Dow
     +42.23
12843.46
+0.33%
|
     +7.07
1349.71
+0.53%
|
     +66.80
14067.31
+0.48%
|
     +20.26
2924.14
+0.70%
|
     +0.56
53.83
+1.05%
|
     +0.14
116.41
+0.12%
|
     -0.05
1.96
-2.62%
Econwatch
March 16, 2009 4:47 PM

Obama's Early Attacks On Bonuses Complicates Response On AIG

By
Declan McCullagh
Topics
AIG
(CBS)


As a candidate for president, Barack Obama frequently lambasted bonuses at bankrupt companies, blaming Republicans for not doing more to halt the practice.

Mr. Obama pledged to "ban executive bonuses for bankrupt companies." He said it was an "outrage" that "Wall Street bank executives are set to walk away with billions more in bonuses." He charged that, thanks to the policies of the last eight years: "Millions of Americans are facing foreclosure. Our economy is in turmoil. And the guys behind it all are getting bonuses for their bad behavior."

Which is why the recent news -- that under an Obama administration a bankrupt AIG plans to dole out an estimated $450 million in bonuses -- has the potential to complicate matters for the White House.

The U.S. government now owns AIG. To be precise, it owns 80 percent of the failing company, which has received four bailouts, reported a $61.7 billion fourth-quarter loss, and put over $170 billion in government funds at risk so far.

But its ultimate administrator, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, apparently didn't find out about the planned bonuses until last week. A letter that AIG CEO Edward Liddy wrote to Geithner over the weekend says that the bonuses are necessary because, at least in some cases, "there are serious legal, as well as business, consequences for not paying."

The combined total of bonus and retention payments could be as much as $1.2 billion, according to an estimate by the Wall Street Journal.

One option, of course, would be to insist that recipients of bonuses voluntarily relinquish them -- at least if they want to keep their jobs during what has become a serious recession. Liddy, who will be paid only $1 in salary for 2009, did not mention that possibility in his letter.

It was left to Mr. Obama to say on Monday: "Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" Meanwhile, the White House plans to try to find ways to recover some of the cash.

This flap could lead to something of a backlash, and charges of hypocrisy, for Mr. Obama and the Democrats on Capitol Hill, who were elected last fall amidst populist anti-Wall Street sentiment on promises to crack down on a "culture of greed" on Wall Street.

It also highlights an uncomfortable problem for companies that have been nationalized, or, like AIG, virtually nationalized. Should bankrupt-and-bailed-out firms pay employees prevailing wage rates, including bonuses, to remain competitive with their unencumbered rivals? Or should they bow to political pressure and curb them? ("This is an outrage," is how Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority Leader, characterized the bonuses on ABC's This Week, echoing what candidate Obama said just a few months ago.)

And this weekend's disclosure of AIG's counterparties -- which EconWatch discussed last week -- raises another question: Was AIG really too big to fail? That was the conventional wisdom at the time, with the Bush administration believing an AIG failure would be "catastrophic," and Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer saying it was an "unprecedented" but necessary step.

The list of counterparties shows that the largest single payment to a counterparty was $7 billion, to the UK-based Barclay's PLC; the payment totaled less than Barclay's profit for 2008. Other payments were smaller and went to large European and U.S. banks and financial firms.

AIG had raised alarms in secret presentations to regulators as recently as last month, saying that a halt to the bailouts would be catastrophic and permanently harm the economy. "Who knows if what they're saying is true?" Phillip Phan, professor of management at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School in Baltimore, told Bloomberg News. "A lot of it sounds like conjecture, that if AIG collapses the rest of the industry will, too. It's a way of creating a crisis atmosphere and the sense you have to respond quickly."

More AIG Related Coverage:

Poll: Frustration Growing Over Bailouts

Can AIG Get The Bonus Money Back?

Are We Taxpayers – Or Suckers?

Obama Rips AIG Bonuses

N.Y. AG Wants Answers On AIG Bonuses

White House Seeks "Mechanisms" To Recoup AIG Bonuses

  • Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People's Money column for CBS News' Web site.

Add a Comment See all 21 Comments
by abbe91 March 17, 2009 10:58 AM EDT
Now, I'd like to know how these bonuses are supposed to be paid ... cash or restricted stock ?
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 March 17, 2009 10:54 AM EDT
Wait a minute.....GEORGE BUSH was the president when the terms of the AIG bailout were agreed on...........
Posted by raflin1 at 7:38 AM : Mar 17

I remember making a comment when Paulsen received 750billion dollars I saw a news picture of Paulsen coming down the treasury steps, and Bush running up the steps, both had these smirks on their faces , and I said," This is like giving the fox the hen house,look at their smirks", man was I right that money 350billion of it is still not accounted for
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 March 17, 2009 10:49 AM EDT
Aig is a monopoly and should be broken up and the hearing today with Liddy the CEO should be interesting. Hope they cover the whole thing so he can answer some of the evil doers goings on in that company not another dime unless bonus' are out and resort trips and all that garbage
Reply to this comment
by hatesthecolt March 17, 2009 9:40 AM EDT
Hmmm, let's throw the baby out with the bathwater?? How about there are some good people in banking and there are some scum and we try to find the scum and throw them out? Now THERE's an idea!
Reply to this comment
by pr_boxer March 17, 2009 5:39 AM EDT
Obama has the job of cleaning up the mess the Bush/Cheney admin left. He'll succeed in spite of the nay saying hard heads.

The Republican party is in the midst of disintergration, soon , 2-4 years the GOP will join the Whigs as one of those political parties of the past.

Oh! the Conservatives will create some forum they can continue obstructing the quest to better the lives of the working class.
Reply to this comment
by homespunlady March 17, 2009 1:41 AM EDT
Two Words that MIGHT help "fix" this debacle.

TRUST BUST!!!

AT&T was FORCED to be "broken up" when the nation perceived it as "too big" and dangerous to the economy.

Microsoft faced YEARS of litigation for similar reasons.

Countless other companies were DENIED mergers and "consolidations" based on the reasoning that they MIGHT become "too big".

And yet, this horizontally and VERTICALLY INTEGRATED BEHEMOTH was ALLOWED even ENCOURAGED to become the MONSTER that ate the world's economy???

Break it up IMMEDIATELY.

TOSS OUT the "useless" and costly money wasters (preferably with one way tickets to Somalia where they can fit in with the rest of the PIRATES).

Try to "salvage" what little value is left from the PENSION FUNDS they RAIDED and raped.

REINSTATE ANTI-TRUST and ANTI- MONOPOLY laws with MUCH BIGGER teeth to them.
Reply to this comment
by vincan-2009 March 16, 2009 11:43 PM EDT
DefendLiberty - I heartily support your honest and fact based comment. As I have said many times it will take a long time to right the Bush administration wrongs perpetrated on America.
Reply to this comment
by vincan-2009 March 16, 2009 11:33 PM EDT
Everyone is fed up with the vulgar excesses that these Wall Street Banks keep insisting on in spite of their begging for government bail-outs. Greed caused these banks to make very big, very bad and very risky moves that have come back to bite them. Yet they will not learn. No one deserves bonuses for screwing up a bank enough that they need rescue by the government.
Reply to this comment
by homespunlady March 16, 2009 10:18 PM EDT
I'd opt more for a Bush backlash...

Remember the Bush/Paulson TARP Plan?

THREE PAGES -most of which demanded NO OVERSIGHT.

Now THERE was a "bonus plan" even the most greedy economic Attila the Hun could envy.

Just hearing about it left the "Pinky and the Brain" theme song ringing in my ears for weeks.
Reply to this comment
by platteman March 16, 2009 9:31 PM EDT
Nothing will happen. MSM is so in love with Obambi that no mater what he does, he will still walk on water.

That is what you get when you get a community organizer in chief. We got a Handout in Chief.
Reply to this comment
See all 21 Comments
.

Follow Econwatch

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook