AIG execs went on an $87k partridge hunt

[Pepsei]

NYPOST link

personally, i didn't think the spa party done previously was a big deal since they were for the sales people. but geez, things like this (the partridge hunt for execs) will make a lot of people angry.

 

[Lemon law]

This is for top AIG execs and not external sales men. I would certainly hope some entity forces these execs pay for the excursion out of their own pockets.

 

[alchemize]

I thought the govt fired all the top mgmt after the takeover?

 

[techs]

According to AIG it was perfectly ok since it was "previously planned"

 

[StageLeft]

You have to laugh. Of all the pretentious ways to spend money "partridge hunting" has to take the cake. It's like something from Victorian England that landowners would do and the conversation would mainly consist of ridiculing the unwashed masses of filthy blood who are one step removed from total savagery.

 

[brencat]

Is the latest hobby scouring the company's T&E expense reports for the latest 'gotcha' item? Yeah, let's get all lathered up over $87k when the govt literally pisses away billions of our tax dollars regularly on wasteful pork and other projects. This is a fvcking rounding error at best.

Move along... :roll:

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: brencat
Is the latest hobby scouring the company's T&E expense reports for the latest 'gotcha' item? Yeah, let's get all lathered up over $87k when the govt literally pisses away billions of our tax dollars regularly on wasteful pork and other projects. This is a fvcking rounding error at best.

Move along... :roll:

ROFL.. sad but true.. Didn't the Pentagon lose $2.3 trillion and announce it on 9/10/2001?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: brencat
Is the latest hobby scouring the company's T&E expense reports for the latest 'gotcha' item? Yeah, let's get all lathered up over $87k when the govt literally pisses away billions of our tax dollars regularly on wasteful pork and other projects. This is a fvcking rounding error at best.

Move along... :roll:

ROFL.. sad but true.. Didn't the Pentagon lose $2.3 trillion and announce it on 9/10/2001?

Ooops! Move along!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

As a taxpayer, I find these ostentatious displays rather offensive. Perhaps we all would have been better off if AIG had just been left to die and if our tax money had been put to better use.

 

[DealMonkey]

Isn't the NY Post basically a crappy tabloid? I don't think I believe a word they say.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: techs
According to AIG it was perfectly ok since it was "previously planned"

Yea that so true. This Friday we are having a birthday party for my grandmother. She died last week but this party was "previously planned" so might as well go on. Anybody want some cake? Cheesecake?
[/snl]




The orignal story WITH PICTURES

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Pepsei

personally, i didn't think the spa party done previously was a big deal since they were for the sales people. but geez, things like this (the partridge hunt for execs) will make a lot of people angry.

Think of it as a marriage.

If one spouse loses their job and they can't make their house payment is it OK for the spouse still working to go on a vacation?

I have to ask myself if it wasn't for taxpayer relief, would they still have had that party?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Isn't the NY Post basically a crappy tabloid? I don't think I believe a word they say.

perhaps, but the tip of my pitchfork was blocking the name of the tabloid, and the torch was getting hot in my hand so I wouldn't have time to look anyway.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: brencat
Is the latest hobby scouring the company's T&E expense reports for the latest 'gotcha' item? Yeah, let's get all lathered up over $87k when the govt literally pisses away billions of our tax dollars regularly on wasteful pork and other projects. This is a fvcking rounding error at best.

Move along... :roll:

You have a point but it doesn't excuse what they did.

 

[Pepsei]

fox news link

ok, from reading it more...seems like everytime we bail them out, they waste more money.

the partridge hunt was after the 2nd bailout.


so... i wonder where they're going next time? a sex tour in Bangkok?

 

[First]

That's....odd.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
NYPOST link

personally, i didn't think the spa party done previously was a big deal since they were for the sales people. but geez, things like this (the partridge hunt for execs) will make a lot of people angry.

I don't get why people get angry over this. AIG is worth more than a trillion dollars. The money the government has lent it is exactly that... a loan. In fact, it's a really high interest loan. The government, and by extension the taxpayer is going to make out like bandits on this.

The government will get 100% of its money back through the orderly sale of AIG assets. Since we the people aren't losing a dime, is this sort of thing really a big deal?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The government will get 100% of its money back through the orderly sale of AIG assets. Since we the people aren't losing a dime, is this sort of thing really a big deal?

You're pretty naive.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The government will get 100% of its money back through the orderly sale of AIG assets. Since we the people aren't losing a dime, is this sort of thing really a big deal?

You're pretty naive.

Well that's a well thought out argument. The government now has warrants to acquire an 80% ownership stake in AIG. I sincerely doubt that the assets of a company worth a trillion dollars will lose 90% of their value. This would be the only circumstance in which the government would not recoup its investment.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The government will get 100% of its money back through the orderly sale of AIG assets. Since we the people aren't losing a dime, is this sort of thing really a big deal?

You're pretty naive.

Well that's a well thought out argument. The government now has warrants to acquire an 80% ownership stake in AIG. I sincerely doubt that the assets of a company worth a trillion dollars will lose 90% of their value. This would be the only circumstance in which the government would not recoup its investment.

Sell to who? If they were worth anything they'd have been snatched up already. Not to mention, the whole point of the bailout was supposedly liquidity. What exactly will parceling out the profitable bits and pieces of AIG do for market liquidity?

As I said, you're naive and will believe anything the talking heads tell you.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The government will get 100% of its money back through the orderly sale of AIG assets. Since we the people aren't losing a dime, is this sort of thing really a big deal?

You're pretty naive.

Well that's a well thought out argument. The government now has warrants to acquire an 80% ownership stake in AIG. I sincerely doubt that the assets of a company worth a trillion dollars will lose 90% of their value. This would be the only circumstance in which the government would not recoup its investment.

Sell to who? If they were worth anything they'd have been snatched up already. Not to mention, the whole point of the bailout was supposedly liquidity. What exactly will parceling out the profitable bits and pieces of AIG do for market liquidity?

As I said, you're naive and will believe anything the talking heads tell you.

From watching you post about this and other economic issues I'm pretty sure you just don't know what you're talking about. The entire point of loaning AIG the money is so that they don't have to pull a fire sale and sell these assets at far below their value. So, sell to whomever a year or two down the road when assets are more easily and realistically priced. The purpose of this loan is to prop up liquidity in the short term, so I fail to understand what selling off assets two years from now (as per the terms of the loan) has to do with that.

This is a no brainer. You might think I'm naive, but I think you're ignorant.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The government will get 100% of its money back through the orderly sale of AIG assets. Since we the people aren't losing a dime, is this sort of thing really a big deal?

You're pretty naive.

Well that's a well thought out argument. The government now has warrants to acquire an 80% ownership stake in AIG. I sincerely doubt that the assets of a company worth a trillion dollars will lose 90% of their value. This would be the only circumstance in which the government would not recoup its investment.

Paulson should still fire these fucking execs before he divests out of AIG.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The government will get 100% of its money back through the orderly sale of AIG assets. Since we the people aren't losing a dime, is this sort of thing really a big deal?

You're pretty naive.

Well that's a well thought out argument. The government now has warrants to acquire an 80% ownership stake in AIG. I sincerely doubt that the assets of a company worth a trillion dollars will lose 90% of their value. This would be the only circumstance in which the government would not recoup its investment.

Paulson should still fire these fucking execs before he divests out of AIG.

I agree that it's a bad PR move and that the execs were foolish to do it. The reason why it's a bad PR move though comes from the general ignorance of the population as to the terms of the deal. There's a decent argument they should be fired for that bad judgment, but the whole trip itself is a non issue.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The government will get 100% of its money back through the orderly sale of AIG assets. Since we the people aren't losing a dime, is this sort of thing really a big deal?

You're pretty naive.

Well that's a well thought out argument. The government now has warrants to acquire an 80% ownership stake in AIG. I sincerely doubt that the assets of a company worth a trillion dollars will lose 90% of their value. This would be the only circumstance in which the government would not recoup its investment.

Paulson should still fire these fucking execs before he divests out of AIG.

I agree that it's a bad PR move and that the execs were foolish to do it. The reason why it's a bad PR move though comes from the general ignorance of the population as to the terms of the deal. There's a decent argument they should be fired for that bad judgment, but the whole trip itself is a non issue.

Better yet, have the IRS fuck these guys. How the hell is this company paid?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

The government will get 100% of its money back through the orderly sale of AIG assets. Since we the people aren't losing a dime, is this sort of thing really a big deal?

You're pretty naive.

Well that's a well thought out argument. The government now has warrants to acquire an 80% ownership stake in AIG. I sincerely doubt that the assets of a company worth a trillion dollars will lose 90% of their value. This would be the only circumstance in which the government would not recoup its investment.

Sell to who? If they were worth anything they'd have been snatched up already. Not to mention, the whole point of the bailout was supposedly liquidity. What exactly will parceling out the profitable bits and pieces of AIG do for market liquidity?

As I said, you're naive and will believe anything the talking heads tell you.

From watching you post about this and other economic issues I'm pretty sure you just don't know what you're talking about. The entire point of loaning AIG the money is so that they don't have to pull a fire sale and sell these assets at far below their value. So, sell to whomever a year or two down the road when assets are more easily and realistically priced. The purpose of this loan is to prop up liquidity in the short term, so I fail to understand what selling off assets two years from now (as per the terms of the loan) has to do with that.

This is a no brainer. You might think I'm naive, but I think you're ignorant.

So you think any economic problems we have now will be long forgotten within two years? Talk about ignorant...