BF2S Forums AIG bonuses

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

TBH, while I think Rudd has become a shocking PM over the last few months, one of his ideas I like: Bonuses over a certain size have to be shareholder-approved.

What difference could that possibly make. Is it not true that the shareholders are the ones who hire the CEO, or at least must approve his appointment? I would think the bonuses are in place as part of the contract,so you already have shareholder approval.

And if he doesn't do his job? Does he still deserve the multi-millions? That should be the shareholder agreement. Yes, it's contractually expected that the bonuses are given but it's ALSO expected that the CEO's don't leave the company down the shitter.

I agree, except that is not how the shareholders are writting the contracts. Apparanrtly they are writting them knowing full well that they are going to pay the CEO regardless as to the company's performance. IF the shareholders want to get out of paying for shitty performance, then stop agreeing to pay for it. Sounds simple to me.

It looks as if, sharleholders value CEO's expertese as crucial and need to dangle big carrots in front of them to get the ones they think they want. But you simply can not break a contract like that. It was agreed to by all parties. THe solution is to never get involved in the first place ( as the govt.) pay your bonuses if you must, but you are gunna have to use money from your own coffers because that is they only money you have.


We would not be talking about this if the govt. didn't get involved, this is why I do not want big govt. sticking its nose in the business of the private sector. I do not view govt. as a cure for anything. All govt. can do is fuck shit up.

CameronPoe wrote:

Nailed haha!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7953869.stm

hmm... well Dodd said the obama admin made them change the language in the bill to allow the bonuses?  now we tax it back?  wtf

usmarine wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Nailed haha!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7953869.stm

hmm... well Dodd said the obama admin made them change the language in the bill to allow the bonuses?  now we tax it back?  wtf

Who cares about that shit - the main thing is that your money is being clawed back from those brazen fuckers. Is that a bad thing...?? Those who received the bonuses must be thanking their lucky stars they get to keep 10% of something they should never have had in the first place!

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-03-19 15:12:49)

usmarine wrote:

i care more about the money the euro banks got from us.  these bonuses are a drop in the bucket compared to that price tag.  yet nobody seems to care.  unreal.  sheep at their best i guess.

Which banks now...?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-03-19 16:55:31)

usmarine wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine wrote:

i care more about the money the euro banks got from us.  these bonuses are a drop in the bucket compared to that price tag.  yet nobody seems to care.  unreal.  sheep at their best i guess.

Which banks?

i dunno.  barclays was one of them.  one in france i think.  i saw it on one of the news channels.  i will try and find the story.

lol. Talk about a sheep. 'I saw it on one of the news channels'. Total hogwash. hahahahaha. usmarine 'cares more about' something that never existed. lwelz. The aid made it's way to Barclays through - yep you guessed it - AIG. Perhaps you should have AIG shred all of its insurance obligations with other global financial institutions - that should lead to increased stability, eh?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-03-19 17:00:00)

usmarine wrote:

..yes i know.  i found the story.  what the hell are you talking about?  my point is THIS should be the real discussion, not bonuses.

why are you being a douche bag?  this IS FACT.  unlike your little jew story from your brother.

http://www.cnbc.com//id/29565683?__sour … ;par=yahoo

It's all up for discussion usmarine, the fact remains that AIG is a heap of shit that needs to have its innards scratched out and be started afresh. The bonuses are every bit as real as what it has been doing in the derivatives market. It is more brazen in that they have rewarded failure, whereas their machinations on the derivatives market with respect to Barclays and Societé Generale presumably have some meaningful financial aim. From what I can gather AIG were obligated to pay this out as part of their inherited problems, which the taxpayer had to expect to pay when it took on the burden that AIG represents.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-03-19 17:08:25)

SealXo wrote:

the reserve just printed 1 trillion yesterday and when the recession ends theres going to be hyperinflation then a depression after that

gj private banks own the administration. Just like thomas jefferson warned

That's only if they leave the money in circulation. Once the recession starts to improve, they will slowly pull currency out of circulation by manipulating interest rates...to avoid hyperinflation and depression.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I like the 90% bonus tax thing.
No doubt they'll find a way around it.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7950452.stm

The" tax thing" is an outrage. It is a law designed, NOT for the people of the land, but for this group specifically. I shudder at the power the govt. has adopted in arbitrarily making laws to cater, not to the people in general but to specific targets.


The contract should be binding the money should be paid. Just like all of you union nut jobs think your contracts are binding and should be paid. The solution would have been to let AIG go out of business or secure its own loan to pay their debts. This is what happens when govt. gets involved in shit. and you want them running our health care?! Great.

no, not really.

Since when has the unconstitutionality of a law actually stopped the government from enforcing it?

Hell, all you gotta do is pay off the Supreme Court.

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I like the 90% bonus tax thing.
No doubt they'll find a way around it.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7950452.stm

The" tax thing" is an outrage. It is a law designed, NOT for the people of the land, but for this group specifically. I shudder at the power the govt. has adopted in arbitrarily making laws to cater, not to the people in general but to specific targets.


The contract should be binding the money should be paid. Just like all of you union nut jobs think your contracts are binding and should be paid. The solution would have been to let AIG go out of business or secure its own loan to pay their debts. This is what happens when govt. gets involved in shit. and you want them running our health care?! Great.

I agree with that, the government fucked up in letting it happen in the first place. But, what's happened has happened and at least they're trying to fix it, it's better to at least do something than nothing, surely. I wish our government did something like this (we basically have something similar going on in this country), to at least show that "look, maybe you managed to fuck us over, big corporation, but we can still get our revenge and try to save some face"

They should've done 99% or something though, if you're going to do it...

---

At the end of the day, they know they fucked up, but at least they're trying to fix it. Lessons will be learned no matter what happens, but it's better to do something rather than sit there and just count the losses like an idiot.

If someone screws you over and you know it's partly your fault, will you just sit there and accept that you've been screwed over or will you at least try to undo some of the mess.

---

And your government has done millions of things that go against your constitution which is like 300 years old or some shit. PATRIOT Act, and even the small gun laws probably go against your constitution. Shit, loads of things do. That peice of paper means nothing to your government because it's so irrelevant in these times, IMO

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-03-21 07:47:16)

In a perfect world, the stock market would decline another 70 or 80 percent along with the shuttering of about that fraction of our nation’s banks. Yes, unemployment would rise as hundreds of thousands of formerly well-paid brokers and bankers lost their jobs; but at least they would no longer be extracting wealth at our expense. They would need to be fed, but that would be a lot cheaper than keeping them in the luxurious conditions they’re enjoying now. Even Bernie Madoff costs us less in jail than he does on Park Avenue.

AussieReaper wrote:

ATG wrote:

In a perfect world, the stock market would decline another 70 or 80 percent along with the shuttering of about that fraction of our nation’s banks.

You do know what would happen to every bodies pension plans should the market drop another 80%, right?

Compulsory superannuation is an Australia only thing I believe.

You know more of our 'big government' taking control of our lives kind of shit Lowing (and co.) are so against.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2009-03-21 08:25:50)