AIG

[sugarpop]

Contracts are made to be broken, and since THAT particular dept caused the downfall of that particular company, and since the company would have gone bankrupt IF WE hadn't rescued them, and there would have been NO BONUSES in a bankruptcy, then I would think a court of law would find that particular aspect of said contract null and void. Really.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Maybe, but from what I read the money was held in trust and could not be deemed an asset of AIG, therefore unaffected by bankruptcy. The justice department would have to work on that one, but they've already said since AIG didn't go bankrupt they are legally obligated to distribute that money.

[lookout123]

Actually one subsidiary of the large organization that is AIG was in trouble. most other divisions have really only been hurt because of the uninformed masses believing the evening news causing stock prices to plummet and hurting sales across the board in all AIG product lines.

But, back to the point. You think that because the taxpayer owns about 80% of AIG the prudent course of action would be to cancel out on the contractual agreements in place? Let's follow that reasoning. If I'm an employee and I have fulfilled my end of the bargain and the company doesn't pay me as agreed, why exactly would I stay on board? If I leave because the company defaulted on a contract they agreed to, what quality of individual do you think would step up to fill that position? What happens when good employees jump ship in large numbers?

So as an investor I'd like you to answer those questions. Actually it would be easier if you just answered one question. If you are a major investor in a company do you think it is better A) follow policies likely to bring about a successful future for the company, or B) hinder whatever chance at future profitability the company has because you are pissed at the past actions of a limited number of people?

I think I may understand a little better you aversion to successful and wealthy people. You don't understand the basic concepts that allowed them to achieve their successes so you apparently think it is better just to drop them to your level. Nice.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Actually one subsidiary of the large organization that is AIG was in trouble. most other divisions have really only been hurt because of the uninformed masses believing the evening news causing stock prices to plummet and hurting sales across the board in all AIG product lines.

But, back to the point. You think that because the taxpayer owns about 80% of AIG the prudent course of action would be to cancel out on the contractual agreements in place? Let's follow that reasoning. If I'm an employee and I have fulfilled my end of the bargain and the company doesn't pay me as agreed, why exactly would I stay on board? If I leave because the company defaulted on a contract they agreed to, what quality of individual do you think would step up to fill that position? What happens when good employees jump ship in large numbers?

So as an investor I'd like you to answer those questions. Actually it would be easier if you just answered one question. If you are a major investor in a company do you think it is better A) follow policies likely to bring about a successful future for the company, or B) hinder whatever chance at future profitability the company has because you are pissed at the past actions of a limited number of people?

I think I may understand a little better you aversion to successful and wealthy people. You don't understand the basic concepts that allowed them to achieve their successes so you apparently think it is better just to drop them to your level. Nice.

Jesus christ! You can't honestly be on the side of these people, can you? #1, if you helped cause the downfall of the company, why should I care if you leave? #2, if you helped cause the meltdown of the entire global economic system, why exactly do you deserve bonus, no matter what your contract says? #3, do you even know how many former Wall Street execs are looking for work right now? It's unlikely that those people would leave, and if they did, so what? There are hundreds waiting to take their place!

Now, to answer your questions, A) I must have a much different definition of success than you do, and B) explain to me exactly why it is so important to keep people who were part of the problem in the first place?

For your last remarks, pffftttt. I have been debating people like you for the past two years, saying we were in a recession, and they all said I was stupid and didn't understand basic economics. Who's laughing now? I proved them wrong. People always underestimate my intelligence, and somehow, I usually end up on top. If you are a financial advisor or someone else in that racket, then I'll take my common sense over your M-B-A anyday.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

If you are a financial advisor or someone else in that racket, then I'll take my common sense over your M-B-A anyday.

There are a fuck of a lot of financial advisors in the world, they didn't all cause the financial meltdown. Most are just people trying to do their jobs like every fucker else. Do you think the majority of stock brokers and finance industry workers have been any less fucked by the higher echelons of the industry than we have?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by DanaC

There are a fuck of a lot of financial advisors in the world, they didn't all cause the financial meltdown. Most are just people trying to do their jobs like every fucker else. Do you think the majority of stock brokers and finance industry workers have been any less fucked by the higher echelons of the industry than we have?

You're right. I apologize for my little tirade. However, many of the people in finance are making excuses for what happened, and I'm sick of it. lookout's reasoning is flawed. 1) He is arguing that we can't just break contracts that were already in place simply because we bailed out the company and now own most of it. 2) He is arguing that those employees are good employees and they would quit, and who would fill their shoes?

In answer to that, yet again, 1) other companies we bailed out were forced to renegotiate the contracts that were in place. Those people at AIG wouldn't HAVE a job if we had not bailed them out over and over. It's what, 4 times now? No, their jobs would be GONE, and so would their bonuses, so that kind of puts a huge dent in their position. 2) That particular branch is the branch that caused AIG to FAIL. Those people should not be VALUED employees. IMO, they should be investigated and possibly prosecuted for their actions. There are a LOT of people from Wall Street etc. out of work looking for jobs. It would be very easy to replace those people, IF we even should. Aig is slowly being "unwound," whatever that means, and if that particular branch is the one that caused all the problems, maybe it should just be GONE. Fire everyone, and close that department. If people are fired, are they entiteld to bonuses? Why do they get bonuses for driving a huge company like that into the ground?

In addition, that branch is located in London. So why are American taxpayers bailing them out? Why isn't London paying those bonuses and contributing to the bailout of AIG? AIG has also given tens of billions of our money to foreign banks. Are any of OUR banks getting money from foreign governments? I really would like to know the answer to that.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Jesus christ! You can't honestly be on the side of these people, can you? ~snip~ blahblahblah~snip~
For your last remarks, pffftttt. I have been debating people like you for the past two years, saying we were in a recession, and they all said I was stupid and didn't understand basic economics. Who's laughing now? I proved them wrong. People always underestimate my intelligence, and somehow, I usually end up on top. If you are a financial advisor or someone else in that racket, then I'll take my common sense over your M-B-A anyday.

No, I'm not on their side. I tink some people who made really bad decisions are going to get paid a lot of money. BUT if they fulfilled their end of a legal agreement it would be wrong not to pay them the agreed upon fee. You may argue the agreement was foolish and I would agree. You may argue they don't deserve the money and I would agree. You may argue that a lot of people deserve to lose their jobs and I would agree. You may argue that they are to blame for all the ills of the world and in some cases I might agree. That is all just dressing though. The point is we are invested in a company. We should want to see the company succeed so we get our money back. Companies that have chosen not to pay agreed upon bonuses when requirements were fulfilled will not be a target destination for top notch employees. When the bad deciders are shown the door good employees must be found to replace them. Don't cut your throat just for the sake of punishing some asshats.

And for the record, you haven't been debating people like me for two years about a recession. A quick scan of my market comments over the last few years would quickly prove the inaccuracy of your statement. And yes, I do make my money as a financial advisor. I'm ok at it or at least my clients who are comfortably retired and unconcerned about the economy seem to think.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

No, I'm not on their side. I tink some people who made really bad decisions are going to get paid a lot of money. BUT if they fulfilled their end of a legal agreement it would be wrong not to pay them the agreed upon fee. You may argue the agreement was foolish and I would agree. You may argue they don't deserve the money and I would agree. You may argue that a lot of people deserve to lose their jobs and I would agree. You may argue that they are to blame for all the ills of the world and in some cases I might agree. That is all just dressing though. The point is we are invested in a company. We should want to see the company succeed so we get our money back. Companies that have chosen not to pay agreed upon bonuses when requirements were fulfilled will not be a target destination for top notch employees. When the bad deciders are shown the door good employees must be found to replace them. Don't cut your throat just for the sake of punishing some asshats.

And for the record, you haven't been debating people like me for two years about a recession. A quick scan of my market comments over the last few years would quickly prove the inaccuracy of your statement. And yes, I do make my money as a financial advisor. I'm ok at it or at least my clients who are comfortably retired and unconcerned about the economy seem to think.

When companies go bankrupt, they are forced to restructure. Bad employees are replaced with good ones. While everyone in that division of AIG might not have contributed to the downfall of the company, obviously some of them did. When we bailed out the auto companies, the unions and workers and executives were forced to make concessions. Many of our banks were too. They even sold some of their private planes. So what makes AIG different? Please explain that to me. It's not.

Yes, markets may not have indicated we were in a recession over the past two years, but if you looked at what was happening to the middle class, and if you looked at other clues, it was very apparent we were heading toward financial disaster. I wouldn't say collapse, because that would be a lie, I didn't see that coming, but it was very apparent we were in trouble. While the people I was debating may not have been financial advisors (I don't know if they were or not), they all disparaged my intelligence on economic issues, and in general. Well, ultimately, I was right and they were wrong. I am not trying to imply that I know everything because I don't. I have never even taken a course in economics, but I am not stupid. I am actually pretty bright. And in those cases, I apparently knew more than they did, not because I am an economic genius, but because I simply observed what was happening to people around me and around the country, and I made deductions based on those observations.

[ZenGum]

"legally obligated" ... so change the law ... company getting bailout means no bonuses. "Bonus", to me, entails you only get it if things are going well.

I know, I'm a lefty pinko wanker.

[sugarpop]

Me too Zen.

[lookout123]

2) He is arguing that those employees are good employees and they would quit, and who would fill their shoes?

Just a little suggestion - read the fucking posts a little more carefully before you regurgitate your arguments. I'm not saying they're good employees. I'm not saying they should keep their jobs. I think they should mostly be shown the door. The point is that you will have to fill those positions. Prospective replacements will obviously consider things such as company stability, increased government and media scrutiny, and compensation... now you want to further hamper the recruitment process by making it known the company doesn't follow through on the contracts if it seems unpopular at the time. Good luck finding good people for those positions.

sugarpop I don't believe you are stupid but I do believe you are extremely misguided. that's cool, it is america and we each have a right to our opinions. you can look back at your internet discussions as proof that your common sense is supreme, but saying something bad is coming repeatedly will inevitably cause you to be right. That's just the way it works.

I called the downturn quite a while back as did most people in the industry. Seeing a recession on the horizon doesn't mean you can or should avoid it. My personal view is strong companies should survive and weak companies should die. AIG either should have stood or fallen on it's own. GM, Chrysler, Citi, BAC, are all in the same boat for me. It would have been brutal and bloody, but it would have had a clear end. As it is, we have an inefficient and politically motivated government tampering with the markets to keep weak companies alive. In the long run that is not a good thing. TW may be an absolute nutter but he has been correct all along about GM. They should tank because of their poor management. Chrysler was in the same boat years ago, but they got good management, came up with a viable plan and sought help from the government. It worked. That is completely different from what we are seeing today. Public opinion and political positioning will do absolutely nothing useful for these companies or our economy.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Just a little suggestion - read the fucking posts a little more carefully before you regurgitate your arguments. I'm not saying they're good employees. I'm not saying they should keep their jobs. I think they should mostly be shown the door. The point is that you will have to fill those positions. Prospective replacements will obviously consider things such as company stability, increased government and media scrutiny, and compensation... now you want to further hamper the recruitment process by making it known the company doesn't follow through on the contracts if it seems unpopular at the time. Good luck finding good people for those positions.

You said, "...If I'm an employee and I have fulfilled my end of the bargain and the company doesn't pay me as agreed, why exactly would I stay on board? If I leave because the company defaulted on a contract they agreed to, what quality of individual do you think would step up to fill that position? What happens when good employees jump ship in large numbers?...

My argument is, since that is the division that caused AIG to fail, and caused us (so far) to pay 170 BILLION dollars to keep them afloat, why exactly are they "good employees" and why should we want to keep them on baord?

sugarpop I don't believe you are stupid but I do believe you are extremely misguided. that's cool, it is america and we each have a right to our opinions. you can look back at your internet discussions as proof that your common sense is supreme, but saying something bad is coming repeatedly will inevitably cause you to be right. That's just the way it works.

I said we were in a recession, they said we weren't. What is so hard to understand about that? How is that misguided? I said things were bad and getting worse, they disagreed. I wasn't just saying that to say it, I said it based on observations. I don't think the market is an accurate guide to what is happening with lower and middle class people, because most of those people don't play the stock market, or they don't have a big effect on it, and speculators and other big investors artificially inflate and deflate prices and in effect control things they shouldn't, like gas prices last summer, and energy prices, etc. Wages have been stagnant for the majority of the population, while they have skyrocketed for executives. The wage disparity in this country is obscene and looks more that of a dictatorship or a third world country. People have steadily been losing benefits. Health care is out of control. Many hospitals have been closing over the past few years. All our manufacturing jobs have gone away and been replaced by much less lucrative "service" jobs. We don't MAKE anything in this country anymore. Follow the signs. There is no way any of that is sustainable.

I called the downturn quite a while back as did most people in the industry. Seeing a recession on the horizon doesn't mean you can or should avoid it. My personal view is strong companies should survive and weak companies should die. AIG either should have stood or fallen on it's own. GM, Chrysler, Citi, BAC, are all in the same boat for me. It would have been brutal and bloody, but it would have had a clear end. As it is, we have an inefficient and politically motivated government tampering with the markets to keep weak companies alive. In the long run that is not a good thing. TW may be an absolute nutter but he has been correct all along about GM. They should tank because of their poor management. Chrysler was in the same boat years ago, but they got good management, came up with a viable plan and sought help from the government. It worked. That is completely different from what we are seeing today. Public opinion and political positioning will do absolutely nothing useful for these companies or our economy.

I hate to tell you, but the government has been bailing out companies for decades. This is nothing new. The only thing new about it, is this recession is much deeper, and hit much faster, than most people thought it would. Apparently, a LOT of people really were asleep at the wheel, in government AND in business.

And the markets apparently NEED to be tampered with. Wall Street, and business in general, will not regulate itself. That has been proven over and over and over.

I agree weak companies should not be bailed out. Apparently though, these companies are too big to fail. If AIG had gone under, according to most of the people I've heard talk about it on CNBC and other places, then the recession would have been a depression or at least much worse than it is now, because of how entangled it is in worldwide finances with so many different corporations.

Maybe the government would have been better off dividing all that money up and giving it to the people.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Apparently though, these companies are too big to fail. If AIG had gone under, according to most of the people I've heard talk about it on CNBC and other places, then the recession would have been a depression or at least much worse than it is now, because of how entangled it is in worldwide finances with so many different corporations.

I also love using italics when I hear somebody say something on TV and then I repeat it on the internet.

[classicman]

FWIW - - -

(CBS/AP) New York state's attorney general joined the growing list of those angered by news of American International Group's bonuses, and wants to have details on his desk this afternoon about who is getting it rewarded.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo says his office will investigate whether recipients of the payments were involved in the insurance giant's decline and whether the payments are fraudulent under state law.

In a letter to CEO Edward Liddy, Cuomo said he's been investigating AIG compensation arrangements since last fall and would issue subpoenas at 4 p.m. EST Monday if he didn't get the names of employees scheduled for bonuses plus information about their work and contracts.

"Covering up the details of these payments breeds further cynicism and distrust on our already shaken financial system," he wrote.

"Taxpayers of this country are now supporting AIG, and they deserve at the very least to know how their money is being spent. And we owe it to the taxpayers to take every possible action to stop unwarranted bonus payments to those who caused the AIG meltdown in the first place."

"Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay," the president said. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"

The administration official said that the bonuses "long been known about inside and outside AIG. But we didn’t want to accept them."

Then why did it take til now for them to do something?

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

FWIW - - -




Then why did it take til now for them to do something?

Well, for one thing, taking on the banking system hammer and tongs ain't an easy proposition.

Not making excuses, so much as offering an explanation. I'd prefer more guts in our leadership, personally.