Comments on: What About Taxing Those Darn AIG Bonuses?

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:56:48 +0000

Though I don’t feel the need to defend myself any longer on Mr. Kramer’s account, for those of you who actually do care about the facts, I’ve been watching the hearings this morning. Parts of the contract in question were read aloud and the amount of compensation was absolutely linked to performance.

By: Lawrence Kramer

Lawrence Kramer — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:16:36 +0000

As you say, whatever. I’ve never seen the *yawn* thing before, though. Very middle school. Nice.

I’ve unsubscribed, so you don’t have to worry about embarrassing yourself further on my account.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:07:26 +0000

You’re entitled to your opinion. My guess is you like to cherry pick your facts – the same has been reported over and over. And of course AIG isn’t going to characterize them that way at this point…

Read anything that those actively involved in the discussions have to say, including Senator Warner’s (member of Banking Finance Committee) letter to Mr. Liddy referencing the contracts. The word “performance” as linked to the bonuses comes up over and over. And your incredulousness over this is confusing: almost all of Wall St/financial execs have similar comp packages, which involve a lower base salary plus bonus based on (gasp) performance. Just because AIG wants to back away from the characterization after posting billions and billions in losses doesn’t mean it’s not true. Even Liddy calls the bonuses distasteful.

Feel free to continue to post all of the criticisms you want. *yawn* I stand by what I’ve said. And I’ll report further after Liddy’s testimony.

By: Lawrence Kramer

Lawrence Kramer — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:40:32 +0000

My mistake. You use good sources badly.

Read the Bloomberg piece and see who is doing the characterizing. See what AIG says (”retention”) and see what Cuomo says (”performance, sort of, although he never says that AIG called them performance-based.)

In other words, your good sources give you no reason to believe that the bonuses were performance-based, or that any specific individual did not do what he contracted to do. Angry people are only good sources of their own anger. As reporters of facts, they tend to be somewhat unreliable.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:25:41 +0000

I just read your last comment. Whatever. I do not use bad sources. I consider comments from the NY Attorney General and our Senators, as reported over and over in major publications to be good sources. Just because they don’t jive with how you choose to interpret the news doesn’t make them bad sources.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:23:43 +0000

Here’s one URL from Bloomberg that indicates both performance and retention were facets of the contracts: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aU1d040FM6L0&refer=home Cuomo, who has been investigating the bonuses (and thus, has more inside info than any of us) refers to them as “performance” related and also states that they were meant to be retention bonuses.

You can get the same info from Time, CNN, etc.

By: Lawrence Kramer

Lawrence Kramer — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:19:52 +0000

Blogging doesn’t entitle you to rely on bad sources. You based your disagreement on a characterization that you cannot trace to AIG. I’m just suggesting that an untraceable “characterization” is not a very good basis for an opinion. Even in a blog.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:13:10 +0000

I’m a little surprised at your tone. I didn’t create this mess, I’m just blogging it. As to the characterizations, you can read about them in almost any of the major press or follow the discussions in the Senate Committees.

By: Lawrence Kramer

Lawrence Kramer — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:10:50 +0000

Kelly -

They were so characterized by whom? How do you know these things that no one else does?

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:36:48 +0000

Lawrence, I disagree. They were characterized as performance based retention bonuses. 15% of the employees who received the bonuses have since left the company and there is 0 argument that any of them had particularly great “performance” since that sector reported the greatest losses inside AIG – you’d run a company like this?