Home page logo

interesting-people logo Interesting People mailing list archives

Re: Congress' reaction to AIG bonuses -- am I the only one concerned?
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:45:14 -0400

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 -

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.


Mark Blacknell
Washington, DC

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?


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

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

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]