The point, as I said in an earlier message, is that these aren’t ‘bonuses’ in the sense of reward for profitability. They are the total compensation packages for some of these people. They agreed to forego salary, commission, and all other compensation in lieu of a lump-sum payment that would be given to them if they stayed. The whole thing was designed to stabilize the hemorrhaging of people in Financial Products so there would be enough left to unwind the business unit.
You do note that Liddy’s call for these people to waive their bonuses amounts to his asking them to work for free? Or that Congress’s 90% tax would result in this guy making $72,000 total for the last 14 months? It’s not as if this was millions of dollars heaped upon an already grossly high salary.
And the threat of the Attorneys General to release these names to the public and encourage mob violence should be an immediate firing offense. Talking about disrespect for due process. Can we at least agree on that?
He’s the executive vice president of the Financial Products division and he’s not the one responsible? How is it that he completely dodged all accountability for this? I find that curious and convenient.
Look, if we’re talking about regular employees who are working to unwind this mess, I have every sympathy for them. Someone needs to fix this thing, and we need people in the trenches for that.
But holy shit, man. Executive vice president of the responsible division? What the hell was he doing all this time? Golf? If he’s not one of the people responsible, by definition, then who the fuck is? We wouldn’t accept this kind of weaseling from Lay or Schilling of Enron: “I wasn’t responsible, no not me!”
I want to see things fixed, by people who can fix them. I also want to see indictments against the people who robbed the world of trillions.
Nope.
What gave you the impression I was?
This is a senior officer of a corporation that lost billions (with a b) and sent the global economy to the gutter. He didn’t now about what was happening inside the company? Did he inform the shareholders?
Let’s see…this is what I was originally responding too:
There are myriad reasons that he could have done absolutely nothing wrong and yet be donating the money anyway, and even a cursory understanding of what’s been going on would clue one in.
The top choice? Fear. In the current atmosphere of people talking about good old boys shooting or piano wire, of death threats and generally over the top calls for violence (you know what I’m saying here Fear? Yeah, thought so), with politicians egging on the public by fanning the flames at the same time they are grandstanding and producing knee jerk reactionary legislation…well, I’d say that would suffice to give a reason why someone would want to wash their hands of the whole thing, give back the money they earned and get the fuck out of Dodge before a mob of morons decide he’s look good in tar and feathers…
In and effort to appease Fear, I’ll answer all the questions however:
I had hoped it was tongue in cheek, as if it wasn’t it showed a level of cluelessness about the situation that was hard to believe. So, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. In vain. C’est la vie.
Yes…and? Let me re-link to a cite 'luci linked to earlier in the thread. Feel free to read through it. A careful reading of it will show that it’s not implausible at all that a VP didn’t know or have any input into the decision process that lead to this mess.
Well, that’s a rather broad question/assertion. What do you mean exactly? Did he know the company was doing credit default swaps? Sure, he knew that. Did he know what the companies possible exposure and risk were? Probably not, especially since this was seemingly a closely guarded secret…and that seemingly even those who were actually in the know didn’t fully grasp until fairly late in the game (i.e. just before it all dropped in the pot).
Do you know the difference between a VP and a CEO?
There you go Fear. Hope that helps.
Ah…I see. Such interesting logic! Do you, perhaps, have a 401K or money market? Stocks? A house perhaps? Anything of the sort? Did you, perhaps, receive additional revenue or other benefit to those investments when the markets were up?
Well, to be sure, in your case you probably have none of those things, so it’s a rhetorical question. But let’s say that some hypothetical Fish who would actually have such instruments of evil in his or her possession DID actually receive increases in these instruments when the markets were up.
This theoretical Fish would then be responsible as well. And then, of course, there are the politicians…
Funny…I must have missed the Pit thread for them loudly condemning them for getting us into this fucked up mess and calling for piano wire and new tar and feather attire…
Let’s be charitable here and presume you did not intend the nasty tone of elitism that wording implies, and offer you your first opportunity to clarify and/or apologize. Rather quickly, I would hope.
Well, it reads to me as one of those ‘joke’ thingies, but I grant that my sense of humor is perhaps different than your own. While normally my response to what I consider the humor impaired is ‘oh well’, I will admit that perhaps there is some room for the perception of a ‘nasty tone of elitism’, especially by one such as yourself who considers me a nasty elitist. So…apologies to Fish. I wasn’t actually trying to say he had no investments there.
What I’m trying to say is, did this executive VP of the department get rewarded for the performance of his department? Did he get a giant reward for all these financial instruments created under his department?
If he did get that bonus, then someone must have felt he was in control of, command of, or in a supervisory position over those instruments. If so, why would he be given an employee bonus by his employer for things he did not do, or had no control over or knowledge of?
If he didn’t get that bonus, then I agree: he was not considered responsible by anybody.
XT makes much of my cited link. (Presumably, this isn’t one of those dreadful “drive by” links…) Since he does not clarfiy, I assume he means to point out the lengths Mr. Cassano went to in order to keep his secrets. For instance:
(Letter referred to available at linked site, as a .pdf)
Is this standard procedure in our great financial institutions? No red flags were raised, nor even eyebrows amongst senior executive staff? Doesn’t the term “responsibility” reasonably include more than just those things with one’s fingerprints upon them?
Yes, Mr. Cassano did something very improper here, very suspicious, and he bears responsibility. Other senior executives, including “Frank” here, let him get away with it. But so long as they can maintain a pristine and willful ignorance, they are not “responsible”?
Well, then, “responsible” is getting a definition as narrow as the edge of a razor.
I don’t see anywhere in the letter that he was in charge of AIG-FP when they were up their mischief, unless being the head of “business development for commodities” means he was the head of the Financial Products division.
My interpretation of what he wrote is that he was brought on to head AIG-FP after the crash - and claims to have been key to helping close down some of the bad assets that they’re trying to clean out.
Except he obviously was not an Executive VP of AIG-FP his whole time there and he even says as such, so really that link is worthless for your attempt to counter what I posted.
Now if it had listed how long he spent in each position he says he had at AIG, then you might have been able to make a valid point.
Why? You are supposed to publicize the name of the recipients of public funds. The publicity of all the acts of government is one of the basis of a republic.
You’re supposed to disclose personal information of people working to make sure our $170 billion investment into AIG isn’t a complete waste, despite the fact that loads of people are making death threats against them and their families?
And you expect anyone to want to work for bailed out companies??
Goddamn, some of you people sure like advocating shooting yourselves in the collective foot. :rolleyes:
This whole “death threat” thing is getting past mere exaggeration and headed into the realm of hysteria. OK, lets ask: what death threats? Any evidence of actual actions being taken? I mean, I can see how it advances your case to paint these guys as noble public servants making huge sacrifices for the public weal…a claim I greet with more than a hint of skepticism…but painting them as defying death and danger to pore over spreadsheets for mere hundreds of thousands of dollars…please. Spare me. Spare us all.