Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 25, 2009
A Bad AIG Bonus Argument

A Executive Vice President of AIG. Financial Products resigned and his resignation letter is printed as on op-ed in today's New York Times.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which
A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we
in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are
being unfairly persecuted by elected officials.

Wall Street insider Barry Ritholtz at the Big Picture loves the letter as he, like the letter, argues against any bonus-cuts or high bonus taxation.

The resignation letter by Jake DeSantis claims that he is leaving AIG-Financial Products because his bonus was cut and because he finds that unfair as he had nothing to do with the CDS mess that took AIG-FP down. The last part may well be true but it does not matter and we will come back to that in a moment.

First the payment issue:

Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

One has to be a blatant hypocrite to claim one worked for $1 dollar per year 'out of a sense of duty' when one expected and was assured to get a million or so in bonus payments:

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands.

So even if the bonus would be taxed at 90% the man would still have made quite a bit above $70,000 per year. Donating that or not is irrelevant. I find $70,000 per year a decent pay especially for someone who in the 11 years before made far, far more money than any normal person will ever make in her lifetime. To lament about that is arrogant and, unlike Barry, I find it obscene. If AIG, without taxpayer money, would have gone bankrupt Mr. DeSantis pay would have been zero.

Now back to the issue of culpability:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G.

That does not matter at all. All parts of A.I.G. have taken part in creating the mess while the persons involved hugely benefiting from it – from the various parts of AIG-FP throughout the insurance business up to the now likely bankrupt AIG. Aircraft Leasing Unit.

Consider what Chris Whalen, the Institutional Risk Analyst finds:

Speaking of poor fundamentals, when AIG released information about the amounts and recipients of roughly $100 billion of its government loans from September to December 2008, almost utterly unreported was the fact that the staid, boring, heavily regulated insurance businesses managed to run up losses on securities lending requiring $44 billion of government support.

By way of contrast, the credit derivatives widely blamed for bringing down the world's financial system were consuming $27 billion of support; municipal investment agreements (essentially, deposits) made by municipalities with AIG Financial Products took another $12 billion, and maturing debt took $13 billion. We wonder, just which unit of AIG lent the securities? What did AIG purchase with the proceeds of the securities loan? Could it be that the big story at AIG is the unsoundness of the insurer, not the credit default swaps? Why the misdirected coverage?

And Barry Ritholz himself pointed to a part of yesterday's Bernanke testimony which hinted at many other problems within AIG. than just the CDS side:

State and local government entities that had lent more than $10 billion to AIG would have suffered losses. Workers whose 401(k) plans had purchased $40 billion of insurance from AIG against the risk that their stable value funds would decline in value would have seen that insurance disappear. In addition, AIG’s insurance subsidiaries had substantial derivatives exposures to AIG-FP that could have weakened them in the event of the parent company’s failure.

All parts of AIG stink and it will take years to find out which parts are not rotten – if any. Mr. Jake DeSantis seems to claim that the commodity and equity division he worked in did not make any losses and was in no way involved in any shady AIG business. That well may be, but unless the whole AIG mess is not cleared up, I will not believe a word of it.

Mr. De Santis, how many commodity and equity deals did your AIG-FP division make with the insurance part of the AIG business?

$70,000+ per years seems fine to me for someone who is already loaded with much more money from prior bonuses in his job than any normal person can think of. If DeSantis does not want to do the job for that – fine. 325,000 financial service jobs have been cut since mid 2007. I am sure more than a few of those unemployed people are well capable to do Mr. De Santis job and will be happy to get a decent pay of $70,000+ after tax per year.

The much lower pay for autoworkers at Chrysler and GM as well as for retirees thereof were recently cut as part of a government loan arrangement. I do not remember Barry Ritholtz howling about that breach of contract or NYT op-eds arguing against that arrangement.

The people in finance seem to have lost any sense of decency and and feel for normal life standards. It is time to pull them down to earth.

Comments

b,
What are the NY State Taxes on $742,000? Just asking.

Posted by: Rick | Mar 25 2009 16:40 utc | 1

I see now that the $70,000 was after taxes, so I assume this means all taxes. But if he was just talking Federal taxes, the state and other taxes may take a lot of this.

Posted by: Rick | Mar 25 2009 16:46 utc | 2

$70K for a highly demanding, high-pressure job isn’t particularly much.

Posted by: Peter | Mar 25 2009 16:53 utc | 3

Obama’s New Monopoly Set

President Obama has invented a new board game for Wall Street money guys to play that promises to be a lot of fun. It’s very much like the regular Monopoly game that kids play–only better–because this one uses real money, provided courtesy of the taxpayers. The best thing about Obama’s game is nobody loses. Usually, the winner in Monopoly is the one who winds up with the most money. In the Obama version, the losers get any losses back from the government at the end of the game. The president has promised.

Posted by: Spaghetti Monster forbid | Mar 25 2009 16:55 utc | 4

The original says amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes
I do not know the tax-bracket for such amounts and estimated 25%. That’s how I came up with one million gross.
If that would have been taxed by Congress at 90% 100,000 would be left. I am not sure how much additional state tax would applied but assumed 30% on that. That’s why I wrote 70,000+ – it is likely lowballed.
@Peter:
The U.S. median household income in the U.S. is some $50,000.
I agree that 70,000 for real highly demanding, high-pressure job like firemen and emergency room nurses isn’t particularly much.
The base salary for those nurses before taxes is $60,000. Firemen get less.
The excuse of “highly demanding, high-pressure” is nothing but that. Yes some finance jobs are stressful, so are jobs in other areas.

Posted by: b | Mar 25 2009 17:20 utc | 5

Pull them down to earth? If they don’t jump, as in the good old days, I’d like to give them a good push.

Posted by: par4 | Mar 25 2009 17:28 utc | 6

It begs the question- If these guys are so smart and skilled, why are they working for AIG? You wouldn’t necessarily expect an autoworker to be able to judge the viability of GM, but these AIG people with the big bonuses are charged with evaluating risk. Think of them as getting caught taking bribes.
Of course, these problems are financial industry-wide and the way the ur-Ponzi scheme is set up, AIG was just the clumsiest. The slicker operators are just as bad and are now doubling their take off the bones of AIG. Instead of the knee-jerk 90% tax on AIG ganzemachers, bring back the 90% tax on all the top 1% of incomes. Tell them its for the cost of their police protection.

Posted by: biklett | Mar 25 2009 17:41 utc | 7

@Peter, #3:
High pressure job?
Try walking a fucking 25 kid kindergarten class down to the park during weekday traffic.
Try teaching 20 five year olds how to read, while keeping their rich-dick mommies from cackling too loudly about the trops derriere avant gardant.
That’s high pressure, and you don’t get paid 70,000 a year for it.
Banking’s supposed to be conservation.
The only reason it ever gets high pressure is because the managers get greedy.
And one more thing —
i’d like to add a “fuck”, here, followed by a pronoun.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Mar 25 2009 18:28 utc | 8

Let’s think about this in more detail … you’ve been hired to clear up the mess at AIG-FP, a mess caused by incredibly complex financial transactions that very few people understand. Hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs are at stake. Weeding through the mess will probably take a year or more working 60+ hours a week. So … would you take on this enormous task for $70K a year, keeping in mind that AIG-FP’s home of Wilton, Connecticut is not what anyone would call a cheap place to live?

Posted by: Peter | Mar 25 2009 18:58 utc | 9

DeSantis is trying to wrap himself in the mantle of a Roosevelt era dollar-a-year man. They actually worked for a dollar a year, fighting Nazis and kamikazis and nationwide destitution. So if DeSantis can’t take the stress, or if he can’t afford it, he should fuck off. Nobody needs you there, you whining twat.

Posted by: …—… | Mar 25 2009 19:15 utc | 10

@Peter – if I were unemployed – yes I would take the job for $70,000.
And don’t tell me of those incredibly complex financial transactions that very few people understand
Obviously, the people who made those transactions did not understand them at all.
To understand that the assumptions that are the base of Black-Scholes evaluation of options and derivatives are unrealistic does not require genius, lots of math or years of financial engineering experience but simple street smarts. Those people did not have any.
These transactions are not more complicate than calculating the swinging dynamics of a bridge or electrical systems that can be expressed in partial differential equations. That’s the daily bread of millions of engineers.
These financial people’s usefulness is totally overvalued. It is time to get them back to some normal level. If not by lowering their nominal income, than by taxation.

Posted by: b | Mar 25 2009 19:16 utc | 11

Reminds me of GWB defending his incompetence by saying it was “hard work”.
Same thing here–“I’m a bungler, sure, but I work hard…I deserve the money.”

Posted by: Obelix | Mar 25 2009 19:22 utc | 12

chinahand2
i concur steelworking & teaching are immeasurably more difficult than banking especially with a modern mba which you don’t even have to add up 2+2
…—…
i concur, desantis fuck off

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 25 2009 19:28 utc | 13

And I gotta tell ya, Peter, man, that is some boring weblog you got. Just reading about the soul-searing ennui of your commuter’s existence makes me want to eat a gun. Maybe you should suck up to AIG parasites over there, liven it up a bit.

Posted by: …—… | Mar 25 2009 19:32 utc | 14

These Wall St. pricks think they’re entitled to huge salaries
and bonuses no matter what kind of damage they do to the real
economy. This is the stuff of revolutions.

Posted by: ecoli | Mar 25 2009 19:50 utc | 15

The Hebrew word is “Chutzpah”
In Hebrew, chutzpah is used indignantly, to describe someone who has over-stepped the boundaries of accepted behavior with no shame.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Mar 25 2009 19:54 utc | 16

Peter,
Have you considered multitasking?
Alls I know is, having grown up in New Hyde Park, I kinda miss the Long Island Railroad- but not all the Dashin’ Dans (showing my age).
Funner LIRR Chronicle

Posted by: biklett | Mar 25 2009 19:54 utc | 17

something tells me these people were not stupid, something tells me it made sense for them to act like they did.
look, if you are caught up in something like this at work you tend to know what is going on, it just does not pay for you to mention it in polite society.
if he can leave his job now with this gesture I assume he can afford it or he has to.

Posted by: outsider | Mar 25 2009 20:08 utc | 18

DeSantis tax bracket could have been 15%, if the bonus were treated as a capital gain, something that many in the financial products industry are benefiting from as a result of their lobbying efforts.
What boggles my mind about these cry babies is that 99% of Americans would be overjoyed with a $1Million nest egg at retirement. These spoiled, greedy SOBs feel entitled to make that much in a single year.
We urgently need a law that links maximum compensation to the minimum wage–say at 20x. I would guess that, beyond that level, marginal compensation has little impact on executive productivity anyway. At that point it has more to do with bragging rights than anything else. And most of them will stay at their jobs anyway, because they enjoy the power associated with being a master of the universe.

Posted by: JohnH | Mar 25 2009 20:33 utc | 19

If you don’t think that competent corporate leadership can be found to work for a fraction of what the spoiled, greedy US SOBS work for, consider Japan: “the median president of the 100 largest firms paid taxes of 15.3 million yen — suggesting income of about $534 thousand.”
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:ek5c08dqFbUJ:www.law.ucla.edu/docs/execcomp-uclarev__from_j._mark_ramseyer_.pdf+japanese+executive+compensation&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
And, as I understand it, the cost of an American lifestyle is much higher in Japan, so their purchasing power parity wages are substantially less than what $534K would lead you to believe.

Posted by: JohnH | Mar 25 2009 20:57 utc | 20

A fresh look at economics – similar to comments 11 and related:
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/03/24/neoclassical-economics-mad-bad-and-dangerous-to-know/

Posted by: Sustain | Mar 25 2009 21:15 utc | 21

Actually, I would reformulate B’s last sentence this way:
The people in finance seem to have lost any sense of decency and and feel for normal life standards. It is time to pull them down below earth.
As ground fertilizers, finance people would have, at long last, one use in their existence.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Mar 26 2009 1:21 utc | 22

The stupendous reality about ‘Black-Scholes evaluation of options and derivatives’ was the NYC brokers and traders used it like a gew-gah, while the real quants took Black-Scholes to the next level by figuring out how to game it, proving once again the brokers and traders are stealing your money, because in the best of times they expose your to quants and naked shorts, they uniformly under-perform S&P500, their ETF’s are fractional reserve holdings that underperform highs, and fall faster on lows, it’s all a giant WallSt.con feeding off churning passive investors like chum.

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 26 2009 2:40 utc | 23

Not that it really matters, the numbers are obscene – b has exactly the right word – either way; but my guess is that if he’s a New York resident (or Connecticut, for that matter), the bonus was probably $1.5 million.
Plenty of fruit pickers work 10 hour days, and I’ll bet many of them are working 7-day weeks as well. As long as this type of attitude of entitlement persists from high-end financial “industry” workers we’re nowhere near bottoming out in this cycle.
On a practical note, watch for the insurance subsidiaries (think TRH for example) of AIG to take a major hit in the next wave if any of the recent discussions as above (there was a Newsweek article last week too) about trouble on the insurance side of AIG turn out to be true.

Posted by: mats | Mar 26 2009 3:46 utc | 24

You would have to pay me that much to work with some of the giant douchebags that have been created over the past decade. Can you imagine having to listen to these people justify their huge paychecks on a daily basis? They have actually sold themselves on the idea that they are worth that much.
You know what, double it, inflation and all.

Posted by: bob | Mar 26 2009 4:53 utc | 25

If these guys are so smart and skilled, why are they working for AIG?
if they are so smart and skilled, why is AIG in the tank?
peter, i must concur w/…—…. liven it up a bit.

Posted by: annie | Mar 26 2009 6:56 utc | 26

Why would anyone write a contract that is triggered by this or that executive leaving? Then again – if I would be such an executive, such contracts would give me quite some power …
AIG Fights a Fire at Its Paris Unit – Executives’ Resignations Put Billions in Contracts at Risk of Default

Amid the flap over bonuses at American International Group Inc. two of the company’s top managers in Paris have resigned. Their moves have left the giant insurer and officials scrambling to replace them to avoid an unlikely but expensive situation in which billions in AIG trading contracts could default.
Representatives of the Federal Reserve, AIG’s lead U.S. overseer, are talking with French regulators and AIG officials to deal with the consequences of a complicated legal scenario in which the departures of the managers in Banque AIG, a subsidiary of AIG’s Financial Products unit, could trigger defaults in $234 billion of derivative transactions, according to people familiar with the situation and a document AIG provided to the U.S. Treasury.

Posted by: b | Mar 26 2009 10:18 utc | 27

@CluelessJoe #22 :
haha, yes, I’m ready for the “last finance supper”. I already bought the pop-corn 🙂

Posted by: totoro | Mar 26 2009 13:48 utc | 28

b@ 26
That will be an interesting discussion. From the Rolling Stone article:

Making matters even more hilarious, AIGFP — a London-based subsidiary of an American insurance company — ought to have been regulated by one of Europe’s more stringent regulators, like Britain’s Financial Services Authority. But the OTS managed to convince the Europeans that it had the muscle to regulate these giant companies. By 2007, the EU had conferred legitimacy to OTS supervision of three mammoth firms — GE, AIG and Ameriprise.

That same year, as the subprime crisis was exploding, the Government Accountability Office criticized the OTS, noting a “disparity between the size of the agency and the diverse firms it oversees.” Among other things, the GAO report noted that the entire OTS had only one insurance specialist on staff — and this despite the fact that it was the primary regulator for the world’s largest insurer!

Posted by: John C | Mar 26 2009 13:50 utc | 29

That’s a good trick, stipulating yourself in the convenants. Robert Moses did that with bonds and so was all-powerful and ineradicable in New York until Rockefeller convened his subaltern bankers and waived the covenants. Hard to believe AIG fell for a variant in this day and age. Well, no, at this point nothing would surprise me.

Posted by: …—… | Mar 26 2009 14:04 utc | 30

MBA degrees in their present form / content should be banned. They are either completely useless or simply represent a get-together for the sons and daughters of elites to party and chum up, establish a network. One might even go so far as to say that they are an indoctrination into a spooky modern religion – free market economics.
Btw, Obama, his followers (and many others, like Sarkozy) keep stressing that more regulation is needed. Where are the proposals? In fact, what we are seeing now is more deregulation. Private entities (e.g. the Fed, well one could argue that) seem to be regulating entities like the Banks that were supposed to be ‘regulated’ in the first place – monitored, controlled, and nationalized if need be. In the US, it looks like Gvmt. has completely disappeared, the place is run by Goldman Sachs. Internationally, the central bankers are taking liberties under hastily written (or whatever loophole) rules; Institutions like the IMF have changed their modus operandi.
“Has G S taken over the Bush admin?” from Common Dreams: link
Been very curious about the Madoff op: this interview of an ex-employee rings true? worth a read in any case.. link

Posted by: Tangerine | Mar 26 2009 17:15 utc | 31

Standing next to British prime Minister Gordon Brown at a news conference in Brasilia, Silva again pointed a finger, saying the financial crisis was caused by “white people with blue eyes” – and that the world’s poorest nations should not have to pay for a crisis they did not create.
“It’s not an ideological question – the fact is that once again we find that most of the poor who have not even participated in globalisation have been the first victims of the crisis,” he said.

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 26 2009 21:12 utc | 32

johnh #19

We urgently need a law that links maximum compensation to the minimum wage–say at 20x. I would guess that, beyond that level, marginal compensation has little impact on executive productivity anyway. At that point it has more to do with bragging rights than anything else.And most of them will stay at their jobs anyway, because they enjoy the power associated with being a master of the universe.

At that point, and lower, it also has to do with driving up costs for everybody else, most especially real estate, which of course drives all the costs of a society, and the incomes of the really big land and laborer controllers. Impoverishment below, slave holding and teasing above.

Posted by: plushtown | Mar 26 2009 22:20 utc | 33

About Lula, I don’t think his racial profile of the recession is exactly right; there are plenty of financiers and industrial oligarchs in the South who have their fingers in the pockets of the world’s poor.
Why is it so bloody difficult for the left to acknowledge the crisis is part and parcel of ongoing global class conflict?

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 27 2009 0:18 utc | 34