultuous months to come, successfully negotiated more than $400 million for their workers, to be paid this month and again next year.
At the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which has directly overseen AIG since its federal takeover in September, officials have studied the possibility of rescinding or delaying the bonuses. They even brought in outside lawyers for advice. The conclusion: If the bonuses weren't paid, the AIG staffers would be able to sue the company and probably would win, not just what they were owed but also punitive damages that would make the ultimate cost perhaps two to three times as high as the bonuses themselves.
Moreover, Fed officials also hope to keep current employees with the company. The senior executives whose decisions caused the company's collapse are long gone. Most of those left behind are trying to unwind complicated derivative contracts. Completing that process correctly is essential to preserving as much value as possible for taxpayers, officials at both the government and AIG have argued. If it is mishandled, it could expose taxpayers to billions of dollars in additional losses.


Good summary from Maguire

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...nsibility.html

[Dutchcedar]

The bonuses weren't a secret, so I'm questioning the timing of the outrage.

The payment plan had been no secret.

Beginning in the first quarter of 2008, AIG disclosed the plan to offer retention awards at Financial Products. The unit had already begun to hemorrhage money, a problem that would later grow exponentially. The unit's executives, fearing they might lose valuable employees in the tumultuous months to come, successfully negotiated more than $400 million for their workers, to be paid this month and again next year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

[AeroSim]

The bonuses weren't a secret, so I'm questioning the timing of the outrage.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

I think we've been saying it. The "bonus outrage", outside of the precedence it may establish, is little more than a distraction from more important things going on- like why government bailed the SOBs out in the first place. And it turns out to be little more than political booty-bussing AFAIC.

Moreover, government is sensing a populace that is tired of this sh!t and knows something is dreadfully wrong somewhere. Following true political protocol, they are trying to direct the popular gun at someone besides themselves.

Perish the thought that we would remember Obama voted for TARP too. That Barney Frank and company authorized the means that led to the mortgage drisis.

Perish the thought that these b*stards, republocrats all, should be voted out by landslide next round and someone who can balance a checkbook and knows how to pay their dam taxes should be voted in.

[Dutchcedar]

^^^ Yeah, and I didn't read jimz's post above. Was just trolling the web with the first cup of coffee and found the same article.

Sorry 'bout postin' the same stuff.

[bk94si]

Dodd strikes again.

While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009,” which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/mar...ks-aig---time/

[bk94si]

Also, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.

[jimzinsocal]

The Post article was pretty damning if you ask me. I was just walking out the door when I posted it.

So I was incorrect. It wasnt government stupidity after all.
The bonuses werent a secret and the current Treasury Secretary
was involved way back.
So I conclude Obama's fake outrage was just that. Fake.
Misdirection.
Hes worried about support for his big money plans and had to go thru the charade.
Transparency....is now redefined to = bull shit.

"Attorneys working for the Fed had been examining the matter for months and determined that the retention payments couldn't be touched because AIG would face costly lawsuits and be subject to penalties from states and foreign governments. Administration officials said over the weekend that they agreed with that assessment.
AIG disclosed its retention-payment program more than a year ago, and the amount of the bonuses -- more than $400 million for Financial Products alone -- had been widely reported. But as the payments were coming due in recent days, the White House began to express its indignation."

[AMDScooter]

^^^

Boehner Statement on AIG and the Administration's Response

At a news conference on Capitol Hill this morning, House Republican Leader John Boehner said the following about AIG and the Administration's response:

“Two weeks ago, the President's spokesman said that they were confident that they knew how every dime was being spent at AIG. Well clearly, they didn't know what they were talking about. I think this is outrageous and I think the American people are rightly outraged that their tax money is going to pay bonuses to the very people that got this company in trouble.”

Today's Qs for O's WH - 3/2/2009

TAPPER: Two questions, one on AIG and one on CIA. AIG, is the administration confident that it -- that it knows what happened to the tens of billions of dollars previously given to AIG?

GIBBS: Is it confident -- I'm sorry?

TAPPER: That they know -- that you guys know what happened to the previous billions before you hand over this next $30 billion.

GIBBS: Yes -- yes, the -- I mean, I don't think it's a -- well, obviously, you've got a huge insurance company that is losing money, not the least of which because of its sheer size and sheer size and decrease in the growth in our economy. It experiences a far bigger drop, largely because of its size. But, again, the steps that -- that Treasury and -- and others took were to ensure a larger systemic problem wasn't one that we had to deal with here today in letting something just die.

TAPPER: But in terms of specifically the -- I guess it's like $150 billion before, you guys are confident...

GIBBS: Yes.

TAPPER: ... that you know where -- OK. In terms of the CIA, there's news today that the CIA destroyed -- before President Obama took office -- about 92 tapes of interrogations. What's the reaction from the president to this news? And will you guys be trying to find out what happened exactly and perhaps pursuing criminal charges?

GIBBS: Well, I have not spoken with the president specifically since the news report came around a little while ago. Someone did tell me as part of this that, because this came out in a criminal case, that there is a -- a pledge to turn over documentation and -- and reasoning around this that will be done. And the president will get a chance to look at some of that. Obviously -- obviously, this is a -- the development is -- is not good. It's sad. And I think the leadership in Mr. Panetta and certainly under the guise of this new administration, we want to give the -- the people that work at the CIA the tools they need to keep us safe, but do so in a way that also protects our values. I think that's why the president outlined so quickly a change in interrogation policies and -- and said once and for all that torture is not the policy of this country.

-- jpt

[jimzinsocal]

So now were back to this. I still object in principle. As I indicated last night I dont like retroactive deals that undo contracts.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/...ses/index.html

Lets remember what these retention bonuses are or represent: A response to a Fed request to keep the good people that committed no crime to be sure the company would be ongoing in the customer's eyes.

[jimzinsocal]

Do these crooks think we are all stupid?
Read this

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/mar...ks-aig---time/


I not longer believe anything that comes out of a politicians yap


The move represents somewhat of an about-face for the Senator.
While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.
The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.
Separately, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.
Dodd’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.
One of AIG Financial Products’ largest offices is based in Connecticut.

[jimzinsocal]

So the fake outrage is all a staged act in my opinion.^^

[Dutchcedar]

^^^ Yep. Welcome to the Obama Theater.

I like Rush's latest jab: "Obama's teleprompter told him to say..."