Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Rihanna's Random Airport Search
Man Injured By Tree Limb Files Suit Against City
AIG, the troubled insurer that the Feds bailed out to the tune of $85 billion in September, was accused by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) of "stonewalling" Congress when AIG said it couldn't come to D.C. for a meeting to discuss executive pay last week. Now AIG CEO Edward Liddy tells CNBC that Cummings didn't give him enough time to prepare, "I got a letter on Tuesday asking for more information. We simply couldn't provide the information in time for a meeting on Thursday." Liddy, who said AIG has been "very transparent," also said that retention bonuses were important for keeping employees, "If we don't do that, we will not be able to pay back the federal government." Related: The AP tallies how many private jets are owned by financial firms that received bailout money, noting that while automakers are getting nailed for private jetting, Wall Street firms still are (AIG has 7 private jets).
AIG Tells CNBC That Bonuses Are Necessary
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (16) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Newsmap
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Another case of sudden jihad:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/student_kills_prof_nGgR2x0Omat9UDx4
[more]
"retention bonuses were important for keeping employees"
In this job climate, no one really needs to be paying retention bonuses. People will keep working for you becuase they probably have nowhere else to go.
who gives a shit about private jets outside of possibility an environmental context?? they improve productivity for the biggest companies in the world and their expense is a drop in the bucket compared to the many other considerations.
My retention bonus this year is that I'm being retained.
I hope the justified outrage over this leads to LAWS that mandate the maximum amount of executive pay as some mulitiple of the least paid employee. Individuals of PUBLIC companies getting FEDERAL AID making a quarter of a billion dollars a year is fcking ridiculous
Among the worst ideas the financial industry accepted, in a very long list of bad practices, is a bonus system that pays far more than salary. These people would work for nothing, except for the multi-million bonuses.
the old if we don't pay them they'll leave trick.
because they did such a good job prior.
It really would be a shame if things started happening to CEOs. You know, accidents. I'm not saying I would desire these things to happen but sometimes things just happen.
our spineless govt "leaders" need to pull the purse strings
@#4 Unfortunately it will never happen. It wouldn't be hard for the companies to work around that.
1. Pay the exec XX base pay according to the law. The rest will be paid in bonuses (sort of like it is now). The gov't will never restrict bonuses.
2. Lowest paid employee? They'll change ALL non-execs to be "contract employees", so they're technically not employed by the company. Therefore, the sky's the limit on executive pay.
On AIG...can't we just burn their offices?
Keeping employees!? With the economy the way it is why would anyone leave their job?
#10 most people wouldn't leave their job. But some of the "C" level folks of large companies have enough money so that they are working just for the hell of it, and could easily live the rest of their life without having to work another day.
I mean, think about it, if you had 10 million in the bank (they have way more than this) and you had it all in fairly conservative CD type accounts getting 3% a year, thats $300k a year (not counting compounding interest). Shit, I would be pretty damn happy living on 300k a year.
So, given that is the whole pool of ppl who are qualified for a job, it is probably a bitch to get any of those guys in, because after all they don't really _need_ the job.
Strangely, the best people do leave when the economy tanks. Who wants to stay at a loser company that sucks? There's always a position waiting for solid performers which is exactly what companies need during the tough times.
The more I hear about these companies and their CEO's, the more annoyed I get.
Dear American Azzwipes: if working for minimum wage salaries yourselves yet being forced to bailout multi-billionaires on your meagre wages hasn't offended you to the point of revolution yet: then it's already too late because Wall ST is balls-deep up into your azz.
Enjoy! You probably like it anyway.
The CEO wasn't saying he would pay himself. He is earning just $1. He was saying he would pay others. How is that greed? Where is the benefit to him of conspiring to screw shareholders or taxpayers to pay other employees, and not himself? How anyone on this blog can claim to have any insight into the appropriate pay of people and jobs they don't even know is beyond ridiculous. Govt micromanaging of AIG will destroy the company and prevent the Govt from recovering its own loans.
AIG's CEO is NOT earning just $1.00 per year. That's just his base salary. He's also receiving an undisclosed amount of stock - which probably means that he'll be making tens of millions of dollars a year. He's no different than any other scummy Wall Street executive.
I agree that the retention bonuses are ridiculous and applaud Cummings for bringing this matter to the public's attention.