AIG exec resignation letter

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73

Originally posted by: Balt
Regardless of how productive his sector of the company may have been, he'd still have been out of a job without the government's bailout. While I can understand his frustration at being persecuted even though he isn't part of the dirty underbelly, you have to accept a certain amount of responsibility even for things which aren't entirely your fault when you are part of a failed organization.

He was still better off after government intervention than before it. At least he got the choice to quit his job rather than simply being laid off or fired.

This. Had the taxpayers not stepped in (unwillingly), he would not even have a job and AIG would be history. When a company fails you dont get bonuses, simple as that. Just because they got bailed out does not mean they are entitled to their bonuses. They should be happy they even have a freaking job still.

the 'bonuses' where not bonuses in the normal sense of the word.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
pathetic.

$742,006.40 is not a payment from A.I.G, its a payment from us. Its not "donated", its giving back rightfully.

we really need to hang these dumb ass AIG execs.

You either don't know how business works, or don't care to find out some facts.

Bandwagon FTL

A.I.G. business doesn't work, so nothing applies.

fact? the fact is, these people won't have a job let along the bonuses had government not paid A.I.G.

they should be grateful still being employeed. they definately don't deserve bonuses.

Someone sure doesn't get it... oh well.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
People like Balt and JACKDRUID are a major part of the problem. They are letting their emotions get in the way of logic and jumping on the whichhunt bandwagon.

This guy is the perfect example of the kind of people that are getting screwed in this process. I'm sure there's plenty of execs getting bonuses that don't deserve them, but this furor and anger directed at all recipients is stupid.

Uh, no. Try again.

If you actually read what I said, I don't see how you can conclude that I'm on any kind of witch hunt. What I have said is that regardless of whether his sector of the company was profitable, he was part of a larger organization that failed. Just because he wasn't directly responsible for the failures of the company doesn't mean he should expect nothing to change when his company fucks up.

I have no anger or bitterness toward the guy, but I don't think he should expect to get paid like he has in the past when his company is surviving off of government money. We expect workers in the airline and automobile industries to make sacrifices for their companies, why not financial executives?

your right, instead he should just not get paid. moron.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
People like Balt and JACKDRUID are a major part of the problem. They are letting their emotions get in the way of logic and jumping on the whichhunt bandwagon.

This guy is the perfect example of the kind of people that are getting screwed in this process. I'm sure there's plenty of execs getting bonuses that don't deserve them, but this furor and anger directed at all recipients is stupid.

Uh, no. Try again.

If you actually read what I said, I don't see how you can conclude that I'm on any kind of witch hunt. What I have said is that regardless of whether his sector of the company was profitable, he was part of a larger organization that failed. Just because he wasn't directly responsible for the failures of the company doesn't mean he should expect nothing to change when his company fucks up.

I have no anger or bitterness toward the guy, but I don't think he should expect to get paid like he has in the past when his company is surviving off of government money. We expect workers in the airline and automobile industries to make sacrifices for their companies, why not financial executives?

I don't see workers in the auto unions working for $1 a year, getting taxed at 90%, and being told to commit suicide.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
the contract no longer binds when one side (A.I.G.) fail.

A.I.G. failed, so contract no longer binds.

Incorrect, the contract is legit unless AIG goes into bankruptcy court and a judge decided that the contract no longer binds.

A judge is the ONLY ONE who can make that determination.

are you saying AIG won't go bankrupt without bail out money?

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: TaejinWhy are you still posting? Stupid people should not be posting.

why are you still posting then?

 

[sactoking]

After reading the letter, I have to question the intelligence of the person who wrote it.

First off, he blames LIDDY for the mess (or at least the witch hunt)?!? Liddy has been the biggest public defender of AIG employees in the face of irrational fake outrage from some of the people much more directly responsible for the mess (politicians). If Jake's biggest gripe is that Liddy called the bonuses distasteful, he's an effing moron. It's quite easy to see that Jake is deflecting.

Secondly, I agree with Jstorm that he's also deflecting on the American people with his closing statements. He's such a moron that after he attacks his only public friend, he lashes out at 350,000,000 pissed off taxpayers!

Lastly, for being an Executive VP at a financial products company, he's a moron when it comes to handling finances. He's got a check for $742,006.40 "after taxes" that he's going to donate to charity. If he was qualified to be an Executive VP at a financial products company, he might know that by accepting the check and THEN donating it, he screwed himself. Not only will it screw up his marginal rate, but his itemized deductions will be limited. He'll probably owe AMT on it. If he was truly as giving as he wants us to believe, he'd have had AIG write the check directly to charity so that no tax would be due.

Overall, this guy has no credibility to be lecturing ANYONE.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
the contract no longer binds when one side (A.I.G.) fail.

A.I.G. failed, so contract no longer binds.

Incorrect, the contract is legit unless AIG goes into bankruptcy court and a judge decided that the contract no longer binds.

A judge is the ONLY ONE who can make that determination.

are you saying AIG won't go bankrupt without bail out money?

That is irrelevant.

They did NOT go bankrupt is relevant.

Furthermore, and a point you seem to miss, when the government handed them the money they knew about these bonus checks and said nothing about it. The government could have demanding that all such agreements be null and void at the time they handed over the first check but it did not ask for that.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

are you saying AIG won't go bankrupt without bail out money?

That is irrelevant.

They did NOT go bankrupt is relevant.

Furthermore, and a point you seem to miss, when the government handed them the money they knew about these bonus checks and said nothing about it. The government could have demanding that all such agreements be null and void at the time they handed over the first check but it did not ask for that.

now the government is demanding it. case solved.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

are you saying AIG won't go bankrupt without bail out money?

That is irrelevant.

They did NOT go bankrupt is relevant.

Furthermore, and a point you seem to miss, when the government handed them the money they knew about these bonus checks and said nothing about it. The government could have demanding that all such agreements be null and void at the time they handed over the first check but it did not ask for that.

now the government is demanding it. case solved.

Yes, after basically lying to the employees and in effect getting them to work for far less than they could have elsewhere.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
People like Balt and JACKDRUID are a major part of the problem. They are letting their emotions get in the way of logic and jumping on the whichhunt bandwagon.

This guy is the perfect example of the kind of people that are getting screwed in this process. I'm sure there's plenty of execs getting bonuses that don't deserve them, but this furor and anger directed at all recipients is stupid.

Uh, no. Try again.

If you actually read what I said, I don't see how you can conclude that I'm on any kind of witch hunt. What I have said is that regardless of whether his sector of the company was profitable, he was part of a larger organization that failed. Just because he wasn't directly responsible for the failures of the company doesn't mean he should expect nothing to change when his company fucks up.

I have no anger or bitterness toward the guy, but I don't think he should expect to get paid like he has in the past when his company is surviving off of government money. We expect workers in the airline and automobile industries to make sacrifices for their companies, why not financial executives?

I don't see workers in the auto unions working for $1 a year, getting taxed at 90%, and being told to commit suicide.

Auto union workers could never afford to do that, this guy apparently can. That's irrelevant, though.

What is relevant is that the writer voluntarily agreed to a silly symbolic gesture of a $1 salary. He states himself that he agreed to it. Then he decided that since $1 actually meant $1 instead of $1 + a huge bonus he didn't like it anymore. He could have fought it, but instead he decided to quit. At least he had the option, which he and the rest of the people working at AIG didn't deserve since the company should have gone under.

Since you believe he could easily get a higher paying job elsewhere, he was probably going to quit anyway if money is important to him (and apparently it is). The $1 salary was a stupid idea to begin with because it's a meaningless gesture, but it was an idea that he himself accepted.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
pathetic.

$742,006.40 is not a payment from A.I.G, its a payment from us. Its not "donated", its giving back rightfully.

we really need to hang these dumb ass AIG execs.

You either don't know how business works, or don't care to find out some facts.

Bandwagon FTL

A.I.G. business doesn't work, so nothing applies.

fact? the fact is, these people won't have a job let along the bonuses had government not paid A.I.G.

they should be grateful still being employeed. they definately don't deserve bonuses.

Grateful to be making $1 a year??

That makes sense.

I read someplace that his bonus was $1.65 million or something like that? If they left him with 10% per the bill he'd still be making $165,000. I guess he doesn't need the money very bad? Heh, must be nice.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: winnar111

Grateful for being employed for $1 a year?

$1 a year now, but when/if things turn around, they get paid their regular millions.

So given that they can

A: Work elsewhere, now, and get those millions while tax rates are still reasonable
B: Take a chance on things turning around, getting $1 in salary, and dealing with people like you and Pelosi in the meantime and the stress that goes along with it, and, if all that works, get those millions after Zero hikes their tax rate


B sounds awesome.

exactly. B is better than A

FACT is, they probably won't be able to find a job elsewhere, nor one that has the prospect of paying so much.

You're an idiot.

If you think Ed Liddy couldn't find a job elsewhere, then you are dumb as a fuckin rock. There was a reason he was ASKED to become AIG's CEO....

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That is irrelevant.

They did NOT go bankrupt is relevant.

Furthermore, and a point you seem to miss, when the government handed them the money they knew about these bonus checks and said nothing about it. The government could have demanding that all such agreements be null and void at the time they handed over the first check but it did not ask for that.

Exactly.

This is the GOVERNMENTS fault, NOT Liddy's.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: CPA A binding contract is a binding contract. The guy should get paid, withheld at normal tax rates and everyone else should put their jealousy and envy aside.

the contract no longer binds when one side (A.I.G.) fail.

A.I.G. failed, so contract no longer binds.

wtf

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
fact? the fact is, these people won't have a job let along the bonuses had government not paid A.I.G.

they should be grateful still being employeed. they definately don't deserve bonuses.

No, that's not the case at all. I'm not sure you understand how a bankruptcy works.

Had the government not bailed out AIG, AIG would have filed for bankruptcy and the contracts would have been immediately renegotiated for those who stayed under the AIG banner.

Profitable divisions (like the division in which Mr. DeSantis worked) would have been sold off to competitors where people like Mr. DeSantis would have been able to either continue at their previous salaries or to renegotiate a fresh contract with the division's new owner.

In either case, there would have been clear advance notice and no attempts at rescinding payments retroactively. There would have been solid legal precedents for invalidating the contracts (bankruptcy law covers this) rather than constitutionally-dubious populist outrage.

At issue here is the fact that the contracts were absolutely legal and binding and that people were reassured multiple times that there was no intent of reneging on those contracts. The issue isn't that the people aren't getting paid out, the issue is that these people were flat-out lied to. The lies are the problem, not the actual payouts (or lack thereof).

Also:

- "...these people wouldn't have a job...", not "won't have a job". You are mixing tenses.
- "let alone", not "let along".
- "definitely", not "definately".

ZV

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
If you think Ed Liddy couldn't find a job elsewhere, then you are dumb as a fuckin rock. There was a reason he was ASKED to become AIG's CEO....

in this economy, the only dumb fucking rock would be the one who believes there is a job guarenteed available for him...

oh its you...

 

[BMW540I6speed]

DeSantis is grandstanding. This is an attempt to clear his name and separate himself from AIG. DeSantis was well paid for his work at AIG until the company failed. He received good benefits. It appears that he is in the top 1% of American households in terms of income. At least he goes home to a nice house and family and a personal fortune which he can use to ponder his next move.

This guy is one of the privileged class who can afford to resign, who can get his voice/agenda printed in a major newspaper. Who probably has a truckload of money saved. Hey if you did such a great job at your company how come its dead?

By working for AIG he contributed to his own downfall whether he knew it or not. Maybe people should look a little more closely at who they work for and what their parent corporations are doing?

I guess some didn't read the part that he agreed to work for a huge dollar amount bonus - not a dollar. Just like many of us, he gambled and lost. He should take comfort in knowing that there have to be Losers in order for there to be Winners. Life is unfair that way and freedom is, of course, untidy.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
People like Balt and JACKDRUID are a major part of the problem. They are letting their emotions get in the way of logic and jumping on the whichhunt bandwagon.

This guy is the perfect example of the kind of people that are getting screwed in this process. I'm sure there's plenty of execs getting bonuses that don't deserve them, but this furor and anger directed at all recipients is stupid.

Uh, no. Try again.

If you actually read what I said, I don't see how you can conclude that I'm on any kind of witch hunt. What I have said is that regardless of whether his sector of the company was profitable, he was part of a larger organization that failed. Just because he wasn't directly responsible for the failures of the company doesn't mean he should expect nothing to change when his company fucks up.

I have no anger or bitterness toward the guy, but I don't think he should expect to get paid like he has in the past when his company is surviving off of government money. We expect workers in the airline and automobile industries to make sacrifices for their companies, why not financial executives?

I don't see workers in the auto unions working for $1 a year, getting taxed at 90%, and being told to commit suicide.

Auto union workers could never afford to do that, this guy apparently can. That's irrelevant, though.

What is relevant is that the writer voluntarily agreed to a silly symbolic gesture of a $1 salary. He states himself that he agreed to it. Then he decided that since $1 actually meant $1 instead of $1 + a huge bonus he didn't like it anymore. He could have fought it, but instead he decided to quit. At least he had the option, which he and the rest of the people working at AIG didn't deserve since the company should have gone under.

Since you believe he could easily get a higher paying job elsewhere, he was probably going to quit anyway if money is important to him (and apparently it is). The $1 salary was a stupid idea to begin with because it's a meaningless gesture, but it was an idea that he himself accepted.

Who said that this was meant to be any kind of gesture? A $1 salary + bonus, as opposed to a $800k salary, is how AIG decided to structure his compensation, for whatever their own purposes are. Assuming that you'll get something more than $1 a year sounds reasonable to anyone.

I guess the man's only mistake is deciding that he could be compensated in this fashion. The company could have gone under, and he would have lost his money. Fine. Now, he's losing his money and having to deal with the fallout from Democrats in Congress.

He clearly indicates that he doesn't need the money. Not wanting to be Public Enemy #1 of Pelosi and company is quite incentive enough.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Robor
This guy was an Executive VP at AIG, worked there 11 years, and he considers himself blameless? Sorry, but I find it hard to believe someone in his position knew nothing about what was going on. He can resign and think he's doing something noble but the right/difficult move would have been leaving back while this was happening.

Yep. Before that he worked for Union Bank of Switzerland which is under investigation as a tax shelter bank in Germany and France and is facing fraud charges in the US.

Jake DeSantis


The United States last month successfully obtained data of about 300 wealthy Americans with Swiss bank accounts who were suspected of tax fraud at home. The U.S. investigation into the UBS, the largest bank in Switzerland, has been closely watched by other countries, particularly Switzerland's powerful European Union (EU) neighbors. Following the steps of Germany and France, British finance minister Alistair Darling also joined in the criticism against Swiss banking secrecy laws, saying the country needs a more transparent system.

What an honorable guy.

Swiss bank UBS AG knowingly let brokers present its auction-rate securities as virtually risk-free so it could reduce its own stake in the failing program.

In January 1997, Christoph Meili, a night watchman at the Union Bank of Switzerland (a predecessor bank of today's UBS), found employees destroying archives compiled by a subsidiary that had extensive dealings with Nazi Germany, in direct violation of a recent Swiss law (adopted on 13 December 1996) protecting such material. UBS acknowledged that it had "made a deplorable mistake", but maintained that the destroyed archives were unrelated to the Holocaust. Meili was suspended from his job at the security company that served UBS, following a criminal investigation into whether his whistleblowing had violated bank secrecy laws.[

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
pathetic.

$742,006.40 is not a payment from A.I.G, its a payment from us. Its not "donated", its giving back rightfully.

we really need to hang these dumb ass AIG execs.

Did you read the letter? The guy, if being honest, has a good point. Several, in fact.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

I guess some didn't read the part that he agreed to work for a huge dollar amount bonus - not a dollar. Just like many of us, he gambled and lost. He should take comfort in knowing that there have to be Losers in order for there to be Winners. Life is unfair that way and freedom is, of course, untidy.

Most losers disappear into anonymity. They aren't tarred and feathered by elected officials.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
How many executive VPs does AIG have that this guy never met the CEO?
Usually there are not very many executive VPs.

AIG is a HUGE company with a alot of subsidiaries, divisions and departments.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
People like Balt and JACKDRUID are a major part of the problem. They are letting their emotions get in the way of logic and jumping on the whichhunt bandwagon.

This guy is the perfect example of the kind of people that are getting screwed in this process. I'm sure there's plenty of execs getting bonuses that don't deserve them, but this furor and anger directed at all recipients is stupid.

Uh, no. Try again.

If you actually read what I said, I don't see how you can conclude that I'm on any kind of witch hunt. What I have said is that regardless of whether his sector of the company was profitable, he was part of a larger organization that failed. Just because he wasn't directly responsible for the failures of the company doesn't mean he should expect nothing to change when his company fucks up.

I have no anger or bitterness toward the guy, but I don't think he should expect to get paid like he has in the past when his company is surviving off of government money. We expect workers in the airline and automobile industries to make sacrifices for their companies, why not financial executives?

I don't see workers in the auto unions working for $1 a year, getting taxed at 90%, and being told to commit suicide.

Auto union workers could never afford to do that, this guy apparently can. That's irrelevant, though.

What is relevant is that the writer voluntarily agreed to a silly symbolic gesture of a $1 salary. He states himself that he agreed to it. Then he decided that since $1 actually meant $1 instead of $1 + a huge bonus he didn't like it anymore. He could have fought it, but instead he decided to quit. At least he had the option, which he and the rest of the people working at AIG didn't deserve since the company should have gone under.

Since you believe he could easily get a higher paying job elsewhere, he was probably going to quit anyway if money is important to him (and apparently it is). The $1 salary was a stupid idea to begin with because it's a meaningless gesture, but it was an idea that he himself accepted.

Who said that this was meant to be any kind of gesture? A $1 salary + bonus, as opposed to a $800k salary, is how AIG decided to structure his compensation, for whatever their own purposes are. Assuming that you'll get something more than $1 a year sounds reasonable to anyone.

I guess the man's only mistake is deciding that he could be compensated in this fashion. The company could have gone under, and he would have lost his money. Fine. Now, he's losing his money and having to deal with the fallout from Democrats in Congress.

He clearly indicates that he doesn't need the money. Not wanting to be Public Enemy #1 of Pelosi and company is quite incentive enough.

I guess it's a difference in interpretation of what he is saying then. While I agree he doesn't need the money, it looks to me like it's still important to him. He says he's unwilling to sacrifice time with his family for what he's going to get paid, so money must still enter into the equation somewhere.

As for the outrage and people calling for the hide of AIG execs, to some extent that was inevitable regardless of what happened. Even if they weren't receiving taxpayer money people would still be angry at the company's failure. Going under didn't prevent the Lehman Brothers CEO from getting punched in the mouth. People get angry about stuff like this, it may not be fair in every case but it seems pretty inevitable.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Robor
This guy was an Executive VP at AIG, worked there 11 years, and he considers himself blameless? Sorry, but I find it hard to believe someone in his position knew nothing about what was going on. He can resign and think he's doing something noble but the right/difficult move would have been leaving back while this was happening.

Yep. Before that he worked for Union Bank of Switzerland which is under investigation as a tax shelter bank in Germany and France and is facing fraud charges in the US.

Jake DeSantis


The United States last month successfully obtained data of about 300 wealthy Americans with Swiss bank accounts who were suspected of tax fraud at home. The U.S. investigation into the UBS, the largest bank in Switzerland, has been closely watched by other countries, particularly Switzerland's powerful European Union (EU) neighbors. Following the steps of Germany and France, British finance minister Alistair Darling also joined in the criticism against Swiss banking secrecy laws, saying the country needs a more transparent system.

What an honorable guy.

Swiss bank UBS AG knowingly let brokers present its auction-rate securities as virtually risk-free so it could reduce its own stake in the failing program.

In January 1997, Christoph Meili, a night watchman at the Union Bank of Switzerland (a predecessor bank of today's UBS), found employees destroying archives compiled by a subsidiary that had extensive dealings with Nazi Germany, in direct violation of a recent Swiss law (adopted on 13 December 1996) protecting such material. UBS acknowledged that it had "made a deplorable mistake", but maintained that the destroyed archives were unrelated to the Holocaust. Meili was suspended from his job at the security company that served UBS, following a criminal investigation into whether his whistleblowing had violated bank secrecy laws.[

I thought we weren't supposed to do the guilty by association thing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

He was lied to, betrayed and thrown under the bus by his CEO...I'd be pissed too. Liddy is a spineless lying coward.