BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 05:23 PM

Ups and downs will continue, but look for recovery in 2010. It will be led by the execs who are being denigrated now.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: heric
Date: 26 Mar 09 - 04:16 PM

While the Standard & Poor's 500 Index is recording its best monthly rally in 17 years, Roubini predicted it will not be sustained as the U.S. economy will continue to contract through this year and investors will start "discriminating" between solvent and insolvent financial companies.

"People are going to be surprised to the downside," Roubini said.

The government is conducting stress tests of banks to determine how much more capital each will need. Roubini said once those were completed it will be evident that some banks will need to be taken over and have their good and bad assets separated before being returned to the private sector.

Geithner's Plan

Critics of Geithner's plan including Krugman, a professor at Princeton University, say the government should take over banks loaded with devalued assets, remove their top management, and dispose of the toxic securities. Sweden adopted the temporary nationalization approach in the 1990s.

Roubini, who also runs his own economics consultancy, estimates a total of $3.6 trillion of loan and securities losses in the U.S., including writedowns on $10.84 trillion of securities and losses on a total of $12.37 trillion of unsecuritized loans.

With "deflationary forces" lingering for as long as three years, Roubini said U.S. government bond yields were going to remain relatively low and that American house prices would fall as much as 20 percent more in the next 18 months. While the dollar will benefit as investors seek safe havens, it will ultimately decline as the U.S. trade deficit has to shrink, he said.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 02:19 AM

Heric, thanks for the boat ride. I couldn''t finish it though, halfway through I bailed

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,DannyC
Date: 25 Mar 09 - 12:13 AM

My read (I am no expert --- look, I'm reading Rolling Stone articles to gain insight) on the investment bank/insurance company differentiator is that the investment bank is compelled by regulations/regulators to account for their exposure in a CDS arrangement - so they buy a hedge to show a limit of their exposure.

I take it that the insurance cos. did not incur the same regulatory governance and so could write as much business as they could find - with no oversight (@ $500 Billion, it looks like they were successful in finding loads of exposure --- $64 Billion in sub-prime loans - for f#*k's sake). Perhaps AIG could only operate like this due to the weakness and scarcity of resources within the Office of Thrift Supervision (AIG had apparantly manipulated the system to fall under the weak OTS's governance.)

There are some 19th Century German philosophers who confidently predicted that these sort of cataclysms would eventually occur under our current economic structures... we'll see if the West can or will recover.

<< Thanks DannyC for that remakable Taibbi primer. But:

"When investment banks write CDS deals, they hedge them. But insurance companies don't have to hedge. And . . . AIG did[n't]."

That . . . just . . . doesn't . . . sit . . . right.

I can't say what's wrong, but I keep coming back to that point. I think something - something big - is missing in relation to those two sentences. >>

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 11:53 PM

Hey were all 80% owners right?

I think if a whole buncha folks went on board the AIG yacht and her out for a weekend its not like were stealin.

Besides its the AIG yacht. They company changed their name to AIU.
Its like borrowing the trash they threw out.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,DannyC
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 11:42 PM

Liddy made the admission before the House that the AIG brand has been damaged too severely to operate under the AIG name going forward. Under this scenario, the company has squandered any advertising benefits from prior affiliations and/or advertising initiatives.

Taibbi made a good point on MSNBC... that "too big to fail" logically translates into "too big to exist". So, we're back to busting robber barons and enacting anti-monopoly legislation. The Roosevelts' sagacity shines like a distant beacon thru a fog of short-sighted greed.

Liddy refused to name names. There are legitimate concerns about the personal safety of the bonus beneficiaries and their families.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 11:34 PM

Thanks DannyC for that remakable Taibbi primer. But:

"When investment banks write CDS deals, they hedge them. But insurance companies don't have to hedge. And . . . AIG did[n't]."

That . . . just . . . doesn't . . . sit . . . right.

I can't say what's wrong, but I keep coming back to that point. I think something - something big - is missing in relation to those two sentences.

I understand that they were essentially unregulated, but this is the world's largest insurer with a long, long history. It employs uncounted actuarial and risk geniuses. Insurers set reserves as job 1. Sure, it's a regulatory requirement, but to think they would lose total control over risk concepts, like an unsupervised kid drinking himself to death on Coca-Cola, is just, well, too hard to swallow.

Similarly, going to town insuring people or entities with no insurable interest presents the same phenomenon.

My guess is that the answer comes from the short, four or five question list written up by Spitzer in Slate:

"What was the precise conversation among Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson, and Blankfein that preceded the initial $80 billion grant?

Was it already known who the counterparties were and what the exposure was for each of the counterparties?

Why weren't the counterparties immediately and fully disclosed?"

They used to say the counterparty make up wasn't disclosed because it would be too scary, and shatter the world markets. But some also said that the CDS market largely balanced out, so that it is not in reality a several $trillions issue.

Who are those remaining CDS creditors out there? Why don't we know?

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 11:02 PM

An AIG group (Maritime General Agency) is a big insurer for marinas, yacht clubs and commercial and private yacht owners; in line with these services it would not be unusual for them to support yachting and to own one themselves and participate in yachting events. Good advertising!

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,DannyC
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 10:08 PM

Matt Taibbi, the author of the Rolling Stone article "The Big Takeover" (see above link) is a guest tonight on The Rachel Maddow Show (USA Cable - MSNBC).

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 09:21 PM

Barry Finn on his yacht
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfISlGLNU

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 09:20 PM

Fallout on the side:

Rehab centers seeing surge in bankers

Addiction takes a toll in industry where confidence is the name of the game

Reuters
updated 4:53 a.m. CT, Tues., March. 24, 2009

NEW CANAAN, Connecticut - Cocaine and martinis On Wall Street? Nothing new there. Masters of the Universe admitting they have an alcohol problem? Not so common.

Experts say more and more people in finance are seeking treatment for addiction as the global economic crisis sinks its teeth into a high-stakes industry where confidence is the name of the game and nobody wants to admit to a weakness.

"We absolutely do see more people coming in naming either a job loss or huge financial reversals or big investments with Bernie Madoff," said Sigurd Ackerman, medical director at Silver Hill Hospital rehabilitation facility in New Canaan, Connecticut.

"They're being admitted with depression or increases in substance abuse, or both."

... .... ...

Sort of a "fluff" piece, and no mention about "guilt feelings" as a contributing factor.

John

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 09:08 PM

Donuel, can you tell where that yacht lies & what her name is cuz I want a ride on my new investment. Even though my tax input amounts to next to nothing it's a lot like telling the prostitute, when she quotes you a price for a blowjob & saying you'd like a nickles worth.

who's the whore here & who's the pimp & guess who's getting fucked?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 07:52 PM

I have photos of the AIG yacht that no one else has. Not even AP or Getty.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 02:08 PM

The change is largely to emphasize the American International Underwriters part of the business, the global property-casualty arm, whose headquarters operations are from the building where the AIG sign was taken down.
'Holdings' is being added to further distinguish the AIU arm, which soon will offer 20% in the form of a public stock sale. Sections are AI Holdings Inc. and AI Holdings LLC, the former for U. S. operations.

Other parts of the business are taking their original names, e. g. AIG Direct (automobile insurance) is changing back to 21st Century. Other arms are being separated according to function as part of the reorganization; some may be sold off (American Life Insurance, American International Assurance, are two now placed in a 'Special Purpose Vehicle').

The U. S. government regulators, of course, are involved in these changes and their outcome.

Chairman Liddy has said that AIG may abandon its overall name because of the public foofaraw, but no decision has been taken yet.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 12:34 AM

He's talking about the Water St. building.

AIG will now call its property and casualty insurance company "AIU Holdings LTD," which is quite distinct from its former brand, of which they were so proud.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 12:28 AM

Strategic!

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 12:26 AM

AIG headquarters is in the American International Building, NY.
AIG has not changed its name.
The federal government now owns about 80% of the company, and has given it some $170 billion to keep it afloat.

American International Underwriters is a member company of AIG, handling their overseas property casualty operations, and formed for that purpose years ago.

AIG is an interesting company, started in Shanghai in 1919 by Cornelius Vander Starr (born in California), following a year as a steamship company clerk in Japan and work for several Shanghai insurance companies 1918-1919. The The C. V. Starr East Asian Library at Columbia University and the C. V. Starr East Asian Library at University of California are named for him; founded with money from the Starr Foundation. Starr died in 1968. For a time he was also an Office of Stratigic Services operative.

Before failure, AIG assets were some $850 billion. The eventual outcome of the federal government takeover probably will have some interesting twists and turns before the end is reached.

Donuel, whoever that is, is an ever-spouting fount of mis-information.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Sawzaw
Date: 24 Mar 09 - 12:17 AM

Top Two AIG Campaign Contribution Reciepiants:

Barack Obama         $104,332
Chris Dodd         $103,900

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Sawzaw
Date: 23 Mar 09 - 11:53 PM

I don't think a turd smells sweet at all.

You could say a name change could make the turd smell less stinky.


What's in a name?

That which we call a turd by any other name would smell as foul.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Mar 09 - 11:29 PM

THERE IS NO AIG

All their signs have been removed from NYC office buildings.

they changed their name to American International Underwriters.

Granted its like turning the G on its side - AIU
Its as though the risky6 casino driven Derivitive group has disapeared, like our 180 billion.
for a comparison... A manned mission to Mars would cost about 18 billion.
The Queen Elizabeth ocean liner was just sold for $20 million.
A developed Island with mansions costs 40 million.

but true to form of most evil corporations, a change of name makes the turd smell more sweet.

Even small time rotten swindlers do this when ever things get too hot.
Phillip Morris became Atria and then Atria was changed to... guess.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,DannyC
Date: 23 Mar 09 - 10:31 AM

This article (from Matt Taibbi - Rolling Stone) gets into a bit of depth on the issue and highlights the origins of the problems.

The Big Takeover

It has left me feeling a pronounced sense of outrage. These people must be brought to account...   hunt 'em... all of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:30 PM

Ronald Reagan started this hate-government thing in the 80's and regulations dropped by the wayside... Now we are collectively suffering from 30 years of piss poor governement and folks are surprised...

The BuShite Repubs aren't only surprised, they're in absolute denial. They're PROUD of their record of the last 30 years, despite the fact that its their fault the country is completely fooked.

Oh, ye generation of morons.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,DannyC
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 07:22 PM

We don't have to hunt 'em. We know who they are:

Sherman (D - Calif.) Speaking Out

PS: What's with these aggressive CNBC "interviewers" speaking over every guest with whom they differ? CNBC has become as partisan as FOX and, accordingly, useless as a reliable source of information.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 07:19 PM

AIG is just ther scapegoat de jour... This stuff has been going on for a long, long time... When stuff, bad or good, goes on on a long, long time it becomes part of the "culture"... Ronald Reagan started this hate-government thing in the 80's and regulations dropped by the wayside... Now we are collectively suffering from 30 years of piss poor governemnt and folks are surprised?!?!?!????????

Beam my up, Scotty...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 07:05 PM

Well - they do have to emulate the ideals and morals of their sponsors, don't they?

Please assure us that the team still got their "after game" brew ration. (?????)

John

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 06:53 PM

The wrath of the almighty (small "a" deliberate) has started. Manchester United are sponsored by AIG. They have lost their last two games.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 04:56 PM

The bonuses reported to the Fed were in response to a demand to identify all who received bonuses "of more than $XXX amount," since the concern was about "excessive awards" to high ranking executives.

The larger amount reported to Connecticut's AG quite probably included all the bonuses, down to the guy in the mailroom who got a cup of lukewarm coffee, a stale donut, and a free ballpoint pen. (They called those bonuses at a couple of places where I've worked.)

The two different answers probably were because two different questions were asked. (Asking the right questions - or even remembering what one asked for - seems not to be a common talent in our Federal government system.)

The "binding contract" that AIG claims required them to pay the huge "executive bonuses," according to several reports, included the agreements in individual contracts that bonuses for 2008 "would not be less than 2007 bonuses" regardless of performance during 2008. Sort of a "minimum wage agreement" for executives. If the company had lost a little less, the bonuses quite probably would have been more - possibly "really big." (note: sarcasm intended)

John

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 01:40 PM

-- American International Group Inc., whose compensation policies before and after its U.S. bailout are being investigated, turned over information on its executive bonuses to Connecticut's attorney general, who said the insurer paid out $218 million.

That amount is more than the $165 million in bonuses previously disclosed by the New York-based company. The insurer provided a list of bonus amounts and contract terms to Blumenthal, who said the information supports his view that the basis for paying the bonuses is "completely unjustified," according to a statement he issued yesterday.

"These contracts rip the rug from under AIG's excuses -- revealing no basis under Connecticut law for these mega taxpayer-funded bonuses," Blumenthal said. "AIG's own documents reveal that it turned an emergency bailout into a meritless handout, paying windfalls to employees as reward for financial failure."

Blumenthal said he asked AIG's lawyers to explain the difference in total bonus amounts.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Mar 09 - 12:08 AM

Janie, I really appreciate your 'considerate' response! However there are just a few things to consider, about this present administration. Transparency? Like, no lobbyists in his cabinet. That is a lie! Time line for who knew what, in the bailout, structuring?..another lie. Raising the deficit, and borrowing from the 'future(?), as he is doing?....okay, solving the problem, by doing what was done to get us into the whole mess, in the first place...('Change' we can believe in'?) Dumb! Violating the constitution by reneging, on the contracts, and interfering with private contracts..The President is not a law unto himself..ask Nixon. Running up OVER TWO TRILLION deficit, in the first months of taking office?? Come on!... and the talk (read: trial balloon) of making vets pay for service related injuries(which he had to back down from, so far) absolutely brain dead! Imagine, a Vietnam vet, drafted(forced to serve, or go to prison), getting injured, and now forced to be off VA medical treatments???..This guy is so locked up in his very far left agendas, he can't see straight! Signing bills that he hasn't even read, that is breaking the back of the economy?? This is a 'little more' than just inexperience! Listen to Gibbs, stutter, and him and haw, at almost tough questions, put to him, by the press, at the press briefings....listen carefully, this is getting too hard to ignore! Look, I didn't vote for him, but when he took office, I was willing to support him, being as he is our president, but this is beginning to be a circus of incompetence, bordering on treason! Sorry, if I sound wary, but, I am...and for good reason, which seems to unfold daily...sometimes hourly. Everyday, another scandalous tidbit of news, comes out about this guy, and his band of clowns(Keystone Cops), trying to smooth over another incident. One third of his appointees, are tax cheats! If he wants to stop his slipping credibility, he needs to tell Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Barney Frank, Geithner, Axelrod, to get lost, and stand up to them, and rid his cabinet of the lobbyists that he made exceptions for....and for Pete's sake, throw away that damn, teleprompter...and speak what is really in his head! Other than that, he's just great!!...Kumbayah!

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Janie
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 11:33 PM

GfS,

While I often find myself wondering if Obama's inexperience is showing, there are no objective indications that a more experienced national politician would be any more effective. I am not too inclined, this early in the game to point fingers. I'm not convinced that Geithner has made any missteps that anyone else would not have made, given the urgency.

Where the lack of experience in the administration may show, is in their ineffectiveness at giving it the proper "spin" that we in the citizenry seem to require. That may also be the result of their attempts at transparency. The American people are going to have to decide if we are mature and thoughtful enough to tolerate transparency. Transparency, after all, means that there is less effort devoted to obfuscation of missteps.

We citizens really need to understand that the effect of demanding perfection is a reduction in honest accountability.



Again, it is easy to point the finger at Congress or the administration. Let us remember that all of these folks are mostly interested in maintaining their power base and getting re-elected. I'm going to sound like an elitist snob here. So be it. A truly effective, conscientious politician must find a way to both pacify his/her constituency and lead that constituency. That is going to require some pretty fancy footwork. It is easier to manipulate than honestly lead. It is harder to sway people with truth and reality, which acknowledges both cost and benefit, and requires a thinking person to weigh options and priorities, than it is to manipulate people with lies, half-truths and soundbites that tap into closed-system paradigms that exclude all objective evidence that challenges that paradigm. The voting population does not want to have to think objectively or acknowlege realities that do not fit with their individual paradigms and self-interest. Those paradigms and areas of self-interest vary a great deal. The politician has got to somehow find a way to integrate all of this and stay in office to be effective.

Where Obama's lack of experience may really hurt is if he is unable to use his still high approval ratings to leverage Congress. It is not his fault that he has so little time and so much pressure as the result of assuming office during such a crisis. But it is still his job to find a way. What I keep in the back of my mind, however, is this question: "Can I think of anyone else that I objectively think could do any better with this current crisis and climate? At least if they are trying to operate with transparency?

What I think, at this juncture, is there are politicians with a clear agenda and devotion to either a philosophy or a monied constituency who might be more effective in getting their agenda passed. However, I am less interested in an intrenched philosophical agenda, and more interested in what does it take to find effective solutions that generally work for a large and diverse society.

We can focus on blame, or we can turn our attention to figuring out what works. The two tasks are mutually exclusive.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 10:46 PM

The bonuses to executives are universal.
In the Canadian news today, Nortel Telecommunications is paying $7.3 million to 8 executives (five in the U. S.). The Nortel incentive package is $US 23 million, for 92 staff members. The company is under creditor protection, but the courts (Ontario CA and Delaware US have ruled the payments are legal. Compared to AIG, Nortel is small potatoes, but it is typical of industry practice.

It is doubtful that US Congressional bills to claw back the money are legal, they probably will be overturned in the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 10:18 PM

John, I'm a bit dizzy...are we in Kansas, yet?

(..and no offense taken,..wink)

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,Guest from
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 10:16 PM

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 10:07 PM

Janie, I tend to agree with you..you may note, though, not one republican voted for the bailout.(I guess they did enough damage, in the previous administration). You must note, that this stupid bill passed, with most 'Representatives' claiming, that they never even read it!!!!...Including the President!!!! During the campaign, I repeatedly said, (as several others), that Obama, has had no....NO, executive experience...but that didn't seem to matter to all those who were so anxious to elect a pop celebrity icon, to be the Chief Executive of our country..(I guess to show that they were so 'tragically hip'! Can you imagine any executive signing or making a corporate decision, without even reading it????????!!!!!!!!???..What a jerk-off!!! Then blaming Libby, who they put in, who they got out of retirement, and blaming him???? Now they are caught in a pack of lies trying to back peddle, as to when they knew about the exec bonuses...This is complete and utter incompetence!..Even the pom-pom bearers have to admit that...at least in the privacy of what little brains they have. Now its coming out that 'Turbo Tax Cheat' Geithner, not Poulsen, was the one who was the original 'architect' of the A.I.G.'s bailouts..Obama, had he ever been in the military, or knew ANYTHING about the chain of command, would have to concede, that when something goes wrong, and you're the one in charge, it is ultimately YOUR fault! This whole thing stinks to high heavens!..RAH RAH..and Kumbayah!!

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 09:51 PM

as the name suggests, I'm from Sanity!

Might we say, perhaps FAR FROM Sanity?

(That's a tweak - not intended to offend.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Janie
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 09:32 PM

I ain't done yet:>)

I'm also disturbed at the way Congress is refusing to thoughtfully debate and lead. Our congressional members are reacting to the passions of the day. Looking for someone to blame. Pointing fingers. Afraid to thoughtfully weigh options and then make decisions.

The American people have to accept a good bit of responsibility for that. We need to give our executive and legislative branches space to try to find their way. This is uncharted territory. There is going to have to be some trial and error, and time to guage effects and results without putative reactions on the part of voters.

What is needed is response and feedback. Not legislative reaction to the emotional reaction of the populace. I am disturbed that the bill to tax the bonuses went sailing through with no discussion or debate, because it is such an example of what we don't need.

I don't think there was much choice but to go ahead and quickly vote on the TARP legislation. But since it was so fast, it should be expected that glaring flaws would come to light once the funds started being distributed. Let's give our duly elected representatives some time and space to figure it out before we start threatening to lynch anyone. Let's give them feedback and opinion, but also time, and some forgiveness when errors are made.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Janie
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 09:18 PM

I literally felt ill this afternoon as I listened to an NPR interview with David Viniar of Goldman Sach about the AIG payouts to them. Listen here, if you missed it..

Corporate narcissism apparently knows no bounds. We average joes are being forced to sacrifice as well, but we are also being asked to willingly sacrifice even more for the common good. And most of us understand and accept that imperative. These big corporations and the people who run them will sacrifice only what they are forced to sacrifice. The notion that there are both times and circumstances when their responsibility as corporate citizens should carry some measure of more weight than their perceived responsibility to their bottom line a notion that simply does not exist within their internal paradigm. They will make only forced sacrifices - forced by the market or by the government - .

I am pretty dumb about economics, but I do understand that it is in the best interests of all of us for business to do well. At least well-enough. But it is clear that many of these corporate types see it all as a one way street, and the rest of us are supposed to be pleased with what trickles back down the gutters and storm drains.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 09:06 PM

"Change"??...Well, you might have bought into that line of bullshit...but, as the name suggests, I'm from Sanity!

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 08:36 PM

As far as I can tell, they're not giving me any tax breaks but they are reducing my withholding anyway, to "stimulate" the economy I guess, then I can find some extra money next April to pay them back. (I'm not sure if that is the plan, but I think so.)

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 06:53 PM

Jayto -

Just business as usual. Given the complexity of their business, it is quite possible that they did "overpay" their taxes, and any "recovery" is part of what they should be doing to get their business back in shape.

Unless you're argument is that once you've kissed her she can't complain if you beat the crap out of her?

For anyone who can get past the "indignities" and might actually be interested in the whole picture of what might be going on, it may be possible to get your own personal copy of the entire American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Read it for yourself and see if any of it makes sense.

A warning: the governement websites that directed me to this are full of "circular links" that instead of going where they say the go just open a new copy of the same page where the link appears, and the document declined to download using the customary "right click and save target" for .pdfs. (The link at the last site where I finally got to it has a .http end, rather than the correct .pdf, but apparently got redirected.) I think you can right-click and save target as from my link, or the link should open the pdf in your browser, from where you can save it for future reference. The default name is "getdoc.pdf" so you'll want to rename it if you save.(Apparently not all Federal agencies are up to speed with Obama's love for the internet.)

Second warning: the document is 400 pages, about 1.1 MB, so those on dial-up may want to allow time for it to open fully before trying to save. (Sometimes a save attempt while the download is still working will hang your browser.)

Thus far, my cursory review of the act shows that virtually every "benefit" that's been highly publicized includes a sub-paragraph with the limitation "except if you've used the name JohnInKansas." This is really an expected result, and I've sort of gotten used to it, but ...

^!%@$#!!

An example is the much touted "$800 per family rebate" that, in the act is limited to "the lesser of ... 6.2% of earned income."

Since Social Security payments are not "earned income," and payments from a retirement plan are not "earned income" and withdrawals from a 401k or IRA are not "earned income" - according to normal IRS rules - this limitations appears to exclude virtually all working-class retirees from receiving this rebate. (Unintended consequences?)

This, and several similar "benefits" will require additional analysis.

John

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Jayto
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 06:11 PM

I don't eve know what to say about this! Audacity? Stupidity? Greed? All of the above and more?

AIG sues the US Government!!!???

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Kampervan
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 05:30 PM

I thought that I heard on the news today that the US had introduced a special tax of 90% on any bonus paid to a member of a bank that had been bailed out using Government (i.e. OUR) money.

This sounds like a bloody good idea.

How about it Gordon?

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: number 6
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 01:09 PM

Here's a rather large company that has gone bankrupt.

Eight executives want a bonus to keep the company morale up.

Nortel seeking bonuses

I can't beleive all this is happening ... legally we must pander to the upper executives who have literally screwed tings up ... while they layoff the employees.

All this stinks. The arrogance, the total screw everyonejust give me what I want attitude of these guys is sickening.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 02:44 AM

HOW GREAT. Alberta finally made the BIG TIME.

Our Premiere has said that the Government of the Province of Alberta will NOT be spreading $40,000,000 in the form of bonuses around to government bureaucrats this year.

"Alberta puts brakes on civil servant bonuses
KATHERINE O'NEILL

March 19, 2009

Edmonton -- Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach has suspended a controversial and pricey bonus program next year for provincial civil servants.

However, he said despite tough economic times, more than 6,000 government managers will still be eligible to receive payouts for the current fiscal year ending March 31. The program is worth about $40-million. Opposition party politicians are outraged the Tories are still planning to go ahead with the current round of bonuses in light of news the province is expected to run its first deficit in 15 years."

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Mar 09 - 12:18 AM

Sounds like Geithner's head is on the chopping block(good!)...He and Dodd, and Frank should be out of a job, and in prison!...and that's just for starters on the list!!!..Others should be removed from office! ..and all the ballyhoo about $100 million or so, as I posted before, is just a smokescreen to hide the BILLIONS laundered overseas. Pelosi ran California absolutely bankrupt, and now the crazy bat is doing it to the nation. Bush, and the rest, just handed off this corrupt ball, to the rest of the corrupt pieces of shit, who are lying through their teeth..and getting caught...though, I'm sure, that doesn't even phase the pom-pom bearers!...Kumbayah!!

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 19 Mar 09 - 11:54 PM

OR unless there were dirty dealings by Dodd, done dirt cheap.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 19 Mar 09 - 11:52 PM

"A.I.G. itself revealed the bonus plan in regulatory filings last September.

In November, when the bailout of A.I.G. was restructured, Treasury and Fed officials negotiated the terms under which A.I.G. could make the retention payments. And in December, Democratic lawmakers sought a hearing about the payments. . . .

A.I.G. executives have insisted that they informed the New York Fed about the bonus plan, and that they assumed the New York Fed was informing the Treasury.

Treasury officials have suggested that the New York Fed and the Federal Reserve Board in Washington failed to alert the Treasury staff until March 5. . . . "

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20bonus.html?hp

It's pretty clear that alerting Treasury earlier (taking at face value that they didn't) would not have mattered. Everything now is just political shit-storm control, assuaging the masses, unless those September disclosures weren't accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 19 Mar 09 - 08:07 PM

At least one article puts the "cause clause" that created the bonuses in question back to a law passed by Congress several years ago that imposed a tax penalty on corporations, for "salaries over $2 million." That law "forced" the companies to look for more "creative" methods of "compensating" executives.

While the "trigger" change was signed by President Clinton, it seems hardly fair to blame him alone for upsetting things, since the change had been proposed, amended, withdrawn, returned, obscured, and obfuscated through at least three prior administrations, any one of which might have made this "innocent" change.

No administration, including Clinton's and all since, has bothered to look for "unexpected consequences" from the change - until now.

Hardly anyone, with the exception of a few CEOs, will argue against the proposition that CEO "rewards" are obscene and abusive. Even some overpaid CEOs already have agreed to waivers of some "contractually obligated" rewards for incompetence.

Senator Dodd has reportedly been a principal beneficiary of funding from AIG for many years, and anything he says about them has to be at least somewhat suspect. One article claims that he introduced an amendment to the bailout bill that would have blocked the AIG bonuses. I haven't been able to verify the actual content of any such amendment, but it should be noted that under Senate rules the original author of an amendment pretty much has the unilateral right to withdraw it at any time, and early introduction is a common method of "sheltering" something. The original author can discourage similar amendments by others, but can then withdraw his/her own amendment at the last minute - thereby preventing the issue purported to be addressed from ever being considered. Of course Dodd can claim that anyone who offered an opinion has "pressured him" and there's unlikely to be any demand for proof. He can choose to blame "the scapegoat of the day" with impunity.

I haven't found clear evidence that Dodd acted in this issue with a purpose of this kind in mind; but it's consistent with what I've seen of his prior record for similar manipulations.

Since the total of all of the AIG bonuses, obscene as they are, is roughly the equivalent of the purchase price of one mid-sized corporate jet, in the overall picture this is not an issue that significantly impacts the intent and purpose of the funds being doled out. It is, and is being used as, a diversion that is preventing attention to the other uses that many corporations may be making of funds already dispensed.

Put three good lawyers on the case. Forget about it until they get something done. And get another thousand lawyers busy trying to get consistent and effective rules for the use for the other few trillion bucks that may be going down somebody's piss-hole while everybody is worrying about this little group of chiselers.

How about a look at whether AIG should pay off on "insurance" several hundred times to each of several dozens of "insurers" who each got coverage for the same risk. One estimate places the AIG "obligation" at close to $200 trillion for insurance on $2 trillion in actual money, since each person who traded the same 2 trillion insured it for the same amount. Once they sold it, they have no remaining "insurable interest," yet they're getting paid.(?)

John

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: heric
Date: 19 Mar 09 - 07:23 PM

Some CDS purchasers may have been seeking gambling entertainment but most ( <- I have no idea the relative %) were purchasing insurance for its intended purpose: Risk management on their investment portfolios. These include huge pension plans etc.

Subject: RE: BS: $100 million bonuses to AIG execs
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 09 - 07:03 PM

"There is an interesting opportunity that I believe our Congress missed.
As mentioned below the core issue is the CDS obligations. Ideally AIG
would have been able to simply "return" the CDS fees they received and
cancelled the insurance. Instead, we propped up AIG with $100B+...AIG
made good on their CDS obligations and paid the billions to Goldman,
etc. (who then proceeded to pay those billions in bonuses -- far more
than what AIG allegedly paid out).

A potentially better approach would have been to create a corporate
excise tax (like the bonus tax being proposed) on all proceeds from CDS.
Make the tax so onerous that if AIG then simultaneously offered to allow
the cancellation of a CDS obligation in return for a refund of fees..the
cancellation of the CDS instrument would be better financially for both
parties. Such a move would effectively cancel out the CDS market as it
stands today. Furthermore it would stop the cycle of funneling money
into AIG simply to reward the folks that betted in the casino. As a
reminder it is the CDS market that is described as a >$50trillion
outstanding liability hanging over all our heads so cancelling this out
is a requirement to eliminate the opaque risk present in the system.

Sadly - this would have been very valuable to do in November. I do not
know how much more AIG will payout on CDS's....it would be nice to know
if Congress is even tracking that."

(A correspondent)