Re: Congress' reaction to AIG bonuses -- am I the only one concerned?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mark Blacknell <mb () blacknell net>
Date: March 19, 2009 6:31:50 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>, <ChrisSavage () dwt com>, <lauren () vortex com 
>
Subject: Re: [IP] Congress' reaction to AIG bonuses -- am I the only  
one concerned?

Chris raises fair points in response to Lauren's concerns.  Relevant  
to the
first and second points, you can find a copy of the compensation  
agreement
here -
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/03/aig-bonus-contracts.php?p
age=1

You'll see that they became effective Dec 1, 2007 (when I think it's
reasonable to say that management at AIG had a clue as to what was going
on), and that there's next to no "performance" component to it.  It's  
simply
a schedule for large payments.  Not really the sort of arrangement most
people would understand for bonuses.

Finally, while I would understand Lauren's concern in another context,  
those
that are targeted by this bill have profited handsomely by exploiting  
the
goodwill and trust of others.  I'll save my tears for someone else.

Cheers,

Mark
~
Mark Blacknell
Washington, DC
+1.202.270.5909
http:/blacknell.net/dynamic/


On 3/19/09 6:13 PM, "David Farber" <dave () farber net> wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Savage, Christopher" <ChrisSavage () dwt com>
> Date: March 19, 2009 5:25:43 PM EDT
> To: <dave () farber net>
> Subject: RE: [IP] Congress' reaction to AIG bonuses -- am I the only
> one concerned?
>
> Dave:
>
> A few points:
>
> 1.  Any comments about whether the bonuses were or were not  
> appropriate
> under the contracts are without foundation unless one has read the
> contracts.
>
> 2.  Even if the bonuses were paid in accordance with the contracts,  
> that
> does not mean that the contracts themselves are valid and enforceable.
> There are any number of possible grounds for attacking them in the
> abstract although, again, without seeing the contracts and knowing the
> circumstances, it's hard to know which if any might apply.
>
> 3.  Lauren's comments assume that the individuals who received the
> bonuses were, in effect, innocent of wrongdoing, either with respect  
> to
> the underlying mess or with respect to what would be needed to clean  
> it
> up.  If that is true then he might have a point.  I have not seen
> information to show that it is true, however.
>
> Chris S.






-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com