Democrats Pass 90% tax on AIG bonuses

[Voyager]

@xtisme

Hurricane in a tea kettle…and it will be amusing in a sad and scary sort of way when this sort of political grandstanding and incited popularist backlash takes down what’s left of AIG…and then the people wonder what happened to the 99.9% of our investment in AIG and why it went down the toilet.

I’ll just sit back and watch the furor over this…and wait to see what the excuses are going to be when the whole things goes tits up. Now, where did I put my survival rations and guns again…?

-XT

Quite the opposite. This is more likely to save AIG than kill it. AIG is almost certainly going to need more money as the economy tanks further and more of the swaps drop in value. If Congress and the Administration ignored the outrage of the people about the bonuses, there would be no way in hell that any more money would be available. Then AIG would go under, and a lot of the financial system with it.

I hope no one doubts anymore that there are people who are willing to risk the system to make a buck.

[Gangster_Octopus]

The relevent question in my mind is: How is AIG doing in it’s recovery? If it is making real progress, then to be honest I couldn’t give a shit about the bonuses. If it is pretty much still running around with it’s thumb up it’s ass, then I say tax the hell out of them.

[horhay_achoa]

@erislover

True, this isn’t “moving forward.” Justice rarely is. It’s a way to stop slipping backwards.

I just don’t see how getting 90% of 163 million dollars (less than 1/1000 of the money given to AIG) and wasting taxpayer money and congressional time in the process is going to help in anyway towards solving the bigger picture. Or, for that matter, stop us from “slipping backward”. If the tax payers want “justice” they should stop worrying about the AIG bonuses and start worrying about what congress is actually doing to help the larger crisis. The public has sidetracked the media, and congress, into wasting an enormous amount of effort on what is essentially a nothing. I think it is good to know that this occurred, so we can avoid it with future bailouts, but with the amount of time we are wasting to find a villain in this, we are not spending enough time anticipating future problems that are sure to arise when the next bailout is passed. This is why it is always a bad idea to get the government involved…they are always one step behind and they can’t operate fast enough to catch up because of stupid bullshit like we see with this AIG thing.

[erislover]

I just don’t see how getting 90% of 163 million dollars (less than 1/1000 of the money given to AIG) and wasting taxpayer money and congressional time in the process is going to help in anyway towards solving the bigger picture.

It won’t, so you can stop troubling yourself by looking for it.

The public has sidetracked the media, and congress, into wasting an enormous amount of effort on what is essentially a nothing.

A nothing? You know, I would love to receive that “nothing” instead of paying it. I didn’t get a stupid loan. I didn’t grant stupid loans. I didn’t use credit swaps to skirt regulation. I didn’t overextend myself. Which means I am exactly who is paying for this mess. Someone getting a bonus while I work longer hours because the economy is in the shitter and close friends are laid off is not nothing to me. It is a toss in the bucket, economically. So is the death of one person in 300 million but I want murderers punished and I don’t want bonuses paid by taxpayers at failing companies all the same. Relative importance is not the final arbiter of action.

[ElvisL1ves]

@horhay_achoa

I just don’t see how getting 90% of 163 million dollars (less than 1/1000 of the money given to AIG) and wasting taxpayer money and congressional time in the process is going to help in anyway towards solving the bigger picture.

Perhaps by providing an example that can lead to changing the irresponsible management “styles” of the rest of the financial industry?

[horhay_achoa]

@erislover

It won’t, so you can stop troubling yourself by looking for it.

A nothing? You know, I would love to receive that “nothing” instead of paying it. I didn’t get a stupid loan. I didn’t grant stupid loans. I didn’t use credit swaps to skirt regulation. I didn’t overextend myself. Which means I am exactly who is paying for this mess. Someone getting a bonus while I work longer hours because the economy is in the shitter and close friends are laid off is not nothing to me. It is a toss in the bucket, economically. So is the death of one person in 300 million but I want murderers punished and I don’t want bonuses paid by taxpayers at failing companies all the same. Relative importance is not the final arbiter of action.

I am not saying zero action should be taken. I just think the action should be relative to the importance of the issue. 163 million dollars, relative to the overall amount of money that has been given, and will be given in the future, deserves about 15 minutes of attention. Instead, the congress is spending days, which will turn to weeks, on it, and by doing so, are setting themselves up for an even bigger failure by using their time to pursue a relatively inconsequential issue instead of using this time to anticipate future stumbling blocks.

[horhay_achoa]

@ElvisL1ves

Perhaps by providing an example that can lead to changing the irresponsible management “styles” of the rest of the financial industry?

They could have done that by being responsible “managers” themselves. Instead of passing a package that allowed for these bonuses to be paid they could have passed a package that did not allow for these bonuses to paid. I am sure in the future they will not make the same mistake. I am also sure in the future that they will make a different mistake because they have spent so much of their time on what has already passed instead of trying to anticipate what is going to come.

[erislover]

@horhay_achoa

They could have done that by being responsible “managers” themselves. Instead of passing a package that allowed for these bonuses to be paid they could have passed a package that did not allow for these bonuses to paid.

Perhaps the politicians thought as you, that it was a relatively minor issue. The public seems to have disagreed, and being good supporters of democracy, the politicians changed their ways.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

In terms of this being “only” $165M, I can see the point about the relative size of the bonuses versus the scope of the larger problem. However, part of the outrage over this incident must be the context of the numerous stories of lavish spending in the face of economic chaos that have continued to come out over the past several months. Many of them are of course irrelevant to the issues of the bailout and the use of federal funds, but they are relevant to the public’s perception of how this money will be spent.

So in part, the benefit of going after this $165M is to establish a precedent that no shenanigans will be tolerated, and to (however small and or illusory it may be) feel some sense of control over some portion of this nonsense, in the face of the overwhelming chaos we have experienced.

[horhay_achoa]

@erislover

Perhaps the politicians thought as you, that it was a relatively minor issue. The public seems to have disagreed, and being good supporters of democracy, the politicians changed their ways.

And I would agree - the public does not want these types of bonuses to be paid, and I do not think the congress will pass another bailout that allows for these types of bonuses. Yeah for democracy! My point is that even if we get all 163 million back, it is not worth the amount of time being spent. That time would be better spent trying to figure out how not to waste another 163 million instead of trying to recoup the losses from a stupid mistake.

[Anduril]

I find amusing that the level of critical thinking sinks whenever anything negative is said of Obama or his policies. This time, it’s about a policy that would save Obama from this AIG mess. Obama was supposed to be the one who will not do BS and he could have explained the issue of bonuses so much better. Instead, he’s joined the mob and asked for the heads of those getting their rightful compensation. Pathetic.

[Grumman]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

So in part, the benefit of going after this $165M is to establish a precedent that no shenanigans will be tolerated, and to (however small and or illusory it may be) feel some sense of control over some portion of this nonsense, in the face of the overwhelming chaos we have experienced.

That would be more convincing if the government wasn’t performing shenanigans to establish that precedent.

[Dinsdale]

@horhay_achoa

I am not saying zero action should be taken. I just think the action should be relative to the importance of the issue. 163 million dollars, relative to the overall amount of money that has been given, and will be given in the future, deserves about 15 minutes of attention. Instead, the congress is spending days, which will turn to weeks, on it, and by doing so, are setting themselves up for an even bigger failure by using their time to pursue a relatively inconsequential issue instead of using this time to anticipate future stumbling blocks.

Pretty consistent with how things are generally handled In DC no matter who’s in charge, no?

[Squink]

@Anduril

Obama was supposed to be the one who will not do BS and he could have explained the issue of bonuses so much better. Instead, he’s joined the mob and asked for the heads of those getting their rightful compensation. Pathetic.

C’mon, he’s just showing solidarity with half the Republicans in the house. Even minority whip Eric Cantor voted for the tax.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/house-vote-taxing-aig-bonus-bonanza/

[begbert2]

@Anduril

Instead, he’s joined the mob and asked for the heads of those getting their rightful compensation. Pathetic.

For certain definitions of “rightful compensation”. Which don’t include mine; a bonus isn’t rightful compensation, wages are. And even regarding bonuses “rightful” isn’t synonymous with legal, or even vaguely applicable to those who took the retention bonuses and immidiately left.

And he’s only asking for 90% of their heads. Of their bonus heads. Not their rightful compensation heads. Get it right.

(Given that the populace is this close to clamoring for public execution, the fact that heads will not be taken is a relevent point - this tax will not actually hurt these people at all.)
Regarding the fact that the bonuses taken were only 1/1000th of the stimulus, this may be mostly showmanship, but it’s necessary showmanship. These bonuses give the impression to the public that the greedy executives™ are intending to eventually take all the bailout and pour it into their bottomless pockets. Failing to slap these ridiculous bonuses down would make it politically impossible for the government to give out any more money to any company, regardless of reason, tying its hands with regard to further acting to rescue the economy.

[horhay_achoa]

@Dinsdale

Pretty consistent with how things are generally handled In DC no matter who’s in charge, no?

Yes. I am neither Dem, nor Pub. I dislike them. Registered independent. I lean libertarian, but I would not like to see a fully libertarian government, whatever that menas. I am in favor of drastically reducing the amount of government involvement in life. This whole AIG thing is a great example of why I dislike the government.

[Sam_Stone]

Perhaps a litle perspective from the other side would be useful at this point:

From the Washingon Post:

A solitary flat-screen television hangs on the back wall of the trading floor inside the headquarters of AIG Financial Products here. Wednesday afternoon, the most-talked-about employees in America huddled around it to find out just how despised they have become.

They watched quietly as members of Congress referred to them as greedy and incompetent. They heard more than one demand that their names be released to the seething American public. They heard the chairman of American International Group, Edward M. Liddy, tell lawmakers that people, in e-mails sent to AIG-FP, suggested that the firm’s leaders “should be executed with piano wire around their necks.”

…

A sense of fear hung in the room – the palpable, unsettling kind that flashes across people’s eyes. But there was anger, too. No one would express it publicly, of course. Who wants to hear a wealthy financier complain? And yet, within those walls off Danbury Road lies a deep sense of betrayal – first by their former colleagues, now by their elected leaders.

The handful of souls who championed the firm’s now-infamous credit-default swaps are, by nearly every account, long since departed. Those left behind to clean up the mess, the majority of whom never lost a dime for AIG, now feel they have been sold out by their Congress and their president.

“They’ve chosen to throw us under the bus,” said a Financial Products executive, one of several who spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing reprisals. “They have vilified us.”

They say what is missing from this week’s hysteria is perspective. **The very handsome retention payments they received over the past week were set in motion early last year **when the firm’s former president, Joe Cassano, was on his way out the door. Financial Products was already running into trouble on its risky credit bets, and the year ahead looked grim. People were weighing offers from other firms, and AIG executives feared that too many departures could lead to disaster.

So AIG stepped in with an offer to employees of Financial Products. Work through all of 2008, and you’d get a lump payment in March 2009. Stick around through 2009, and you’ll get paid through 2010. **Almost all other forms of compensation – bonuses, deferred payments and the like – have vanished. **

“People are trying to do the right thing,” the same Financial Products executive said. “Guys have worked their [tails] off to try to get value for the taxpayer. This isn’t money that’s being advanced to us. People have performed the work and done it exactly as we asked them to do.”

…

In actuality, he said, nearly all the troublesome sectors of the business – namely, the risky credit derivatives written on mortgage-backed securities – are now out of the equation,** as are the people who worked on them.** That leaves a small number of employees to untangle the remaining trades in four main areas: commodities, interest rates, currency and equities – most of which were fully hedged and have caused little problem. The effort also requires a sizable number of “back office” staff, such as systems, computing, accounting, human resources and legal teams.

Read the whole article. I’ve bolded some of the more important passages.

The high points:

• These are not the people who engaged in CDS shenanigans. Those people are long gone. These are the people who came in to clean up the mess they made.

• AIG offered the bonuses around a year ago, to keep these people from leaving the company. They restructured compensation into a retention package that was dependent on these poeple sticking it out through the bad times.

• The hysteria that has been whipped up is causing these people to worry for their lives. They are working under armed guard, and they are terrified that their personal information will be leaked to the press and their families will be put in danger.

• These people did nothing wrong. They entered into a contract, and are performing their duties as they promised. The government knew about these contracts, and inserted a special clause into the TARP specifically protecting them. It was under that condition that the firm received bailout money in the first place.

As a result of this, most of these people are planning to leave AIG:

If everyone leaves, Pasciucco said, “you don’t have people that really, truly understand the book [of business]. We’re still big enough that that matters.”

If they did walk out the door, who would volunteer to work at the Chernobyl of the financial world? And what would become of the mammoth portfolio that remains?

“It would become the biggest naked position on Wall Street,” one longtime Financial Products executive said, “and everybody would exploit it.”

…

The Financial Products staff met twice Wednesday inside one of the firm’s large, glass-walled conference rooms to discuss the boss’s letter. Numerous employees indicated that they would be willing to return the money, but most wanted nothing more to do with the firm. It was a preview of the possible exodus to come, one that concerns Liddy himself.

“My fear is that the damage is done,” he told a congressional subcommittee. “That they will return [the money], but that they will return it with their resignations.”

There is little doubt within Financial Products that he’s right about that.

“Nobody is going to give it back and then stay,” said one of the firm’s employees. “If they give back the money, then they will walk. And they will walk into the arms of AIG’s counterparties.”

You people are so focused on the ‘injustice’ of it all that you’re neglecting to consider the blowback from this little populist frenzy. AIG is now about to lose the people who have all the insider knowledge of the tangled web of financial products - the people who are capable of unwinding it all and figuring out values and such. And you’ve set up an environment which will make it next to impossible for AIG to replace them. We’ve been told repeatedly that if AIG goes down, it could take a huge chunk of the financial system with it. That’s why it was bailed out in the first place.

Great damage is being done here. This is one of the most foolish things I’ve ever seen the government do. And the fault goes straight to the top. Obama should have come out and said the same thing he said about earmarks. If he had said something like, “Look, we knew about these bonuses, but these are contracts signed before we came along, and we are going to honor the rule of law. It’s last year’s business. Going forward, we will make sure that these types of contracts are not entered in any business under a bailout, but this deal was done long ago. Time to move on.”

Had he said that, he could have tamped down the outrage. Instead, he put on his populist hat and used the Presidential pulpit to encourage the mob. And it may just take down AIG, and perhaps the economy with it.

From my perspective, the one good thing about this is that this greatly lowered the odds of another company seeking a bailout. They’d be nuts to subject themselves to this kind of circus. But Obama thinks these bailouts are necessary, so he’s shooting his own program in the foot.

You know, there’s lots of injustice to go around. Wait until all the people who bought houses they couldn’t afford get bailed out. Are we going to see the same level of outrage against them? And wait until all the money injected in the eonomy to pay for all this triggers the next round of inflation. All those people living off their savings are going to be raped to pay for it all.

[horhay_achoa]

@begbert2

Failing to slap these ridiculous bonuses down would make it politically impossible for the government to give out any more money to any company, regardless of reason, tying its hands with regard to further acting to rescue the economy.

The way things are going so far I am not sure that would be a bad thing.

[Voyager]

@horhay_achoa

They could have done that by being responsible “managers” themselves. Instead of passing a package that allowed for these bonuses to be paid they could have passed a package that did not allow for these bonuses to paid. I am sure in the future they will not make the same mistake. I am also sure in the future that they will make a different mistake because they have spent so much of their time on what has already passed instead of trying to anticipate what is going to come.

Have you been following this thing in any depth? The contracts were made and signed at AIG before the bailout, and the Congress cannot invalidate them, strictly speaking. The Dodd amendment, whoever is responsible for the wording, was no doubt put in to keep anyone from thinking it allowed the contracts to be voided. Everyone is running away from it because this is too subtle a point, no doubt. So there is no way the bailout bill could have eliminated the bonuses, even if there was a recognition of how angry it made people.
If you think all the bailouts are a waste, and AIG should be allowed to fail, I suggest you read about the problem in more detail. If not, see post 141.

[horhay_achoa]

@Sam_Stone

Obama should have come out and said the same thing he said about earmarks. If he had said something like, “Look, we knew about these bonuses, but these are contracts signed before we came along, and we are going to honor the rule of law. It’s last year’s business. Going forward, we will make sure that these types of contracts are not entered in any business under a bailout, but this deal was done long ago. Time to move on.”

I agree with this 100%. Nicely done.