The Treasury violated its rules on executive pay as it went 18 for 18 in approving raises for...

This news story has 7 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

Tack Comments (9260)
 
AIG paid back 100% of funds provided by Government plus billions in profit. How is it that Treasury should "approve" anybody's pay?
28 Jan, 03:40 PM Reply Like

Ted Bear Comments (420)
 
Paulson was in such a hurry to get this legislation pushed through in order to save Goldman Sachs that the language in there didn't address a LOT of necessary issues. Salaries, bonuses, corporate activities, vacations, promotions, marketing, travel...you name it, they just wrote them a check and told them to go on their merry way just as before.

Goldman might have been saved, but the culture of excesses was barely dinged. Not to mention that we are left with an army of zombie banks that still have a book value of less than zero.

(did you see today that BAC, i believe, was shuffling $50 billion in derivatives around once again in an effort to obscure their real financial condition?).
28 Jan, 03:41 PM Reply Like

Peter_Do Comments (28)
 
@Ted Bear: any data regarding the comments on BAC or just a random negative rant and assumption? I cannot find any info online regarding why they did it. However, the way I understand it, many banks set up subsidiaries in these offshore havens (Ireland, Luxembourg, Cayman etc...) because of the less regulated nature (and also less sophisticated regulation) of these jurisdictions which allow them to take more risks as well. So by moving it to London, it is actually a more conservative move and shine more light on these trades. So more transparent. Not obscuring like you suggest.
28 Jan, 03:54 PM Reply Like

wil3714 Comments (335)
 
Most banks didnt even need the money, government wanted to them make loans because of credit freezing up. That is why they gave them money when they wanted them to acquire companies that made faulty loans
10 Feb, 10:46 PM Reply Like

qw Comments (122)
 
GM still owes many Billions and we the taxpayer may never recover all. Until the Government divests itself of the 300 million shares of GM it still owns, they are and should be subject to executive pay restrictions.
28 Jan, 04:41 PM Reply Like

dato2020 Comments (12)
 
What if all the raises were justified and within normal corporate guidelines? These AIG executives were responsible for the successful turnaround of the company. People who have never had to manage a business and who envy the pay scales of the corporate world want to decide how people should be compensated. It is a sad time in America. The underachievers are ruling the day.
29 Jan, 08:04 AM Reply Like

Ted Bear Comments (420)
 
dato......once you sell your soul to the devil, 'normal' goes out the window. Does anyone doubt that a $200,000 a year boss man couldn't run AIG, or any other company in America for that matter?

Nobody at AIG was responsible for turning the company around. Outside of their huge derivative bets, the operations of the company were sound. Unfortunately for them, the entire company had to be sold to the taxpayers in order to rescue Goldman Sachs and with that, AIG managed to survive.

For that stroke of luck they don't deserve to be overly compensated. Put another way, they ought to be grateful that the company still exists and that they have employment. There are plenty of people who would take any of those jobs for $50,000 year, and do just as good a job as the 'turnaround specialists' that stayed on board and collected irrational compensation.

What is happening to our country? Where is the appreciation that ought to go along with having someone save your a$$ when you have been part of a team (isn't that what we stress here in America; we are a 'team'?) that drove the company over the edge?
29 Jan, 09:05 AM Reply Like