First, Edward Liddy announced that he would be resigning from his $1.00 CEO position at AIG when a replacement was found. He felt that AIG has reached the point where a long term CEO was needed. ( See my 3/19/09 posting "congressional follies about AIG") AIG's Trustees are also requesting 6 new independent board members at the June 30, 2009 annual shareholders meeting. Earlier, Mr. Liddy had said AIG was on track to pay back the bailout money within the next 5 years. Mr. Liddy and the trustees are on the path to recovery for AIG. The USA owes them a well deserved Thank You Very Much for all your effort and endeavor to help get our economy strong again. Our fearless leaders in congress will probably berate them every chance they get. My advice to Mr. Liddy and the trustees, don't let the turkeys get you down!!
Second, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will be announcing rules for executive compensation for the banks receiving bailout funds. Nothing concrete has been announced yet but there are some interesting ideas on the subject already. In a May 24, 2009 Rueters article by Dena Aubin and Corbett Daly, they quoted 2 Harvard Law professors, Lucian Bebchuk and Holger Spamann On the subject. The professors believe executive compensation should be based on more criteria than stock price. Since equity (the bank's stock) is only 5% of a bank's assets, other items such as deposits, loan portfolios & credit ratings should also be used to set performance rewards. The professors argue that if stock price is the only criteria for rewards, the stock price can be artificially boosted at the expense of the rest of the banks assets. I agree with this idea. The purpose of incentives is to reward work that makes the company more profitable, not just the stock. If the company's overall profitability improves, the stock will improve as well.
Showing posts with label AIG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AIG. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
A Few Thoughts on the 90% Bonus Tax.
Quote of the Day:
“We figure the local and state governments will take care of the other 10 percent.”
Rep. Charley Rangel's explanation for the 90% tax on tarp recipients bonus payments.
Counterquote of the Day:
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."
-- Mark Twain (1866)
Holy Smoke, America!! Did this really just happen to us? The American colonies rebel yell against England was "taxation without representation is tyranny!" Now we have a 90% tax rate with representation!! Perhaps it is time for another tax rebellion. The Senate is proposing a 70% tax on bonus payments, 35% paid by the company and the other 35% paid by the recipients. Even that is way too high. I think our representatives need to take a real deep breath, exhale slowly, then read the Constitution. Is this what they want for our future generations? I think not. This bill was composed mainly to make the most political hay over the public's distress over the bonus payments. It scares me how quickly this bill was passed. Congress, especially the house financial services committee, used delaying tactics and dogged resistance to prevent reform or overhaul of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac for years. If they had acted half as fast on reform of these GSEs, (government sponsored enterprises, more on this later) the USA could have avoided the super recession we are experiencing and just had a nice regular recession that goes away in a year or two. If Congress can pass such outrageous tax bills for one reason, I am certain they will be able to think of more. Who knows, maybe all the opponents of war will tax the extra pay for overseas and dangerous duty military people receive.
Since the unions and activists have arranged busloads of people to hike to the AIG executives homes, would it not be fair to let the overtime pay of union workers be taxed the same as bonuses for people who do not get paid by the hour but by results? When it comes down to brass tacks, overtime is just another bonus. Since the UAW get paid when they are out of work, congress could really clean up here.
If the unions and activists cared more about all the taxpayers and not just the unionized ones, they would also organize a march in DC to all the congresspeople's DC homes to lodge complaints about their micromismanagement of this financial fiasco. Remember, all this started with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not AIG.
“We figure the local and state governments will take care of the other 10 percent.”
Rep. Charley Rangel's explanation for the 90% tax on tarp recipients bonus payments.
Counterquote of the Day:
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."
-- Mark Twain (1866)
Holy Smoke, America!! Did this really just happen to us? The American colonies rebel yell against England was "taxation without representation is tyranny!" Now we have a 90% tax rate with representation!! Perhaps it is time for another tax rebellion. The Senate is proposing a 70% tax on bonus payments, 35% paid by the company and the other 35% paid by the recipients. Even that is way too high. I think our representatives need to take a real deep breath, exhale slowly, then read the Constitution. Is this what they want for our future generations? I think not. This bill was composed mainly to make the most political hay over the public's distress over the bonus payments. It scares me how quickly this bill was passed. Congress, especially the house financial services committee, used delaying tactics and dogged resistance to prevent reform or overhaul of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac for years. If they had acted half as fast on reform of these GSEs, (government sponsored enterprises, more on this later) the USA could have avoided the super recession we are experiencing and just had a nice regular recession that goes away in a year or two. If Congress can pass such outrageous tax bills for one reason, I am certain they will be able to think of more. Who knows, maybe all the opponents of war will tax the extra pay for overseas and dangerous duty military people receive.
Since the unions and activists have arranged busloads of people to hike to the AIG executives homes, would it not be fair to let the overtime pay of union workers be taxed the same as bonuses for people who do not get paid by the hour but by results? When it comes down to brass tacks, overtime is just another bonus. Since the UAW get paid when they are out of work, congress could really clean up here.
If the unions and activists cared more about all the taxpayers and not just the unionized ones, they would also organize a march in DC to all the congresspeople's DC homes to lodge complaints about their micromismanagement of this financial fiasco. Remember, all this started with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not AIG.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Congressional follies about AIG
Quote of the Day:
"Some People say I make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."
Will Rogers
First of all, a standing ovation is due to Edward Liddy, CEO of AIG for standing up to the arrogance of Steven Lynch. (A Massachusetts democrat, definitely not the comedian!) Mr. Liddy took the job for $1.00 and no stock options to try and help out his country. Mr. Lynch was way out of line in his questioning of Mr. Liddy and should apologize. What do you have to say for yourself, Mr. Lynch?
Second, this is $165 million, that's 6 zeros and 2 commas, not the trillions (12 zeros and 4 commas) that the bailout efforts and economic stimulus packages will cost the American taxpayers. This is just political grandstanding to deflect the interest of the press and public away from the massive spending the Obama Administration and Congress want to enact in the name of economic recovery. Politicos are very good at straining minnows and swallowing whales. It's called micromismanagement.
Third, were President Obama and Rep. Lynch both absent from law school the days contract law was taught? This was a pre-existing contract and failure to pay could have exposed AIG to lawsuits.
Fourth, will Timothy Geithner get his old job as Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Board back if he takes the fall for all this congressional hubris over $.0000165 trillion retention bonus that the original bailout bill allowed to go through in the first place?
I think Mr. Liddy should be given the chance to do what he said he will do in his recent letters to Treasury Secretary Geithner. Repay the bailout money and keep the good businesses of AIG intact and contributing to the USA economy. He was the CEO of Allstate, another large insurance company. He is offering all his experience for $1.00. He has a better chance of succeeding than any and all members of the house financial services committee could do. Remember, this committee repeatedly defended Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae right up until they went into conservatorship. How many of them work for $1.00. My educated guess is none,zip, goose egg, zero.
"Some People say I make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."
Will Rogers
First of all, a standing ovation is due to Edward Liddy, CEO of AIG for standing up to the arrogance of Steven Lynch. (A Massachusetts democrat, definitely not the comedian!) Mr. Liddy took the job for $1.00 and no stock options to try and help out his country. Mr. Lynch was way out of line in his questioning of Mr. Liddy and should apologize. What do you have to say for yourself, Mr. Lynch?
Second, this is $165 million, that's 6 zeros and 2 commas, not the trillions (12 zeros and 4 commas) that the bailout efforts and economic stimulus packages will cost the American taxpayers. This is just political grandstanding to deflect the interest of the press and public away from the massive spending the Obama Administration and Congress want to enact in the name of economic recovery. Politicos are very good at straining minnows and swallowing whales. It's called micromismanagement.
Third, were President Obama and Rep. Lynch both absent from law school the days contract law was taught? This was a pre-existing contract and failure to pay could have exposed AIG to lawsuits.
Fourth, will Timothy Geithner get his old job as Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Board back if he takes the fall for all this congressional hubris over $.0000165 trillion retention bonus that the original bailout bill allowed to go through in the first place?
I think Mr. Liddy should be given the chance to do what he said he will do in his recent letters to Treasury Secretary Geithner. Repay the bailout money and keep the good businesses of AIG intact and contributing to the USA economy. He was the CEO of Allstate, another large insurance company. He is offering all his experience for $1.00. He has a better chance of succeeding than any and all members of the house financial services committee could do. Remember, this committee repeatedly defended Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae right up until they went into conservatorship. How many of them work for $1.00. My educated guess is none,zip, goose egg, zero.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Another day another line in the sand drawn
The Federal Reserve Board announced an $85 billion loan to AIG in exchange for a 79.9% equity stake in the company. The Fed, along with the US Treasury, consider AIG too big, too interconnected to fail. The good news is the Fed might actually turn a profit on the deal. The Fed's hope is that AIG will be able to ride out the current storm in the credit markets and get back on its feet again. When that occurs, the Fed will cash in their equity stake and pay back the loan. Let's hope this works.
Apparently the "line in the sand" the Fed drew with Lehman Brothers can shift. It seems that sand line is actually calculated on a case by case basis. The criteria being how big the company is and what impact its failure will be on the US and world economy. Lehman Brothers just didn't qualify for a direct bailout. A year ago LEH's market capitalization was $33 billion, now it's in bankruptcy proceedings and selling off its assets at bargain basement prices. Barclays bank is offering $250 million for LEH's North American investment banking and trading operations. Barclays is also paying $1.5 billion for the LEH New York headquarters and 2 New Jersey data centers. The deal is subject to approval by the bankruptcy court. The deal would save almost 10,000 LEH employees from job loss. This makes me believe the court will have no problems with it, unless it considers the price way,way,way too low.
Here's another interesting development in the LEH bankruptcy, JPMorgan Chase (JPM)advanced LEH $87 million Monday morning to allow LEH to continue its trading operations and avoid disruptions to financial markets. The New York Federal Reserve Board reimbursed JPM for this. Apparently the treasury secretary's refusal to bail out LEH did not apply to loans made after no deal was reached and LEH decided to file chapter 11 bankruptcy. On Tuesday, JPM advanced LEH another $51 million. The bankruptcy court judge also appointed JPM as LEH's clearing house for its trading operation during the proceeding. This means that JPM has put $138 million into LEH to fund its trading operations in 2 days. This is over 50% of Barc's offer of $250 million for trading and investment banking operations. What this means is beyond me, if anyone out there has any knowledge on this please share it in the comments section.
Apparently the "line in the sand" the Fed drew with Lehman Brothers can shift. It seems that sand line is actually calculated on a case by case basis. The criteria being how big the company is and what impact its failure will be on the US and world economy. Lehman Brothers just didn't qualify for a direct bailout. A year ago LEH's market capitalization was $33 billion, now it's in bankruptcy proceedings and selling off its assets at bargain basement prices. Barclays bank is offering $250 million for LEH's North American investment banking and trading operations. Barclays is also paying $1.5 billion for the LEH New York headquarters and 2 New Jersey data centers. The deal is subject to approval by the bankruptcy court. The deal would save almost 10,000 LEH employees from job loss. This makes me believe the court will have no problems with it, unless it considers the price way,way,way too low.
Here's another interesting development in the LEH bankruptcy, JPMorgan Chase (JPM)advanced LEH $87 million Monday morning to allow LEH to continue its trading operations and avoid disruptions to financial markets. The New York Federal Reserve Board reimbursed JPM for this. Apparently the treasury secretary's refusal to bail out LEH did not apply to loans made after no deal was reached and LEH decided to file chapter 11 bankruptcy. On Tuesday, JPM advanced LEH another $51 million. The bankruptcy court judge also appointed JPM as LEH's clearing house for its trading operation during the proceeding. This means that JPM has put $138 million into LEH to fund its trading operations in 2 days. This is over 50% of Barc's offer of $250 million for trading and investment banking operations. What this means is beyond me, if anyone out there has any knowledge on this please share it in the comments section.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
