Right on. Steph Curry and Jay Z should be ashamed to be making so much excess income . . . oh, wait. PC America only criticizes talented corporate executives for outrageous income, not people who shoot basketballs or make music. My bad.
I don’t know where the negative ratings are coming from. Maybe it’s the flip side of irrational exuberance – irrational anger. Your comments are spot on. Thankfully, board members don’t use twisted logic to approve or disapprove of executive pay. Gee, AIG received a bailout x years ago. Their current CEO can’t be paid well for helping to right the ship. That wouldn’t be right, would it? If you don’t like the baggage the company has attached to its name, don’t buy their products or invest in their stock. Period.
The problem isn’t the intent behind the comments, the problem is the caustic, aggressive manner in which Craig posts. He’s not actually sharing your opinion, he’s an online troll trying to incite rage against “Liberals” at any opportunity. You can have your opinion, and I can have mine, but Craig’s opinion is “everyone other than other militantly conservative republicans is an idiot”.
I asked a legitimate question: what does something that happened over 10 years ago with different executives have to do with this AIG executive? And I got 18 down votes.
You think I should respect those people? You think they are honest with themselves? Of course they are not, not a single person knows what this executive had to do with AIG’s credit default business run out of London.
You think those people are critical thinkers?
That is all I said, no insults at all. And yes, I believe based on my experience in life that most people who behave that way are liberals. And I am not alone, not by a long shot.
June 7, 2019 at 11:58 am
SacFlood says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21
6
Read or watch “The Big Short”; it shows that fraudulent “insurance” (called “credit default swaps”) were sold to Wall Street by AIG, guaranteeing that tranches of mortgages would be made whole if they ever lost their value; but, when it came time to make claims, then AIG said to them, “oh, there’s no coverage; this isn’t real ‘insurance’; you screwed up by buying these ‘credit default swaps’ from us; too bad; sorry; oh, by the way, since we’re a ‘too big to fail’ company, we’re still going to get bailed out by the (suckers) US taxpayers.” What a joke.
The Big Short is for people who love to hate corporations and want a cartoon narrative. What Lewis left out was the fact that had Greenspan not been forced out without merit (proven after the fact), his tiny London branch would never have gotten involved in credit default swaps.
But blame the AIG failure on liberal DAs who were abusing their power? Oh, heaven forbid we tell the truth.
1. If the government would not have bailed out AIG (or the auto companies) how many more people would have been laid off and how much worse would the recession have been?
2. In 2013, AIG paid back U.S. taxpayers for the bailout – so we got all of our money back!
3. U.S. taxpayers made a $23B PROFIT – yes B for BILLION – on the AIG bailout when the U.S. govt sold its shares of AIG at the appreciated price.
I wish the government made Billion dollar profits on all the social subsidy programs it offers (personal bailouts)…
If there was no bailout, there would have been many ‘players’ to step in to write policy renewals from AIG’s portfolio, and other alternative sources of the financial products it sold … on a fair market basis. Layoffs by AIG would have been followed by hiring by Travelers, Liberty Mutual, CNA, Chubb, ACE, …. which would add policy counts from AIG cancellations. Rehab by SID regulators would have righted the badly listing AIG ship… as a smaller, better monitored ‘vessel’.
Further, there is no ‘profit’ in taxpayers paying less in taxes to bailout AIG. It is a misnomer to claim so, as it would have been spent on something else… unless taxes were reduced accordingly; e.g. 2017 tax reform.
I think stockholders are losing sight of what they are there for; stockholders invested in the company to make money as the company’s fortunes increase. These corporate execs have taken advantage of the golden goose; $21,000,000 salary plus perks? That’s stockholder money. Follow the Berkshire Hathaway lead and pay a reasonable salary – say, $3 to 5,000,000…let the CEO buy stock…and then the incentive is to make the company perform so he earns more money through his stock like all the little people who invested i the company so he can make his salary. CEO salaries have gotten out of hand and they are using their stockholder’s money as their personal wealth-builder. Companies must make a profit but it belongs to the shareholders, not the few guys at the top. Set an example!
I am torn on this one. On one hand I believe a great CEO is priceless. I have worked directly for some very bad CEO’s and watched them take down entire companies. On the other hand, $21,000,000 is a really big number. Too big.
Years ago, I attended a Salesforce function with some Reps from AIG. They were discussing how the company had just shut down one office where the customer service folks were making $12 per hour to move them to a state (KS I believe) where they would be making $9 per hour. It has been a while, but I believe they said 1,500 people were either going to lose their job to someone willing to work for less, or they would have to accept the cuts and move (on their own) to the new location. If this is how AIG is making money, then the CEO is overpaid.
If you are making billions for your company, I can see the CEO making great money. When you are making this much and STILL reducing the pay of your bottom paid employees…. Well, I do not respect that.
Earning a living or earning a killing?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Earned a killing is the correct answer..LOL!!
Ridiculous compensation for a company that received a taxpayer bailout!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I don’t know where the negative ratings are coming from. Maybe it’s the flip side of irrational exuberance – irrational anger. Your comments are spot on. Thankfully, board members don’t use twisted logic to approve or disapprove of executive pay. Gee, AIG received a bailout x years ago. Their current CEO can’t be paid well for helping to right the ship. That wouldn’t be right, would it? If you don’t like the baggage the company has attached to its name, don’t buy their products or invest in their stock. Period.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
The problem isn’t the intent behind the comments, the problem is the caustic, aggressive manner in which Craig posts. He’s not actually sharing your opinion, he’s an online troll trying to incite rage against “Liberals” at any opportunity. You can have your opinion, and I can have mine, but Craig’s opinion is “everyone other than other militantly conservative republicans is an idiot”.
I asked a legitimate question: what does something that happened over 10 years ago with different executives have to do with this AIG executive? And I got 18 down votes.
You think I should respect those people? You think they are honest with themselves? Of course they are not, not a single person knows what this executive had to do with AIG’s credit default business run out of London.
You think those people are critical thinkers?
That is all I said, no insults at all. And yes, I believe based on my experience in life that most people who behave that way are liberals. And I am not alone, not by a long shot.
Read or watch “The Big Short”; it shows that fraudulent “insurance” (called “credit default swaps”) were sold to Wall Street by AIG, guaranteeing that tranches of mortgages would be made whole if they ever lost their value; but, when it came time to make claims, then AIG said to them, “oh, there’s no coverage; this isn’t real ‘insurance’; you screwed up by buying these ‘credit default swaps’ from us; too bad; sorry; oh, by the way, since we’re a ‘too big to fail’ company, we’re still going to get bailed out by the (suckers) US taxpayers.” What a joke.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Did the Big Short discuss these topics?
1. If the government would not have bailed out AIG (or the auto companies) how many more people would have been laid off and how much worse would the recession have been?
2. In 2013, AIG paid back U.S. taxpayers for the bailout – so we got all of our money back!
3. U.S. taxpayers made a $23B PROFIT – yes B for BILLION – on the AIG bailout when the U.S. govt sold its shares of AIG at the appreciated price.
I wish the government made Billion dollar profits on all the social subsidy programs it offers (personal bailouts)…
If there was no bailout, there would have been many ‘players’ to step in to write policy renewals from AIG’s portfolio, and other alternative sources of the financial products it sold … on a fair market basis. Layoffs by AIG would have been followed by hiring by Travelers, Liberty Mutual, CNA, Chubb, ACE, …. which would add policy counts from AIG cancellations. Rehab by SID regulators would have righted the badly listing AIG ship… as a smaller, better monitored ‘vessel’.
Further, there is no ‘profit’ in taxpayers paying less in taxes to bailout AIG. It is a misnomer to claim so, as it would have been spent on something else… unless taxes were reduced accordingly; e.g. 2017 tax reform.
I think stockholders are losing sight of what they are there for; stockholders invested in the company to make money as the company’s fortunes increase. These corporate execs have taken advantage of the golden goose; $21,000,000 salary plus perks? That’s stockholder money. Follow the Berkshire Hathaway lead and pay a reasonable salary – say, $3 to 5,000,000…let the CEO buy stock…and then the incentive is to make the company perform so he earns more money through his stock like all the little people who invested i the company so he can make his salary. CEO salaries have gotten out of hand and they are using their stockholder’s money as their personal wealth-builder. Companies must make a profit but it belongs to the shareholders, not the few guys at the top. Set an example!
“Earning a living” suggests an amount of money needed to subsist. “Justifying compensation” would have been a more accurate descriptive phrase.
I am torn on this one. On one hand I believe a great CEO is priceless. I have worked directly for some very bad CEO’s and watched them take down entire companies. On the other hand, $21,000,000 is a really big number. Too big.
Years ago, I attended a Salesforce function with some Reps from AIG. They were discussing how the company had just shut down one office where the customer service folks were making $12 per hour to move them to a state (KS I believe) where they would be making $9 per hour. It has been a while, but I believe they said 1,500 people were either going to lose their job to someone willing to work for less, or they would have to accept the cuts and move (on their own) to the new location. If this is how AIG is making money, then the CEO is overpaid.
If you are making billions for your company, I can see the CEO making great money. When you are making this much and STILL reducing the pay of your bottom paid employees…. Well, I do not respect that.
John E Hunt and jsmooth I like what you both had to say. Logical and fair. A real win win for all.