AIG Executive Resigns

Nope. Not in the least. He apparently saved the US taxpayers hundreds of milliions, if not billions, of dollars already by helping to find a buyer for one of their subsidiaries at a reasonable price. In fact, I'd suggest that those who are burning him at the stake are the truly "tone deaf" ones because it is completely irrational, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Do you know what "tone deaf" means in this context? I meant that he didn't realize that other people would have no sympathy for him at all. The public mood is very anti-AIG, whether or not it's justified (in fact, I stated in my post that the scapegoating of AIG execs was unjustified). My claim that he's "tone deaf" is that he isn't aware of how people perceive AIG execs, not that the public's opinion of AIG execs is correct.

Once again, AFAIK, he and the other people who are receiving bonuses have not 'pocketed' a single dime of taxpayer money. Their business units still apparently made a profit last year, so why shouldn't they receive compensation which was legally due to them instead of essentially working for free for taxpayers who want to lynch them?

Re-read my post, Formaldehyde: "If . . . wouldn't."

I would have to admit that is at least a viable complaint. If he has indeed made millions in the past on CDS business, then he should probably take a slightly different tone. But I certainly don't know if that's true or not. AFAIK, his bonus was based strictly on his own activities instead of others, which is the typical arrangement. And until I find out otherwise, I'm still going to view him and the others as being the victims of irrational mobs.

Yes, and the rationality of the "mob" is irrelevant to my claim that he was "tone deaf." Since you yourself consider him a "victim" of an "irrational mob," clearly you understand that the public mood is anti-AIG. And yet he published this email, which is only going to make people angry. Which is my point about him being "tone deaf."

Cleo
 
:lol: I see we don't lack amateur, wannabe psychologists here!

The letter makes it very clear that the bonus was only to be given away because of the "atmosphere of fear" surrounding the bonuses. That's not humanity, that's frustration and a weird need for attention. Now, if you could show me that the individual in question had a history of giving away previous bonuses...

What you are making a point about irrelevant to what he wrote. You're focusing on what you want this letter to be about, rather than what it is about.
 
And yet he published this email, which is only going to make people angry. Which is my point about him being "tone deaf."

I guess in that context it was. Sorry for being so dense.

And of course you are right. Most people don't want to know the truth when they have already made up their minds to burn all the witches. It's just going to make them even angrier.
 
From Matt Taibbi's take on Mr. DeSantis's letter, specifically Mr. DeSantis's claim about turning down job offers:

I mean, half of Wall Street is unemployed right now. There are plenty of unemployed traders out there whose resumes don't include such entries as "Worked for years at small unit of AIG that helped destroy the universe; throughout that time was completely ignorant of burgeoning global disaster unfolding 5 feet from my desk."

Hee hee. Read the whole thing. He doesn't take Mr. DeSantis's claims at face value, which means he's a crazy leftist who's "out to lunch," and just doesn't understand the financial world.

Cleo
 
From Matt Taibbi's take on Mr. DeSantis's letter, specifically Mr. DeSantis's claim about turning down job offers:



Hee hee. Read the whole thing. He doesn't take Mr. DeSantis's claims at face value, which means he's a crazy leftist who's "out to lunch," and just doesn't understand the financial world.

Cleo

:lol: Or enjoys good strawmen
 
From Matt Taibbi's take on Mr. DeSantis's letter, specifically Mr. DeSantis's claim about turning down job offers:



Hee hee. Read the whole thing. He doesn't take Mr. DeSantis's claims at face value, which means he's a crazy leftist who's "out to lunch," and just doesn't understand the financial world.

Cleo

When I spoke to Christine Pretto, the AIG spokeswoman, and asked about those bonuses, she said that AIG needed to retain people like you in order to take advantage of your "knowledge of these transactions." So if you don't have knowledge of these transactions, what are you being paid for? Your winning attitude?

Then there's the matter of Jake's other job offers. About that: It was apparent as early as last February that Cassano had basically destroyed not only the unit but perhaps AIG itself. The company announced over $11 billion in losses around that time.

If I'm Jake DeSantis, and I'm really innocent, I'm looking for a job that very instant. And I'm taking the first good job anyone offers me. Because by then I'd have realized that I was working for the latest version of Enron. That the man I've been working for the last six or seven years has turned out to be one of the most irresponsible Wall Street villains of all time, a man who single-handedly destroyed the 18th-largest company in the world. If I'm Jake DeSantis, I'm quitting out of moral disgust, because I don't want to be associated with this kind of behavior.

The only reason I'd stay is if I didn't have a choice. Which I feel sure is what happened here. If Jake DeSantis didn't take advantage of an opportunity to get a better job elsewhere with a company that didn't hide billions in losses and make $500 billion bets with money they didn't have, that's his *** problem.

:lol::lol: that makes a lot more sense.
 
actually enron and the ponzi scheme thing are valuable points to bring up. I don't want to regurgitate what every political comedy host has said in the past few weeks but doesn't part of the blame, if we are going to throw it around, fall on the people who bought into this? to me America has always been that one country where the rags to riches story has become a tenet of faith. the place where you leave the well off bloody well alone because one day you might be one of them. and you want to get there fast, that is very important. it permeates many facets of America, "get rich or die trying" comes to mind. I am sure you can come up with a country album that follows the same spirit.

this, somewhat, ties in with my conceptual problems with bonuses (and I agree that the name is misleading, I guess), I believe. the idea that there is free money out there you can just reap because of (what I'd suppose to be) a fault of the system or rather an exploitation of the same [the way I understood it] and the audacity to feel entitled to it irks me in so many ways.

in a society where, apparently, the major goal is to get rich fast no matter the cost, and now I would have to say retroactively that we were going the same way to be honest and we still might be, where talentless people like miss Hilton are lauded and idolized (not by everyone, I know) for merely being famous there is a major problem. we, as a society, are suffering from an entitlement complex. in a big way.

/rant off
 
it permeates many facets of America, "get rich or die trying" comes to mind. I am sure you can come up with a country album that follows the same spirit.

Does it have to be a country album?

Get_Rich_Or_Die_Tryin%27.JPG


Cleo
 
I guess the lesson here is to not work for a corporation that's so big that you have no idea if it's going to succeed or not.
Depends what the job is. I know a couple of friends who worked at companies that DID fail. Here's the thing--they still got paid. A rank-and-file job as an ordinary programmer is a sure thing, no matter if the company is going to succeed or fail--you will still get paid, and if the company fails, nobody will be trying to take back your past paychecks. The worst that can happen to you is, you get fired when the company finally does fail--at which point you KEEP all your past paychecks, guaranteed. You just don't get any new ones.
 
From Matt Taibbi's take on Mr. DeSantis's letter, specifically Mr. DeSantis's claim about turning down job offers:

Hee hee. Read the whole thing. He doesn't take Mr. DeSantis's claims at face value, which means he's a crazy leftist who's "out to lunch," and just doesn't understand the financial world.

Beautiful! Thank you, Cleo.

My favorite bit:

Out in the real world, when your company burns a house down, you're not getting paid by that client. It's only on Wall Street, where the every-man-for-himself ethos is built into an insanely selfish and greed-addled compensation system, that people like you expect to get paid in a bubble -- only there do people expect their performance bonuses no matter how much money the shareholders lose overall, no matter how many people get laid off after the hostile takeover, no matter how ill-considered the mortgages lent out by your division were.

You expect that money because you think it's owed to you. But what money? The money is gone. Your boss, if not you, set it all afire. You want the money, but where exactly do you think it's coming from?

Do you just not understand that that money now would have to come out of someone else's pocket? That it would have to come from middle-class taxpayers, real plumbers, people who didn't make millions over the years in equity and commodity trading?

Here's the real problem with people like Jake DeSantis. Throughout this whole period, they never were able to connect the dots -- to grasp the fact that when they skimmed a million here or a million there off the great rivers of capital that flowed through their offices, that that money came from somewhere, from someone. To them, it wasn't someone else's money, it was just money, and why shouldn't they have it?

And this. and... I'll just say that it's all very good.

Only a person with a habitually overinflated sense of self-worth could think he deserves a $700,000 retention bonus, even if it has to be paid by taxpayers, when in reality no one "deserves" that much money. It may be that some people do get paid that much, but most people who make that much money have enough sense to realize their cushy lifestyles are an accident of fate, of birth, of class, not something that is "supported" by some unwritten natural law of compensation.

Hey Jake, it's not like you were curing cancer. You were a . .. .. .. .ing commodities trader. Thanks to a completely insane, horribly skewed set of societal values that puts a premium on greed and severely undervalues selflessness, communal spirit and intellectualism -- values that make millionaires out of people like you and leave teachers and nurses, the people who raise your kids and clean your parents' bedpans, comparatively penniless -- you made a lot of money.
 
I was left wondering why Matt Taibbi had such a good answer ready, and I didn't have to wonder for long. I recommend this earlier article by him, about AIG, explaining how AIGFP sunk the whole company.

What Cassano did was to transform the credit swaps that Morgan popularized into the world's largest bet on the housing boom. In theory, at least, there's nothing wrong with buying a CDS to insure your investments. Investors paid a premium to AIGFP, and in return the company promised to pick up the tab if the mortgage-backed CDOs went bust. But as Cassano went on a selling spree, the deals he made differed from traditional insurance in several significant ways. First, the party selling CDS protection didn't have to post any money upfront. When a $100 corporate bond is sold, for example, someone has to show 100 actual dollars. But when you sell a $100 CDS guarantee, you don't have to show a dime. So Cassano could sell investment banks billions in guarantees without having any single asset to back it up.

Secondly, Cassano was selling so-called "naked" CDS deals. In a "naked" CDS, neither party actually holds the underlying loan. In other words, Bank B not only sells CDS protection to Bank A for its mortgage on the Pope — it turns around and sells protection to Bank C for the very same mortgage. This could go on ad nauseam: You could have Banks D through Z also betting on Bank A's mortgage. Unlike traditional insurance, Cassano was offering investors an opportunity to bet that someone else's house would burn down, or take out a term life policy on the guy with AIDS down the street. It was no different from gambling, the Wall Street version of a bunch of frat brothers betting on Jay Feely to make a field goal. Cassano was taking book for every bank that bet short on the housing market, but he didn't have the cash to pay off if the kick went wide.

In a span of only seven years, Cassano sold some $500 billion worth of CDS protection, with at least $64 billion of that tied to the subprime mortgage market. AIG didn't have even a fraction of that amount of cash on hand to cover its bets, but neither did it expect it would ever need any reserves. So long as defaults on the underlying securities remained a highly unlikely proposition, AIG was essentially collecting huge and steadily climbing premiums by selling insurance for the disaster it thought would never come.

Initially, at least, the revenues were enormous: AIGFP's returns went from $737 million in 1999 to $3.2 billion in 2005. Over the past seven years, the subsidiary's 400 employees were paid a total of $3.5 billion; Cassano himself pocketed at least $280 million in compensation. Everyone made their money — and then it all went to . .. .. .. ..

[...]

But even without that "adult supervision," AIG might have been OK had it not been for a complete lack of internal controls. For six months before its meltdown, according to insiders, the company had been searching for a full-time chief financial officer and a chief risk-assessment officer, but never got around to hiring either. That meant that the 18th-largest company in the world had no one checking to make sure its balance sheet was safe and no one keeping track of how much cash and assets the firm had on hand. The situation was so bad that when outside consultants were called in a few weeks before the bailout, senior executives were unable to answer even the most basic questions about their company — like, for instance, how much exposure the firm had to the residential-mortgage market.

[...]

The following February, when AIG posted $11.5 billion in annual losses, it announced the resignation of Cassano as head of AIGFP, saying an auditor had found a "material weakness" in the CDS portfolio. But amazingly, the company not only allowed Cassano to keep $34 million in bonuses, it kept him on as a consultant for $1 million a month. In fact, Cassano remained on the payroll and kept collecting his monthly million through the end of September 2008, even after taxpayers had been forced to hand AIG $85 billion to patch up his . .. .. .. .-ups. When asked in October why the company still retained Cassano at his $1 million-a-month rate despite his role in the probable downfall of Western civilization, CEO Martin Sullivan told Congress with a straight face that AIG wanted to "retain the 20-year knowledge that Mr. Cassano had." (Cassano, who is apparently hiding out in his lavish town house near Harrods in London, could not be reached for comment.)

[...]

Then, in January 2009, the company did it again. After all those years letting Cassano run wild, and after already getting caught paying out insane bonuses while on the public till, AIG decided to pay out another $450 million in bonuses. And to whom? To the 400 or so employees in Cassano's old unit, AIGFP, which is due to go out of business shortly! Yes, that's right, an average of $1.1 million in taxpayer-backed money apiece, to the very people who spent the past decade or so punching a hole in the fabric of the universe!

"We, uh, needed to keep these highly expert people in their seats," AIG spokeswoman Christina Pretto says to me in early February.
 
This is the classiest part of the letter:

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick

Really, I'm not moved by the writer agreeing to work for a $1 or what not---company loyalty or resume reference, or whatever as the motivator. Bottom-line, if you want something from an employer, get it written in your employment contract.

Probably the mismangement of the company came from above the author, but regardless, when your enterprise takes the government cheese, it's susceptible to the government intervention, regardless of whether or not the government has an agenda of shell-game populist politics.
 
There are plenty of unemployed traders out there whose resumes don't include such entries as "Worked for years at small unit of AIG that helped destroy the universe; throughout that time was completely ignorant of burgeoning global disaster unfolding 5 feet from my desk."

Hee hee. Read the whole thing.

I think I got the gist. Because he worked at the giant multinational AIG in a completely different location thousands of miles away, he's more responsible than Clinton, GWB, or any congressman who held office for the past 10 years.

What a hopeless straw man. But who cares about the facts, right? Burn the witches! They can float!
 
I think I got the gist. Because he worked at the giant multinational AIG in a completely different location thousands of miles away, he's more responsible than Clinton, GWB, or any congressman who held office for the past 10 years.

What a hopeless straw man. But who cares about the facts, right? Burn the witches! They can float!

"Giant multinational"? That subsidiary with ~400 people, you mean?
And wasn't he being paid a "retention bonus" for his supposed knowledge about the whole mess?

Yet you keep trying to paint him as some innocent, ignorant worker. Talk about straw man...
 
"Giant multinational"? That subsidiary with ~400 people, you mean?
And wasn't he being paid a "retention bonus" for his supposed knowledge about the whole mess?

Yet you keep trying to paint him as some innocent, ignorant worker. Talk about straw man...
He's innocent until proven guilty..
 
"Giant multinational"? That subsidiary with ~400 people, you mean?

Spread all over the world, you mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) (NYSE: AIG) is a major American insurance corporation based at the American International Building in New York City. The British headquarters are located on Fenchurch Street in London, continental Europe operations are based in La Défense, Paris, and its Asian HQ is in Hong Kong. According to the 2008 Forbes Global 2000 list, AIG was the 18th-largest public company in the world. It was on the Dow Jones Industrial Average from April 8, 2004 to September 22, 2008.

"And wasn't he being paid a "retention bonus" for his supposed knowledge about the whole mess?

Nope. he was being paid a "bonus", no strings attached, to continue to perform his job in an extremely competent manner.

"Yet you keep trying to paint him as some innocent, ignorant worker. Talk about straw man...

Which he cleary is innocent, and who knows how ignorant, of this particular operation located thousands of miles away in LONDON when he worked in NEW YORK.

Yet you keep trying to paint him as some sort of international villain when you likely helped elect the real viillains into office over and over again. Talk about straw men...

Burn the witch! He floats!
 
"Giant multinational"? That subsidiary with ~400 people, you mean?
And wasn't he being paid a "retention bonus" for his supposed knowledge about the whole mess?

Yet you keep trying to paint him as some innocent, ignorant worker. Talk about straw man...

Um, sorry, but that's a haystack.
 
Back
Top Bottom