All Bonus Contracts I have ever seen or heard about include clauses that….. ‘at the time of bonus payment you must be presently employed to participate in the bonus’.
Consider firing potential receipnants and fire them now.
Likely they deserve being terminated for thier role in either being blindly “greedy” or blindly “naive” – either is justification for termination and not for rewarding.
Hear Hear! Besides all of that, I would think the contracts also read that there has to be a profit to get a bonus. Of course they are on another planet than the rest of us and probably didn’t think to add that language.
Once the country is turned around, the budget is balanced, 10% of the annual GDP is in savings we will pay them their back salaries and retirements. Until then don’t give the squat!
Dum-de-dum….Which way did he go, which way did he go?
Since everybody now has everything figured out, let the B/R begin….as it should have from the get-go. The only time government should have gotten involved is in B/R court.
I think the whole discussion is missing the “DETAILS” of the compensation plan.
there is nothing inherently bad about receiving a bonus…perhaps it is best to call them what they are INCENTIVE PLANS. Something to give a person an incentive to do something.
Some (including me) would say that a salary is an incentive. But some persons actually work harder when they feel that they can truely impact their own income via an incentive.
They might say… ??% incentive when sales goal of $???,??? is reached. or…??% when ???? is reached (can be education or skill level).
this might actually be the difference between hiring a decent/average employee or a truely great one. Which then means the incentive is deserved, even in a company that is down.
If clause was written in saying that the entire company or even the entire holding company (AIG) had to be structurally solvent at time..well that might actually be a disincentive. If that one person can not have an impact over the ENTIRE company or corp. Now we are not talking about top level execs here…mid level to low level types. The top level execs are a bit different as they can have impact on overall profit and should have those clauses.
So lets all back off the rheortic and look at the details. How much of the AIG plans in question are for reasonable goals and are supplements to a lower level of income? Then we may have a real conversation.
I completely understand that AIG has to live up to its contracts but what type of a bonus contract allows for an employee to not meet sales commitments and cause a billion dollar company to sit on the brink of bankruptcy?
Excuse the ignorance but I always assumed a bonus was a reward for a job well done……or a job done right. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Rather than strutting and posturing for the cameras I say the President should actually do something constructive. How about banning the use of credit swaps until someone in Washington can figure out what they are, the fact they involve conterparties and what triggers the obligation??? This might result in arriving at an intelligent response to the problem rather than the chief spender to again volunteer “don’t worry, I can spend even more of your money.” Wouldn’t it be good idea for the genius in chief to figure these things out first, or have one of several dozen advisers hire a consultant to explain it, or even better, read this message line, before approving a bailout. Just think , this is the kind of ingenius palnnong that went into the $800 trillion “STIMULUS” package. We can hardly wait for the stimulation.
The FP division of AIG is unwinding almost 2 trillion….is that 2000 billion? Once done shut it down and arrest Cassano. The remainder of the company had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS
Why weren’t there any contingencies in place BEFORE the government decided to bail them out? I can’t believe that AIG was able to spend this any way they saw fit…….
I guess paying for performance wasn’t well defined in AIG’s contract. Performance by failure is normally not rewarded except for dysfunctional companies.
Thank you but no thank you is what these guys should say if they care about the country. But as we all have witnessed THIS IS NOT THE CASE. I have a new business that I have worked at for over a year. I have paid my employees but a pittance to myself so that I could keep it running. I have put my heart and soul into my business. My body aches. I am tired and I PRAY please do not let me lose everthing, and then on top of all of that I have to hear all of this money being wasted. Yesterday I FELL APART AT THE DRIVE UP WINDOW AT THE BANK WHEN I WAS TOLD I WAS OVERDRAWN. I TRIED TO EMAIL OBAMA BUT DID NOT GET THROUGH. I GUESS THE WHOLE COUNTY IS IN THE SAME BOAT. PLEASE President Barack Obama STOP ALL OF THIS, PLEASE. AND COULD YOU CALL LINDA AT BANK OF AMERICA IN PULLMAN WA AND TELL HER SHE CAN HELP ME WITH MY BUSINESS. SHE’LL KNOW WHO YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. JUST TELL HER ABOUT THE SNOW DAY. HEY, I FIGURE IF AIG CAN ASK FOR 300 BILLION AND STILL PAY BONUSES TO IT’S EMPLOYEES THEN I CAN ASK FOR A LITTLE, DON’T YOU?
Sarah shouldn’t be so fast to laud Barack. Congress allowed the exemption for the AIG bonuses to be added to the bailout bill, which the president then signed. Now they all want to act like they didn’t know, and try to get the money back. It’s a dog and pony show. Exempting the bonuses was a political favor. Regardless of what happens next, or what you think you see, the AIG execs will get their money.
Bubba, you must work for AIG.
Show me where it says that Congress allowed for the bonuses…..also, I was under the impression that bonuses are awarded when companies may a profit..what profit did AIG make last year? If this were the case, they wouldn’t need “bailout” money, now would they?
It’s my understanding that the bonuses are an incentive bonus. That is, they agreed to a lesser weekly salary in exchange for a bonus at the end of the year. It’s also my understanding that Chris Dodd, or someone in congress, introduced an amendment to the bailout for AIG that allowed the AIG folks to still get their bonus. The president later signed that very bill. You could argue that the exemption was inserted as a political favor. I.E. you’ve done a lot to help us get reelected, we’ll do something for you by allowing you to keep your bonus. I’m not arguing whether they should or shouldn’t get it, I’m just saying that it is incredulous for the congress and the president to act like they had no idea this was going to happen, when in fact they did; or they didn’t bother to read the bill. Congress is pretending it didn’t know and is going to play the role of savior in getting the money back. If all goes according to plan, they will come off looking like heroes to the average joe, while still getting the support of the AIG folks because the AIG folks will still have their money. They might pull a “we can’t legally get them this time, but we’re fighting for you and we’ll get them next time around for sure.”. It’s the best of David Copperfield.
My sentiments exactly…..but I still don’t get it…..how could something like this happen in this day & age? As you stated, I think it’s one of two things. #1. Repayment of a political favor or #2. The president didn’t bother reading the bill. I tend to lean towards #1. Maybe we need “watchdogs” to watch the “watchdogs”, too!
And for us little guys, I think this is the best scenario of David & Goliath……pity……
According to a report I heard this morning, Chris Dodd, who put the amendment into the bailout bill, and Obama were two of the biggest recipients of AIG campaign contributions. Dodd is now grandstanding against AIG because his poll numbers in his home state have plummeted.
The treasury secretary floated the idea that the Gov’t would just deduct the bonus money from the next payment to AIG, which would be exactly as I suggested. The AIG folks will keep their money. The Gov’t can secretly inflate the amount of money needed by AIG so they can publicly deduct tbe bonus money and come across as the hero.
A bit late dontcha think?
More political grandstanding after the fact.
All Bonus Contracts I have ever seen or heard about include clauses that….. ‘at the time of bonus payment you must be presently employed to participate in the bonus’.
Consider firing potential receipnants and fire them now.
Likely they deserve being terminated for thier role in either being blindly “greedy” or blindly “naive” – either is justification for termination and not for rewarding.
Why do you think Ford does not want bailout money now. Because, the executives have to get their bonus’s first
Hear Hear! Besides all of that, I would think the contracts also read that there has to be a profit to get a bonus. Of course they are on another planet than the rest of us and probably didn’t think to add that language.
Once the country is turned around, the budget is balanced, 10% of the annual GDP is in savings we will pay them their back salaries and retirements. Until then don’t give the squat!
Dum-de-dum….Which way did he go, which way did he go?
Since everybody now has everything figured out, let the B/R begin….as it should have from the get-go. The only time government should have gotten involved is in B/R court.
I think the whole discussion is missing the “DETAILS” of the compensation plan.
there is nothing inherently bad about receiving a bonus…perhaps it is best to call them what they are INCENTIVE PLANS. Something to give a person an incentive to do something.
Some (including me) would say that a salary is an incentive. But some persons actually work harder when they feel that they can truely impact their own income via an incentive.
They might say… ??% incentive when sales goal of $???,??? is reached. or…??% when ???? is reached (can be education or skill level).
this might actually be the difference between hiring a decent/average employee or a truely great one. Which then means the incentive is deserved, even in a company that is down.
If clause was written in saying that the entire company or even the entire holding company (AIG) had to be structurally solvent at time..well that might actually be a disincentive. If that one person can not have an impact over the ENTIRE company or corp. Now we are not talking about top level execs here…mid level to low level types. The top level execs are a bit different as they can have impact on overall profit and should have those clauses.
So lets all back off the rheortic and look at the details. How much of the AIG plans in question are for reasonable goals and are supplements to a lower level of income? Then we may have a real conversation.
These can not be performance bonuses right?
I completely understand that AIG has to live up to its contracts but what type of a bonus contract allows for an employee to not meet sales commitments and cause a billion dollar company to sit on the brink of bankruptcy?
Excuse the ignorance but I always assumed a bonus was a reward for a job well done……or a job done right. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Please quit thinking rationally and get in line for your pitchfork and torch with the rest of us. Thank you!
Rather than strutting and posturing for the cameras I say the President should actually do something constructive. How about banning the use of credit swaps until someone in Washington can figure out what they are, the fact they involve conterparties and what triggers the obligation??? This might result in arriving at an intelligent response to the problem rather than the chief spender to again volunteer “don’t worry, I can spend even more of your money.” Wouldn’t it be good idea for the genius in chief to figure these things out first, or have one of several dozen advisers hire a consultant to explain it, or even better, read this message line, before approving a bailout. Just think , this is the kind of ingenius palnnong that went into the $800 trillion “STIMULUS” package. We can hardly wait for the stimulation.
The FP division of AIG is unwinding almost 2 trillion….is that 2000 billion? Once done shut it down and arrest Cassano. The remainder of the company had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS
Why weren’t there any contingencies in place BEFORE the government decided to bail them out? I can’t believe that AIG was able to spend this any way they saw fit…….
I guess paying for performance wasn’t well defined in AIG’s contract. Performance by failure is normally not rewarded except for dysfunctional companies.
Way to go AIG…need anymore bailout money?
PS: Yeah Barack!
The only “bonus” anyone at AIG should be allowed is “you’re lucky to have a job”.
Thank you but no thank you is what these guys should say if they care about the country. But as we all have witnessed THIS IS NOT THE CASE. I have a new business that I have worked at for over a year. I have paid my employees but a pittance to myself so that I could keep it running. I have put my heart and soul into my business. My body aches. I am tired and I PRAY please do not let me lose everthing, and then on top of all of that I have to hear all of this money being wasted. Yesterday I FELL APART AT THE DRIVE UP WINDOW AT THE BANK WHEN I WAS TOLD I WAS OVERDRAWN. I TRIED TO EMAIL OBAMA BUT DID NOT GET THROUGH. I GUESS THE WHOLE COUNTY IS IN THE SAME BOAT. PLEASE President Barack Obama STOP ALL OF THIS, PLEASE. AND COULD YOU CALL LINDA AT BANK OF AMERICA IN PULLMAN WA AND TELL HER SHE CAN HELP ME WITH MY BUSINESS. SHE’LL KNOW WHO YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. JUST TELL HER ABOUT THE SNOW DAY. HEY, I FIGURE IF AIG CAN ASK FOR 300 BILLION AND STILL PAY BONUSES TO IT’S EMPLOYEES THEN I CAN ASK FOR A LITTLE, DON’T YOU?
Sarah shouldn’t be so fast to laud Barack. Congress allowed the exemption for the AIG bonuses to be added to the bailout bill, which the president then signed. Now they all want to act like they didn’t know, and try to get the money back. It’s a dog and pony show. Exempting the bonuses was a political favor. Regardless of what happens next, or what you think you see, the AIG execs will get their money.
Bubba, you must work for AIG.
Show me where it says that Congress allowed for the bonuses…..also, I was under the impression that bonuses are awarded when companies may a profit..what profit did AIG make last year? If this were the case, they wouldn’t need “bailout” money, now would they?
It’s my understanding that the bonuses are an incentive bonus. That is, they agreed to a lesser weekly salary in exchange for a bonus at the end of the year. It’s also my understanding that Chris Dodd, or someone in congress, introduced an amendment to the bailout for AIG that allowed the AIG folks to still get their bonus. The president later signed that very bill. You could argue that the exemption was inserted as a political favor. I.E. you’ve done a lot to help us get reelected, we’ll do something for you by allowing you to keep your bonus. I’m not arguing whether they should or shouldn’t get it, I’m just saying that it is incredulous for the congress and the president to act like they had no idea this was going to happen, when in fact they did; or they didn’t bother to read the bill. Congress is pretending it didn’t know and is going to play the role of savior in getting the money back. If all goes according to plan, they will come off looking like heroes to the average joe, while still getting the support of the AIG folks because the AIG folks will still have their money. They might pull a “we can’t legally get them this time, but we’re fighting for you and we’ll get them next time around for sure.”. It’s the best of David Copperfield.
My sentiments exactly…..but I still don’t get it…..how could something like this happen in this day & age? As you stated, I think it’s one of two things. #1. Repayment of a political favor or #2. The president didn’t bother reading the bill. I tend to lean towards #1. Maybe we need “watchdogs” to watch the “watchdogs”, too!
And for us little guys, I think this is the best scenario of David & Goliath……pity……
According to a report I heard this morning, Chris Dodd, who put the amendment into the bailout bill, and Obama were two of the biggest recipients of AIG campaign contributions. Dodd is now grandstanding against AIG because his poll numbers in his home state have plummeted.
The treasury secretary floated the idea that the Gov’t would just deduct the bonus money from the next payment to AIG, which would be exactly as I suggested. The AIG folks will keep their money. The Gov’t can secretly inflate the amount of money needed by AIG so they can publicly deduct tbe bonus money and come across as the hero.