LowlyPion
Homework Helper
- 3,127
- 6
Astronuc said:If the government had a problem with the bonuses, then they should have withheld the amount from the money given to AIG, and not threatened the individuals with a 90% tax that was essentially punitive.
I agree. The government missed that. But then again the bonuses aren't that big a deal in the global scheme of the monies they are tossing around in such a short period of time. I'm sure they are all under great pressure, and they are undoubtedly not helped by bad actors slipping in their own pet agendas. I don't trust Dodd any more than Paulson, and likely any number of others that have had their fingers in the Public Treasury nominally trying to put out this recession fire.
I don't see Jake DeSantis's letter as being self-serving. He simply lies it out as he sees it. Those bonuses are nothing compared to what other companies have paid out, and it was norm until this quarter. DeSantis makes the point that none of those receiving the bonuses were responsible for the Credit Default Swaps that brought AIG down.
Should DeSantis and others be held accountable for what others did within the company, especially when they were not involved or responsible? Most companies are so compartmentalized that one group certainly doesn't know what another group is doing. They learn about it as information trickles in from others or management.
Are the bonuses excessive? Well some will say yes and others no.
The point is that DeSantis chose to take his compensation as bonus. It doesn't matter to me that he wasn't to blame for credit default swapping. The real issue is that he deferred compensation in the hopes of capturing a risk premium when things went well. But things didn't go well. His fault or not, he took a gamble and lost. He got the wrong side of the risk coin. So pay the cashier. If he couldn't afford to gamble, then he shouldn't.
Is it fair? Maybe he made a bad choice. And I guess it is bad luck. But publicly bellyaching about it in the Op-Ed, looks to me to be a further bad choice aimed at drawing attention to himself for whatever gain he might hope to reap from the notoriety. If he really offered value to AIG, I'd think he would be better advised to negotiate a new arrangement with them based on what he could do for them going forward, instead of burning bridges and throwing stones as the company continues to burn around him.