| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
If you have a contract agreement whereby you receive a salary of $1 a day for 364 days and then receive $100,000 as a lump sum on day 365 regardless of performance, it isn't a "bonus". It's a lump sum payment of salary. Had these folks at AIG been paid a higher salary every month with no end of year lump sum salary payment, we wouldn't be hearing about ANY of this. I can guarantee you that the HR department is busy entering in higher monthly salaries for these folks so that this issue doesn't come up again. If you work for a machine shop that has paid each employee $2,500 as a "bonus" each year for the last 25 years, do you see it as a "bonus" or as a lump sum of your income? I can guarantee you that if you didn't receive the $2,500 as expected, there would be hell to pay. | ||
| Greenlantern |
Great points and been on the down side of the latter recently. But this is where gray area book cooking comes back to bite everybody in the ass, and I am not just talking about the headline grabbing companies. This nonsense goes all the way down to the mom and pop level with so many loopholes in the laws pertaining that it is just ......uh what were we talking about, I just gave myself a Str..oke? | ||
| Court |
Don't get me started. | ||
| Fast1075 |
 'nuff said. | ||
| Spatten1 |
Fat Bstrd: technically it's true. However...when did people begin the entitlement complex that they are owed large compensation regardless of how poor their division or company performs? Big bonuses used to be a way of distributing profits among shareholders (employees in a private firm). Now it's a way to fleece the minority shareholders by taking all of the profits before distributing anything to the public shareholders. This talent retention thing is complete BS. Where the hell is a Wall Street trader going to go? How about an AIG exec? Somewhere else that is getting federal money? A private firm that will not use 30:1 leverage because it is their own money? It's a new world, and the easy money is gone, at least for a while. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I'm tired of faux outrage.  | ||
| Spatten1 |
BTW, if these guys can't live on $200k in a year that they lost the company tens of millions, screw them. They've taken million dollar bonuses in the good years when you could argue that they earned it. You don't get paid a lot when you are guaranteed pay. You get paid a lot when you are taking a risk and getting paid for performance. These clowns want to get paid a lot whether they perform or not. I call that welfare. | ||
| Spatten1 |
It ain't faux outrage for me. I worked for Citigroup and Enron. I left Citigroup because the culture sickened me. I make less money now. It was worth it. | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
"If you work for a machine shop that has paid each employee $2,500 as a "bonus" each year for the last 25 years, do you see it as a "bonus" or as a lump sum of your income?" My company based (notice, I typed past-tense) on two things. 1) How good of a year we had and 2) how long we've been with the company. So in this case, I'd say it was a bonus. If every year, they just gave out a check for 2500.00, then I'd say it was part of the employees salary. | ||
| Greenlantern |
Wow, so far very post (well almost ) has valid points, must be a badweb first . I think the point is that these companies first make the mistake of not attaching any strings to these "perks", then cook the books to "protect" their own interests when statement time comes around. While I morally agree with the pay for performance track (my companies bonuses were performance based and eliminated across the board in reaction to the current financial environment.) , I also understand that if you negotiate to contractual terms on something, then said contracts should be honored unless said contracts are in violation of the laws of the land. You can call these people lazy and greedy and undoubtedly you would be right in more than a few cases, but on the flip side if you were negotiating for a salary and someone offered you a extra 25% a year regardless if you only showed up on Fridays between 12:30 and 1:15 pm, would you refuse it. The only black and white I have ever seen is Wesley Snipes at a Hamptons wedding , everything else is a grand tapestry of grey............and so the saga continues  | ||
| Spatten1 |
I also understand that if you negotiate to contractual terms on something, then said contracts should be honored unless said contracts are in violation of the laws of the land. Very true, can't go back on anything AIG signed. I did hear a good point on the radio yesterday: If we did not bail out AIG, they would be out of business and the traders (or whatever you call the gamblers there) would get zero salary or bonus.....Begs the question as to whether this is a special situation under the law or not. If not, they should get paid as the contract stipulates. Citi and Merrill are the ones that I'm watching. They don't generally have contracts for bonus, it's discretionary. The WSJ last week published plenty of big Merril bonuses related to big time money losers. Can't have it both ways. | ||
| Crackhead |
to bad when they received our money all existing contracts were not null and void or renegotiated. | ||
| Old_man |
Bonus? - BONE-YOU! | ||
| Pammy |
"If we did not bail out AIG, they would be out of business and the traders (or whatever you call the gamblers there) would get zero salary or bonus....." They would be drawing unemployment, instead. To me, it's like buying booze and drugs with ones food stamps. I never get into these discussions and that's all I have to say on this one...it SO pisses me off. | ||
| Spatten1 |
to bad when they received our money all existing contracts were not null and void or renegotiated. That goes back to the haste with which the first bailout was enacted. Sure, if AIG went out of business, we'd all be worse off. Sure, the bonuses are only 1/10th of 1% of the money the company recieved. It's still hard to stomach that people directly responsible for bad bets that sank the company are getting multi-MM bonuses this year. | ||
| Spatten1 |
Just published by WSJ on-line: AIG paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees at its financial-products division, including 11 who no longer work for the company, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said. The top 10 bonus recipients received a combined $42 million, he said We ain't talking $2,500 for the guy in the machine shop. We ain't talking about a profit sharing plan. We are talking about entitlement complexes that dwarf our welfare system. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Also keep in mind that AIG isn't a monolithic entity. American General is a separate entity under the AIG umbrella. So is the aircraft leasing division. So is the P&C division. I have friends inside the American General division who met their targets, fulfilled their goals, and expect to have the terms of their employment contract met. Had they been doing the same job at John Hancock or SunLife, they would met the same goals and been paid their "bonuses" as well as their bonuses. If you work for a small company, there is only one "division". In large companies you have large separate operating units that have nothing to do with one another other than common ownership. Spatten and I work in similar fields. For my work, I am responsible for researching and creating executive compensation packages. Most packages have a base income, a lump sum payment at the end of the year (accumulated earnings tax driven), a performance based component, and potentially a deferred component. The performance driven component usually isn't driven by aggregate company profitability due to the operations of one entity affecting the operations of the whole. I would want that if the targets established for performance were hit that payment was made. These folks would as well. I'm NOT defending payments made to MBS book makers. I'm simply stating that a blanket is being thrown over ALL of AIG because it will allow false indignation and muted analysis. The assumption is that those responsible for the mortgage mess are the ones receiving the bonuses. I can guaran-damn-tee you that these folks expected bonused to be paid more than $160M. It's red meat journalism at its worst. | ||
| J2blue |
Remember to look for what the other hand is doing while the first hand waves in anger at such outrageous "bonuses". Personally I thought the indignant outrage thing happened already...oh, it was for other companies and their CEO's. I'm no fan of fat cat checks, but I also see a cover up and distraction taking place. What other activities has the administration been up to that they don't want the public to pay attention to? | ||
| Slaughter |
I'm tired of hearing: "They're TOO BIG TO FAIL" - I'm thinking that THEY'RE TOO BIG TO SURVIVE! Now we've got our ever-knowing Gubbmint telling us that we must nationalize the banking industry and the auto industry. I say let them eat their dead. | ||
| Slaughter |
This just in: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/aig.bonuses /index.html | ||
| Greenlantern |
I say let them eat their dead. What?!? So they can F up the zombie industry also? No thank you I say.  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If Obama simply had all his appointment nominees to pay their back taxes, they could raise at least a billion dollars. I'm pretty sure the tax dodges seeking higher office in DC owe the government more than the AIG bonuses. Folks "who are no longer at AIG". Sounds like deferred income, not bonuses. Unfortunately, we will never hear the rest of the story. | ||
| Court |
What are you going to do when they decide that $85,000/yr is too much for an engineer with 3 years experience? Think people. | ||
| Slaughter |
When THEY pay MY SALARY as an engineer (they nearly do now as it is) - then THEY have the right to determine what my compensation should be. That is the problem with nationalizing an industry. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
so the treasury dept cant stop them from distributing one time bonuses (again) the Revenue department (I.R.S.) Should tax all paid bonuses to bailout companies at 95%.... Should 5% seem to small, be thankful we dont take it all. And while we are at it... Lets make it retroactive, I know that agency loves to do that, and if you cant pay, its asset seizing time. Let them eat cake. | ||
| Rubberdown |
Don't take the public money if you wish to maintain control over your operations. Idiots. Highly educated dumbasses. | ||
| Court |
Partially, and in this context, a defensible position. It's really a scary deal. Expect Wall Street to act accordingly. I know several folks who are "actively" going to earn less than $250,000/yr this year. Asking the government to make business decisions is like asking them to levy "fair" taxes. These guys, as well documented, are not among the most honest folks we have to offer. We have real problems, we need real leadership. What, in fact, we are getting is the best effort of a former "neighborhood organizer" supported by a host of folks who range from incompetent to dishonest. America can do better. I agree that the bonuses need a second look and I have fond memories of some CEO's I've worked with who would have told the folks who got them to pound salt and walk. The leadership at AIG appears no better than the feds. . . pity the poor citizens who must suffer both. | ||
| Dynasport |
We have abandoned a free market economy and have become a socialist state. It's only going to get worse. We created this mess, all of us. Some of us just didn't know it at the time. Some of us are still in denial. | ||
| Rfischer |
As it happens, the fine state of NY has legislation that ties bonuses to corporate performance and "fairness" to other stakeholders. It is this legislation that our Fearless AG, a most ambitious politician looking forward to the Gov's mansion in Albany, will use to hang the BofA and Merrill-Lynch crowd | ||
| P_squared |
What other activities has the administration been up to that they don't want the public to pay attention to? You mean like this? "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it." http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_usnw/the_ american_legion_strongly_opposed_to_president_s_pl an_to_charge_wounded_heroes_for_treatment |
