The bonuses/deferred salary/whatever should have been renegotiated before it all went political. Everyone else in this economy is taking a haircut and I don't have much sympathy for someone making over a $1 million a year (before tax) who didn't see the political fallout coming and negotiate the payments down by 25 or 30% (or maybe 50%). Once it went political, AIG should've refunded the amount of the bonuses back to the government and stood by their employees. And that should've been enough.

But there is too much anger in the environment right now for a small refund from AIG to be enough. For some people (on both sides) nothing is enough. Those are the ones truly inciting the class warfare.

For the past few years most accusations of class warfare came from the Republicans/conservatives/big business and could easily be countered by pointing to the atrocious policies promoted by big business' toadies in DC and saying "but isn't this class warfare against the working class"? And that still is true in the majority of cases. But the level of anger of AIG and the other bailed out companies is class warfare of a different kind. It's attributing malice to acts caused by ignorance and stupidity. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The difference is that the tax on your salary is averaged through the year, but they can't do that for the bonuses. Bonuses are taxed at the marginal tax rate (meaning at the top rate your overall income for the year puts you in). For example (and making up some tax brackets): Say the tax is 0% for the first $10,000 income, 10% for the second $10,000 income and 20% for amounts over $20,000.

If your annual salary is $36,000, you pay (0x10,000)+(.1*10,000)+(.2*16,000)=4,200 in taxes. If you get paid monthly, your salary (after "perfect" withholding) would be $2,650 a month and withholding would be $350 a month. But if you get a $3,000 bonus on top of that, you owe (.2*$3,000) =$600 in taxes on the bonus because you're already in the 20% bracket. So even though the gross amount of the bonus ($3,000) is the same as one month's salary, you get $2,400 net instead of $2,650 because it has to be withheld as extra income. If they used the income average that was already calculated for your annual salary, you would be underpaying your taxes by $250.

The difference is that because your salary is a fixed amount, they can average the tax rate through the whole year and keep your paycheck constant. Otherwise, you might pay no taxes in January and be paying the same high rate as the bonus tax rate in December. If you get a raise, one reason it doesn't seem as big as it should be is because it skews your tax rate averages.

Wow...unfortunately for Jake I have no sympathy.

I find it hard to believe that only a select few were responsible for bringing down the worlds economies and NO ONE ELSE knew what was going on, I call BS.

@Oranges w/ Cheese: I'm not sure about that, bonuses are taxed at about 33%.

Great for Jake. Did you catch the part where he's giving (whatever's left of the bonus after the government gets done taking it) to the struggling folks who really need it. He's correct that it should go there, instead of down a government or AIG rathole.

And shame on any of you who think that it's OK for the government to trash the Constiitution to pass retrospective taxes to fix a mess they themselves created!! This guy was working for one dollar, in order to help you, yes you, since you now own most of AIG.

Wake up America, before it's too damn late!!

I think he should be paid something, but $742K is a LOT, especially given the state of the economy.

My husband worked for a software company that was running along fine until some corrupted board members handed management over to a shady group who proceeded to party on the company's dime for a year while simultaneously driving it into the ground. He is still owed a full month's pay, plus technically severance for three months, according to his contract. None of the staff were paid for the last month, and bills to service companies ranging from phones to janitorial are in arrears by several months.

My husband worked for his money. All of those people did. And they were all faultless in the company's demise. It sucks, but there it is. The money simply isn't there and none of them expect any government to come in and recompense them (I mean, hey, that'd be nice, but nobody expects it).

Lots of people get laid off or lose their jobs and don't get their owed money when a company goes under. That doesn't mean the taxpayer has to foot the bill, especially to the tune of an amount that would buy a mansion in most places in the country.

I would wish for anyone who has worked to get what they are owed, but unless everyone who worked honestly for a failed company gets a handout from the government, nobody should, especially not the richest.

The only ones laughing all the way to the bank on this ones are Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Turbo Tax Timmy G, Cuomo, and the rest of the criminals who pulled off a VERY successful money laundering scheme. They even covered their trail with the help of the so-called "media" contributing a very successful information campaign supported by "angry mobs" of ACORN workers and Union thugs whipping the country into a lynch mob. Does anyone even know what "propaganda" is anymore?

Keep your eyes on how this played out - the coming months should scare you if this is any indication of how this administration is going to rule our country.

I'd spend my AIG bonus on guns, bodyguards, and lawyers, and take the fight back to the bastards that set these folks up. This letter was brilliant. The rest of the AIG folks should band together and let spill the beans on how the government set abused its power.

[www.rollingstone.com]

long, but enlightening

I don't know what planet these financial companies come from, but here in the real world, if the business is failing, bonuses do not go out. Some years my husband gets great bonuses from his work, some years nothing. The companies I work for haven't ever given out bonuses.

contracts should be written with the benefit of the company in mind. If the company does well - if money is made - then bonuses go out. If the company fails, then either bonuses wait or are forfit.

I do not approve of the naming of the names. It is not Tom Dick or Harry's fault that their contract said they get this money. I don't beleive we should tax the living crap out of them just to recoup something the goverment didn't manage in the first place. Lesson learned, move on.

as for the plummer analogy.. yes, the plummer should get paid if he did his work, even if the house burnt down, but he shouldn't expect glowing recommendations and bonus money from the owner who just lost his house.

Oh, and he didn't *need* to be at the company. He *chose* to work at that company. His choice. Isn't that what America is about, personal choice and freedom?

Oh, and they didn't give me a bonus because people who think they're better than everyone else, and *deserve* more than everyone else, and are *smarter* than everyone else played fast and loose with the rules. End of Story.

I mean, if I made a contract with you saying that you'd cut off a limb or kill yourself....would you want them to enforce/uphold that?

Please remember the Constitution is a living document that isn't meant to be taken literally. You know that whole "letter of the law vs. sprit" thing? Same applies to contracts.

Were you one of those kids that was always threatening to sue other kids if they offended you in some way?

[xkcd.com]

Really? Do you work for AIG? Did you investigate AIG? Have you ever worked in a big company?

I'm not saying that you're right OR wrong, but unless you have the first-hand knowledge, you don't know, so don't act like you do.

I don't see anywhere in the letter where this guy is trying to make people feel sorry for him. The letter isn't directed towards the public. He was promised something, that promise wasn't fulfilled by AIG and they failed to treat him with respect, so he's expressing his disappointment in AIG and moving on to other opportunities. Seems pretty straightforward. And if this letter should illustrate anything to the public, it's that these bonuses were promised and set in motion long before the bailout and that congress knew full well about them but no one chose to act on it. And also that the government shouldn't have bailed out AIG in the first place, and let bonuses be given out or not, and let the company fail or not, so that better companies could take its place and we wouldn't be having a shouting match about these stupid bonuses when we're throwing many many more times as much money elsewhere with far less thought about it (and that's saying something because clearly this wasn't well thought through at all).

Then we can no longer get mad and blame people for making more money than us and constantly try to tear them down.

I'm so tired of people complaining that these executives make a lot of money. What does it affect you if they make $50,000 or $1 million a year, it doesn't affect you at all, it's not like you see any of that money.

I would much rather live in a country where I have no limit to my earning potential. Stop bitching about those that have risen to the top and do something to better your own situation.

@ScottRose:

Don't you think he's full of shit if he says, "Well, I agreed to work for a dollar, but not really, I agreed to work for three quarters of a million dollars, and I deserve that because I agreed to work for a dollar?"

And I think the point that others made was this: you weren't in the rogue desk within your department? Well guess what, a lot of people unassociated with AIG are drawing far worse consequences because of that same rogue desk. The paper had an article about TENT CITIES this morning. People are living in FUCKING TENTS and I'm supposed to feel sorry for this asshole because he doesn't feel supported by his CEO? That CEO is trying to keep congress willing to hand over billions of dollars to keep things going. Maybe our boy here should take a view of the big picture. Maybe his CEO has better things to do than hold his hand. How is he not a whiny little brat?

Granted, his letter was a decent sell. Well organized and written, but ultimately, full of crap.

Argument heard, considered, rejected.

I respect the guy's decision, but I'm not going to feel sorry for him. I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars for my company through marketing of the company's products, however all I receive as a bonus every year is a Turkey at Thanksgiving.

Yes, it's much different. At that point I still have the option to not do the work, and instead (at least attempt to) spend my time doing something more lucrative.

Suppose I read in the newspaper that Starbucks has been selling large (or whatever they call that size) coffees for $1.00. So I go to Starbucks and find out that they discontinued the sale that morning, now coffees cost $5.
I can at that point either walk away, or just decide to buy the coffee anyway. Maybe I'm in a hurry or don't have a better option. Nevertheless, I have the choice.

But this is entirely different from a scenario where I go to Starbucks and the coffee is still on sale for $1. So I put the $1 on my Amex and leave. Only later, I find out when I get my bill, sorry, they ended the sale and now my coffee costs $5. But I only agreed to pay $1! And they agreed to sell it for $1. And I already drank the coffee.

So, again, yes, it is absolutely a different scenario.

I really don't understand why he should feel entitled to his bonus--I'm with the guys who say he gambled and lost. Besides, only someone who didn't need the money would be able to work for a salary of $1. It all sounds like a tax dodge to me.

YFA

DeSantis, in hindsight, made a mistake when he decided to act out of loyalty to AIG. It's too bad, in retrospect, that he stayed with AIG. He figured out it was a mistake, so he resigned. Makes sense to me.

I don't see anyone complaining about LeBron James making $28MM a year to put a ball into a hoop.....why all the hate and lack of any sympathy because someone makes more money than you? This guy didn't get any free handouts. This is why people come to this country, because it is possible to start with nothing and end up a millionaire. There is nothing more American than that. For those of you who never had any desire to make lots of money and are happy with what you have irrespective of what people around you have, I commend you. You are a better person then almost every person commenting on this blog. For the the rest of you, if you don't like feeling like someone else is overpaid, or you are underpaid, then either try to better yourself instead of blaming everyone else. Who cares that you work 40 hrs a week for $8 an hour. That's your choice...live with it.

You are obviously well versed in economics and business. Do you drive a car or own a home? Do you have any idea of what your insurance payment would look like if AIG went bankrupt? GET A CLUE!

Geez, don't spew, criticize or condone violence unless you actually know what you are talking about. First of all, his group made $100 mm in commodities. The group that lost money was selling credit derivatives. Those two things are like soccer balls and women's lingerie. Yes you may find them at the same store, but that is where the similarity ends. It is absolutely likely that someone in the same division of a company the size of AIG would have no clue what is going on with a another business line. It's the same way at Wal-Mart, at Proctor and Gamble, and pretty much every other company in the world. "wall street liars"....I think you may watch too much TV. Without "wall street" you probably wouldnt be able to get a mortgage or a credit card. If you actually work at a company that has to borrow money to grow or survivie, that wouldn't be possible either without our country's capital markets which I guess a moron would just label as "wall street". So before you lynch anyone, try using that neanderthal brain of yours for something useful...maybe read a book or two on the topic and form your own opinion without taking your cues and information from the biggest single group of liars in the country...Congress.

Oh boo hoo! I still say that the government should've let them go bankrupt so that way the bonus contract would be null and void. The unwrite the bad debt, so it would cripple world economy.

I have no feelings other than hate for the people responsible for this... that include AIG and our "government".

Oh sure - you DO know what happened at AIG - it was on Fox news!

That some form of anger is justified is not in question. But do you really think your scapegoats-of-the-day are really guilkty of anyting you would not have done yourself, given the opportunity?

Even the greed of those truly responsible for this mess is no different from yours. You wanted the big house you could not afford, the luxury car paid with a refinance, the plasma TV you put on your credit card, and conveniently turned a blind eye on how leverage and how at risk your own finances were.

Meanwhile you jump on the political bandwagoon, and trust politicians you called liars and deceivers six months ago.

The governement would not dare lie to you, of course. Nor would it stoop as low as to cover its hind by foiling an easy target on the public to keep it distracted from the real issues - with big media in tow plastering inflammatory headlines all over.

Advertising revenues are down you see - anything for more Gallup points. AIG sells.

So how about you stop whining and blaming others for your own mistakes, and perhaps owe up and take a hard look at your own behavior, Perhaps then would you learn something and be in a position to avoid making it again.

But no -= that would mean doing something most American are no longer able to do: Critical thinking. So go back to your naked nachos sessions in front of the TV and your 36 ounces of canned pasta and blaming McDo for making you fat.

And keep waiting for handouts and the Government to bring you salvation.

I am so digusted at our nation that Antartica sound just about right at the moment: Whatever life can survive there probably had a greater degree of intelligence.

'proud To Be An Antartican" would very possibly sell a load of T-Shirts...

I still think AIG needs to uphold its contract here. When times were better I got bonuses that were not performance based in addition to the performance based ones. For example one job I took I was given a bonus after six months. The reason for this was because it was meant to cover my moving expenses but the company did not want me to take the job, get a move paid for and then up and go someplace else near there. It was in the letters with the job offer that I would be paid a certain amount as lump sum bonus after 6 months. I would be upset if six months later that company said, you know what, no actually.

Disgusting.

If you read the letter, it makes most of these posts look dumb and silly. Next time, READ THE POST.

And just to echo everyone else, WTF is with having $1 of salary, but over $740k of "bonus"? "Bogus" is what I would call it, and although such a weird arrangement might somehow have paid off handsomely in 2004-2007, the crashing house of cards that was 2008 has taken out that crazy scheme, too.

Nice.

This is quite bittersweet. Props to the guy for donating his bonus to those who need it. That's a very noble thing to do. However, you have to be filthy rich to even begin to think like that. Your company(and it's promise of a bonus) wouldn't even be exist if it wasn't for the governments help. The rules changed when we all pitched in. Don't blame uncle Sam. Don't blame your boss. Don't blame yourself. Get on the bandwagon and blame your fellow co-workers that screwed the entire world. They're the reason you don't deserve your bonus.

Although...if you can afford to give away $750k..then your guilt-trip resignation letter is published for the world to see, I can't feel sorry for you. Jake did the right thing, but lets not pretend that he's just another victim. The dude is going to be just fine.

Let's also forget about the fact that the guy was working for $1 a year. Oh what a hero! That doesn't account for jack shit when you're banking on $750k in bonuses you jerkoff. How assbackwards do you have to be to think like that?

Also...if a plumber fixes someones pipes, then an electrician burns their house down...the plumber should return the money because it's the fair and compassionate thing to do. It's not the plumbers fault, but guess what? It's not the homeowners either, and now they've just lost everything. Now you feel like you're ethical for keeping their money? Go jump off a bridge.

Bin Laden has won. The Stock Market before 9-11 (after the Tech Boom) was the real market... after 9-11 the market was an inflated piece of bull shit and the bubble burst. That dudes laughing in his cave and choking down a cockroach.... that hisses.

Hold on a minute

This Executive Vice President is willing to cry,whale,whine or complain in public about stuff including the uproar over their bonuses .

And yet for someone who is willing to vent in public this person or all the innocents in his division saw nothing wrong over the years or if they did weren't willing so much as to call anonymous ethics line , give an anonymous tip to the SEC or an insurance regulator lat alone write a formal complaint to some one ???

Have a nice life

Listen, if a company is paying you that well, your family is taken care of and they're pretty much allowing you to live the dream... you DO put your heart and soul into that job. When your job screws you after you've done your part and then on top of that asks you to work for free and give back the money you and others have worked so hard to earn... You quit.

His boss is an ass.... and he's right. He didn't try to defend the hard working people there at all, he threw them to the wolves and then sent a memo telling them to fear for their lives. Seriously... don't feel sorry for him... and don't...

[self edit] nevermind. I'm not that mean.

I don't understand enough of what is going on to make a valid point one way or the other as to the letter writer's dilemma, but my company didn't perform to expectations, and thus I received 40% of the bonus promised to me when I was hired the year before. I was promoted, but have received no compensation to date for that promotion, so I make less now than when I was hired.

I don't feel one bit sorry for this guy.

$750K? That sounds more like it. The overpaying salaries that drove the market to the depths of hell and passing the cost to the average customer.

As for trying to shift responsibility for the damage, that's jus flat out lame. If your company isn't doing so hot regardless of the division you're employed and you're living off of tax-payer's money, you have to be smart to take the money and leave. If you stay behind to complete the work, you're either stupid or greedy or both.

And a final piece of my rant. AIG is a huge corporation. Their divisions are bigger than a lot of other companies out there so each division/group/department should operate like a small company trying to survive. I don't see that from AIG and I didn't see that in this now former-employee.

@artki: What most people dont know is that alot of company compensate their high paid employees with bonuses to avoid paying taxes it would normally have to pay on the salery of said employee. By giving a bonus it can be written off as a "gift" which passes the bulk of the tax to the employee. These typ of bonuses are commonly taxed as high as 45%. so f he received $740,000 his actual bonus was probably closer to 1.5 million

@Oranges w/ Cheese: Actually bonuses are taxeat higher atthan "normal" compensation.

$742,006.40

Holy sh*t.

He's done an incredibly fine job of getting his resume on the front page of many national newspapers and websites. It's a premptive strike for future job hunting, with the alternative being to omit AIG, leaving a decade long hole and significant job skills from in his resume, plus a lot of later explaining in a job interview.

You say it yourself: "Our work is only as valuable as our bosses are willing to pay." Guess what. AIG is now owned 80% by the American government, i.e., the taxpayers. For better or for worse, Jake's new bosses do not in fact value his work despite Jake's efforts to make it sound more valuable than anything else. His efforts to make himself a martyr only make him sound like a whiny little bitch.

Give me a break.

Despite how I feel about the company and its handlings, there are honest people working there. Yes I feel the bonuses were inappropriate and should have waited and could have waited for proper council with the House Commitee, but not everyone deserves to go down due to AIG's short comings.

We as a people are truly outraged for the failure that has become AIG, but we shouldn't take it out on all the employees. To quote V, "There are those more responsible than others" and they should be dealt with.

Is such a coincident that free trade with China happened about the same time these derivatives and risky financial products became unregulated. So while jobs were going oversea, we didn't feel the effects of it for the last 8 years. We were all getting rich off of borrowed money base on a scam. Smart people were making more and more complicated schemes. Nobody complained about about free trade. No discussion about the pros and cons. I am not saying free trade is all bad. There are good and bad that needs to be discussed, and modified to the advantage of this country.

What's the unemployment rate today?

About 9% more than the percentage of sympathy I feel for this douchebag. And I'm a tech guy that earns bonuses based on performance, one job removed from a tech firm that went bust and screwed me out of a similar arrangement (albeit at a much lower sum).

Sorry about your luck. You gambled and lost. Just like AIG. Suck it up and go work for another financial services firm, Nancy.

On a related note, how much do I have to make for it to stop being "pay" or "salary" and starts being "compensation"?

@donovanr:
These talented guys use their skills to devise more and more complex derivative that they claim ordinary people will never understand, to is not regulated. We are suppose to worship these guys and accept their scam. The last 8 years was a scam. Our wealth was built on borrowed money based on a lie. This is a complete waste of talent resource. It doesn't matter how complicated derivatives are, it has not produced anything of value. It sunk the economy, and put this country in grave danger. Compensation to executive is part of a much bigger issue that people desperately need to talk about. Compensation MUST be tied to performance. Right now is not. They sit on each other's board, and give each other compensation at stock holder's expense.

Problem 2: He should never have agreed to this stupid PR stunt "take a $1 salary" crap. If he's needed to unwind the problems of the division, pay the man fairly while he works.

Problem 2: The freaking media didn't do any due diligence and let us all know in the zillion articles they wrote/filmed on this mess that a) the Execs in question were not only NOT the ones who made the mess but were in fact the ones cleaning it up and b) that these "bonuses" were actually mis-named deferred salaries.

Problem 3: The Attorney Generals involved in pushing the furor didn't bother finding out or letting us know the above 2 critical facts (not the bad Execs, not really bonuses). And worse than the media, they actually threatened to expose these people's names to the public.

Problem 4: Why the F%*& have the Execs who *were* responsible made out of there scott-free?

How honorable!! *sarcasm* How could he think that the retention money is his to donate?!?!? He didn't live up to his end of the bargain!! More arrogance. With that attitude, of course he is part of the the culture which got us into this mess!!

I venture to guess that anyone here who was promised a bonus, was paid that bonus and then was asked to give it back secondary to some knee jerk reaction by both the press and the government would feel the same way.

Maybe anyone recieving a bonus at the end of this year shoudl be asked and pressured to give it up. Perhaps something could happen along the way that isn't the employee's fault but, puts the company he works for cross ways of the feds. It might not be his fault the company he works for has enough rotten apples that it goes belly up but, heck, let's make ALL the employee's pay for it because the press and government can spin this anyway they want to spin it.

And I'm supposed to feel sorry for him that he might only get 10% of his insanely high salary/compensation/bonus/whatever you call it? That's still almost double what I make.

It seems to me that his biggest mistake was putting as much trust as he did in an employer that did not prove trustworthy. Too bad. He might have to sell a couple of his luxury cars and rent out his beach house for the summer. Heartbreaking.

Yeah, that's how we should start doing employee compensation from now on -- based on your NEEDS and not on the work you do, the value you're creating, etc. It sounds like you were HOPING for a bonus, but you forgot to tell your employer that you NEEDED it, so I guess they assumed it was okay to not give you a bonus.

The world is not just, but you stating the work of an engineer being somehow more valuable than that of a wall street type is just rubbish. I don't believe that. Do you also think your work is more important than a farmer's? How about that of the migrant worker in the fields? What about that of an artist or musician?

How would you feel if a farmer said they are more important than you since they provide food? How would you feel if the Wall Street type said he was more important than you since only he can gat VC funding or run a successful business to bring your ideas to market? Nothing is really inherently more important than anything else. Our work is only as valuable as our bosses are willing to pay.

The derivatives trader isn't the one receiving funds in a deceptive manner. In the analogy used by the resignee, the derivatives trader is the electrician who ran faulty wiring. The CEO is the one receiving funds because he scammed the gov't into thinking that the bailout money would be used to shore up the company's financial health but instead handed it out like candy. The financial services guy (aka the plumber) KNEW the executives took the money in a deceptive manner. It would have been darn near impossible not to know.

Look, if the CEO went out, beat up a rich guy and took a billion dollars out of his wallet to use to pay off the bonuses, would it be right for the resignee to keep that money? No, it wouldn't. There's no real difference between this and the events at AIG. Well, nothing other than the number of people who got beat up (1 stupid rich guy who walks around with billions of dollars around in his wallet vs millions of Americans who are walking around almost no money in their wallet thanks to idiots like this).

But yeah, I still have little sympathy for him. I'm not saying that he deserves no compensation; more that the entire system is cocked up. I think the entire compensation strategy is ridiculous-- both the $1/yr crap and the bonuses. When you negotiate a $1, aren't you taking a chance that you have a bad year and get no bonus? That's what happened this year. His company had a terrible year, even if his division didn't.

If the company is hemorrhaging money and getting bailouts, it really shouldn't be paying bonuses. Bonuses should only be paid when the company makes a profit. If the company profits, but one division tanks, then the people in that division get no bonus while those in the other divisions do. If the company loses money, then no people get bonuses. Simple as that.

Note to self: Never agree to $1 salary from a failing company.

@mzs: How is jtheletter acting "entitled"? He's pointing out the crocodile tears: Waaah, I work 12-hour days and all I got was three-quarters of a mil! Lots of folks have worked and continue to work just as hard as this guy. They weren't lucky or talented enough to get scholarships to MIT. They work anywhere from 50 to 100 hours a week and still go hungry if they have to pay for a car repair or, god forbid, take the kid to the doctor. They don't have the time or the leisure to sit in front of a computer debating the economic policies that keep them trapped in their situation, and they don't give a rip that someone with a multimillion-dollar mansion in Westchester County or Connecticut resigned from a prominent job with a public letter of self-martyrdom. Jake will land on his feet; millions of others are in never-ending free-fall. Jake had the opportunity to take a conscious risk; most others don't get that opportunity. Jake's personal "American dream" will continue one way or another; many others will continue to live the nightmare.

The entitlement mentality belongs to DeSantis. Note a few things from his letter: 1) he was capable of living for a year on a $1 salary 2) he accepted this $1 salary in exchange for a "bonus" later 3) even after giving away $742K he will still be financially ok, and 4) despite items 1 and 3 he feels cheated because he didn't cause the companies problems (directly) and feels he shouldn't be punished.

Well as to #1, how many people could honestly get by for the next year on a $1 salary? Pretty much only the already-wealthy, so that means he didn't need the money, yet he still took the risk of working a year on deferred payment. Point #3 strengthens the argument he didn't need the salary since he's still able to just donate his $742K compensation for the year. Additionally there's ZERO chance that $1 salary was his entire compensation package. This is an exec VP we're talking about so he probably has 100% coverage health care, most likely has a company car, probably has fitness center access and other perks through the office. His health care package alone is likely worth more than the average worker earns in a year, so for him to claim any moral superiority for taking a $1 salary is already a joke. Additionally I'm sure this package included some sort of stock award as well, which while reduced in value, still has value and still may increase.

And as for #2 above, this is yet another example of the financial gambling that these executives take. The deferred salary option probably meant that he would receive more compensation for deferring than if he accepted a steady salary at a lower total value, this is pretty standard. It's a risk-reward tradeoff. And now, just like the other officers of his company, that bet went sour and it's somehow not his fault. If he felt the reward wasn't worth the risk he shouldn't have made that bet.

And to cap it all off he's whining about how other officers (at his level) caused the problem so why should he be held accountable. Well, the American taxpayers just had to fund so much money to his company and others like it that it's pretty much guaranteed to cause massive inflation. That's right, these companies screwed the pooch so badly that they have devalued the dollar (lots of things devalue the dollar but AIG is arguably a significant contributor to this problem lately). They have literally caused the destruction of wealth of everyone who holds dollars worldwide, including 300 million US citizens who have even less to do with the AIG executives than he does. How many millions of people have lost significant portions of their savings, and will have the remainder eroded by double-digit inflation? And how many of those people are truly prepared to forego having those savings? Those people weren't responsible either and they can't afford those losses, whereas this guy can take a million dollar loss and not even feel it. And he wants us to be sorry for him? Basically everyone in the world has taken a major hit because of this yet he thinks he shouldn't have to suffer with the rest of us because he did his job. Plenty of people did their jobs diligently too and didn't even get the option to resign indignantly, they were simply laid off.

On a Venn Diagram of responsibility he is in the last tiny circle surrounding the people directly responsible, who are his peers at the company and with whom he had direct contact. And he wants it both ways: he's apparently such a brilliant exec that he deserves millions in compensation, however he's claiming he was not aware of the massive fraud being perpetrated by his peers. If he didn't know what was going on then he isn't skilled enough to deserve that level of compensation. And if he did know then he was complicit and therefore doesn't deserve anything for playing along with the fraudsters.

The system is distorted, it no longer functions according to sound principles and as such it causes these kinds of boom-bust periods that damage everything. The entitlement mentality of executives at these companies and their feeling they "deserve" more money than 10 people make in a lifetime is a symptom of this distortion. That doesn't mean we should keep our mouths shut because we didn't try to jump on the gravy train ourselves, it means that we ought to reign in the abuse that leads to these kinds of collapses that harm everyone.

Barings Bank (1762 to 1995) was the oldest merchant bank in London[1] until its collapse in 1995 after one of the bank's employees, its head derivatives trader, Nick Leeson, lost £827 million ($1.4 billion) speculating-primarily on futures contracts.

I'm not arguing that no bonus = all of us now fine, though--just pointing out that all these events do actually have effects on people off of Wall Street, too.

I think it's starting to be clear that the punitive aspect is counterproductive, but he is--was--still working for a company that ain't got money. When the company (or state) ain't got money, people who worked profitably aren't exempted from the cuts. It's not fair, but there's no fair option left out there.

Yes, "forced". Touche.

And I'm guessing that the wheel-rims companies also forced them to adorn their cars, and the 60" flat-screen-tv companies forced them to max out their credit cards?

(I'm not trying to lay the blame at the feet of _everyone_ in foreclosure. Just the lot of them that signed paperwork they didn't understand).

@I_am_Awesome:

He took a gamble by accepting a salary of $1... that was his doing - nobody forced him to.

He now has his $750k "bonus" and is donating it to charity. Why exactly should I feel sorry for him again? Because he has been asked to give the money back? Because the public is outraged that a company which required $150 Billion of public funds just to stay afloat is still of the mindset that employees are worth millions per year in compensation?

First of all, this guy made his letter public and is seeking sympathy. Congratulations - it appears to be working, but since we only have his side of the story we don't really know the specifics behind the reason he chose to take $1 for a salary. We don't know if he really has a reason to wash his hands of AIG or if he was merely hanging around because he thought he was going to collect a fat check in the end.

Bottom line - it is his choice to return the money, but the utter definition of the term "bonus" suggests to me that AIG shouldn't be paying them in the first place. I sincerely doubt this guy is worth $1 Million as it is clear now he is running for the door, and I somehow doubt the company will suffer a great loss because of it.

He probably received millions in compensation for his 11 years with AIG, so maybe he should just consider himself lucky that he was able to ride the gravy train as long as he did.

He took a gamble - he lost. Time to get over it.

Agreed. I don't care if the guy "sounds entitled" or whether his bonus/deferred compensation was $1K or $1M. The fact is that he worked for a year for nothing (OK, for a Jr. Cheeseburger), and was contractually promised his money. He lived up to his end of the bargain.

He certainly isn't the first or last person to get screwed by his employer, but say the same thing happened to you, even if your pay/bonus was only $25,000 after taxes (FOR A WHOLE YEAR OF WORK) and they paid it to you and then demanded it back. Wouldn't you be pissed? Wouldn't you resign?

If you can honestly sit there and say, "No, I would give my hard-earned cash right back to my employer with a smile on my face for the good of the careers of American politicians and continue doing my job", then you'd be a sucker.

The bottom line is that this guy was promised something, and he actually helped AIG while he was there. We may be bailing out the company as a whole, but his performance at his job had already paid for his own "bonus". (Assuming he's not lying in his letter, of course).

Aside from AIG and other companies who begged for and received massive amounts of taxpayer assistance after virtually breaking our economy, I am concerned that people are becoming too lackadaisical about assuming the government can abrogate private contract or property rights. Our Constitution protects us all from that type of government, unless we neglect to enforce our rights.

[roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com]

I feel sorry for the guy. If you work in Corporate America you have to feel sorry for the guy. It seems a lot of the anger here is based off the fact that this guys bonus is so large. We want to be mad at him because his company sucks but hell... it sounds like his group was one of the shining lights in the company. But because of some idiots making bad decisions, The whole company suffers annnnnnnnnnnd a hard working guy like this has to work for $1.

I would have told AIG to shove it if I was doing my job and performing above expectations and because "Lucy" in accounting screwed up, I should give up my salary.

Please.

...and if they offered me a bonus to stay... and it was as large as this guys.... I would have stayed. I personally think it's unconstitutional for them to release the salaries and info on people who received bonuses. I'd lawyer up with my bonus...

I don't understand these people that say, they didn't go bankrupt so contracts can't be changed. They were otherwise bankrupt and instead of filing Chapter 11, the Gov't stepped in and loaned a bunch of money. How is it that something new or at the very least uncommon is being treated like it has to play by the same old rules?

AIG was bankrupt for all intents and purposes, so why should anyone get a bonus? Regular salary, oh hell yes, they do deserve every penny. If you come to work, do your job to a level of competence which doesn't warrant firing you, then you certainly are due a paycheck. Just not a bonus if your company is essentially bankrupt; bonuses are for profitable companies and those people who make the bonus possible through their actions, when feasible.

@JeanStork: "Because Obama has stated that he will charge 90% tax on those bonuses... "

BUZZ! Wrong answer. Obama doesn't support that idiotic tax and from what I hear neither does the Senate, so it won't happen.

Let me guess... you heard it was Obama's fault on Fox News?

The whole point is that the bonuses weren't bonuses for performance. They were for staying for the entire year.

They guy who wrote the letter worked for a different part of AIG, one that was profitable. Given his background and past performance, he could easily have moved to another company. He was asked to move over to the CDS group to wind down an operation that clearly had no future. I don't think it's unreasonable for him to want to be compensated for that.

As far as "if AIG wasn't bailed out, he would have gotten $0". That assumes that the profitable division he worked for wouldn't have been sold off and kept him. But he also would have gotten another job. Instead, he worked for a year, and got a dollar instead of nothing. I think that's worse than getting nothing and not working.

Feel bad? Why!

This is just 1 in a 1,000,000.00 story of the suffering going on these days. He seems to have done better than others though.

If you are going to feel bad, feel bad for all of us.

We will all be trying to recover from this mess created at the hands of a few privileged individuals who took the money and are long gone.

@I_am_Awesome: People knew what they were reacting to. They were reacting to massive amounts of greed. Boo hoo you made $1 for the year. You survived, now you have a new job. sucks for him.

So if I can't get a raise for doing a good job even though my entire company made money, why the hell should I feel any sympathy for him. I don't care if his group made $100 million when his company lost $61 billion. That $100 million is less than the bonuses they were trying to pay out.

So, I'm sorry for him, the way I'm sorry for anyone whose risky decision turns out wrong, but I don't feel what happened is an injustice: that's the way risks work.

@Snarkysnake: HEY EVERYBODY, LOOK!

His contract was not violated. He was (or will be) paid his money! No laws were broken!

All that this hack is upset over is that:
A)the CEO didn't show a backbone
B)the CEO asked them to give the money back after paying him $1.
C)he will be taxed 90%

Further, the narrow tax ONLY applies to people who took money in a bail out given out this past year and who made millions in bonus money on it. I'd love to see that narrow definition bite me in the ass later on.

Third, who's the guy going to sue if the company had no money to fulfill his contract? If the company doesn't exist, how are they going to hold up their end of the deal? The guy would be out of luck in terms of AIG and likely heading up a division at another bank making at least as much money.

I haven't learned about bonuses yet, but guaranteed payments (payments outside of your salary) do not have FICA taken out. I assume these "bonuses" are guaranteed payments. At least that's how it works in partnerships.

the problem is, "rogue division" or not, virtually everyone is seeing the effects of this. you know it's bad when even the cop unions are making concessions to ensure job security for their members.

unfortunately for him, even $750k net (which is probably 1/10th of what he made during the glory days) is still too rich for the average joe's blood. & since these guys were rewarded so heavily when the times were good, why shouldn't there be reciprocity when the times are bad?

so, foo to you, jake. enjoy your early retirement in the caymans while i pound pavement for a minimum wage job despite my education & qualifications.

i should've gone to business school....

Life is not fair.

-with kindest regards
Reality

10% of $742,006.40 is nothing to sneeze at (and that's after taxes).
He's honest but wants us to feel as sorry for him as he does for himself.
I wish I could get away with refusing my pay: as Jake said:
"Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn't disagree."
I would definately argue that.
@artki:

I don't remember anyone on Wall Street, or anyplace else for that matter, whining about the sacred-ness of contracts. I don't remember anyone on Wall Street protesting that these guys on the line had done their welding jobs right and the company's collapse wasn't their fault (In fact, there were a lot of lies told about $70 an hour salaries). I don't remember anyone else outraged that members of Congress would dare demand innocent workers who did their jobs right take a pay cut before their company got a taxpayer-financed bailout.

Those guys were infinitely less culpable for their companies' current problems than this guy and his company was. And unlike him, they lacked a spectacular personal wealth cushion of 11 years of massive salaries in the years leading up to their company's demise.

Seriously, I'm supposed to feel sorry for a guy who can afford to shell out three-quarters of a million dollars in a fit of pique? Are you KIDDING me?

This guy got a raw deal, but he's simply NOT a victim. He's NOT suffering. He got filthy rich in this system. It's a little much for him to whine that the manifestly unfair and unjust system that made him so obscenely rich is occasionally unfair to him.

If he wants to make a difference, maybe he should use this insight about how lousy it feels to get screwed for playing by the rules, and do something to make this system more fair for everyone.

Somehow, I doubt he will.

His fault for accepting a $1 salary. Most people would call that CHARITY.

If this is the case and some/all the "bonus'" were actually SALARY then WHY did AIG not say that instead of "keeping our talented individuals from going to foreign banks"

Corporate officers, Senior Management etc, what we commonly called Executives, take risks and are rewarded for those risks. They are also penalized for those risks.

When my company (a family firm) does well, I do well. When the company does extremely well, I do extremely well. When the firm does not do well, I am one of the lowest paid employees in the firm. If the company does extremely poor, I AM the lowest paid employee in the firm. Such is life. Risk and rewards.

Working for $1 and hoping to partake in big rewards is common business practice. Risk versus reward.

To the OP: Man Up and return the $.

as an aside his letter is sickening in that it shows what happened at AIG ("it wasn't me, it was him") everyone wants to blame the next guy. someone needs to take responsibility. clearly they do not want to volunteer it, so if the tax payers need to take back the bonus to get someone to start taking responsibility than so be it.

For employees that already get taxed at the roughly 35% (soon to be 39%) rate for their normal, higher than average pay, the percentage of taxes on their bonus would be the same. This is obviously not true in this case if his salary were $1.

Most peoples bonuses are higher than what they receive on a monthly basis and so will it will be taxed as though that were their normal monthly salary. Sometimes that's a higher tax bracket.

"Bonus" was a misnomer in this case. I don't think most people would agree to work for $1 salary with no other compensation -- he agreed to a $1 salary only because of a guaranteed bonus. Even if he's already rich, that doesn't mean he's going to donate his time to some corporation for nothing.

@I_am_Awesome: If my company paid me $742,006.40 for five years then said, this next year is going to be tough but if we get through it and you accept no pay for one year I'll pay you $742,006.40 next year and most years thereafter I would gladly work for them.

Hell, at my current pay it would take me about 15 years to earn $742,006.40. I'd be willing to work a year for free if you paid me that amount for even one year prior.

Someone powerless to stop the train wreck (either because they worked in a different area or lacked executive authority) shouldn't be responsible, in my book. Opinions may differ, cheerfully, but that's how I feel. :)

Quite honestly, I'm more mad at the American public for relying on credit to the extent that they had 0 net assets to back it up. This is not to say that I am not angry over the lack of controls at AIG that allowed them to amass such a huge exposure to a small set of highly correlated risks.

The point in my response was that unless (1) you were given $750K and then blackmailed by thew AG and the public into giving it back, and (2) you agreed in good faith to work for the contractual promise of future payment only to have it taken away by the people that promised it to you, and (3) you were being threatened with physical harm just because your business card says AIG on it instead of McDonalds then it is c=kind of silly to say "now you know how the public feels". I would argue that the entire AIG bailout will cost you individually a lot less than 1 year's interest on his $750,000. As for the bailout money. Everyone seems to forget that AIG is in the insurance business. If they were unable to make good on the policies that have insured or re-insured, the effects to Joe and Jane main street American would be far more dramatic and a lot more tangible. People also forget that this bailout money is meant to allow the banks to continue being in the business of lending to companies and individuals. Letting them fail would create a crisis in confidence that would pretty much insure that no foreign government would ever lend us the money to finance our redicuous deficit.

@jtheletter: This. At the heart of this whole mess is the massive disparity in how much people get compensated for doing certain things, and how neccessary those things actually are. Yes, we need financial services. But not more than we need to eat, so why don't the people who harvest crops make more than $15,000 / year for their 10-14 hour days?

FAIL. You are wrong. Bonuses have the same impact on tax liability as salary and hourly wages.

@joe18521:
FAIL. His agreement was to work for an annual salary of $1 AND receive a bonus if he stayed for a certain amount of time. Why do you want to hold him to one part of his contract and not the other?

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected:
Common misconception. They're typically withheld at a higher rate, but as far as the IRS is concerned it's the same as salary.

@snowburnt:
He was shafted by knee-jerk reactions by people who know nothing about what they're reacting to (see: typical Consumerist commenter)

@Dianora:
I don't see how your income has any bearing on whether or not he deserves his bonus. Whether he needed it or not has no bearing on whether he deserved it. That you would bring it up is indicative of class warfare.

@mac-phisto: Is your company as large as AIG? The average American thinks that AIG on a whole is responsible for this mess, when it was just one rogue division.

@Trai_Dep: No, it should apply to the whole company. The company that this man worked at was a huge reason why we are in this recession. This company burned through over 65 billion dollars in a quarter. Who cares what division he works for, the company got bailed out. Sure, it sucks that they told him he'd have his money, but he honestly shouldn't have been so daft as to think that there wouldn't be (I'm going to use your term here) Unforseen consequences for him to take something termed a "bonus" from tax payer money.

Shame on you for cowing to such a flawed emotional plea.

@bilups: A) Yes they can. B) They didn't, he still got his pound of flesh

As this letter points out, a company is going to put it's own interests ahead of individual employees. Why should anyone be loyal to a company when it isn't going to be loyal to them?

But the point is, he (and you) should be mad at the people that ran the damn thing into the ground.They have presumably taken their "irreplaceable" skills to another firm and are still raking in the big $$$.
As for my personal cost,just like you,dear friend,it will be my share plus how ever many years interest until it is paid off...

The only reason you got any money at all is because we saved your frakking job.

I really do feel bad for him, but AIG is out of money. You bet and lost. Just because THEY promised they would pay you, doesn't mean they had the means to. They don;t without taxpayer money.

You're talking $50K salary for someone with $1.5 million yearly bonus in the contract.

@Snarkysnake

And how many tens of thousands of dollars has this AIG thing cost you personally? Or, how has this AIG thing threatened your physical safetly or future livelyhood. I'm pretty sure he does not feel the same thing as the public...

That said, there have been years that the company I worked for at the time didn't make much or any net profit, or didn't come near the goals set out for the company that also drive the bonus plan. In those cases, the group-performance and company-performance portions of bonuses are zeroed out. Usually for "us peons" (non-executive professionals in my case) if the company posts a loss, even the personal-performance part of the bonus is zero, though I'm paid a decent salary as my base, rather than $1. (Oh, and my bonus has never been as much as half my base, nothing like the Wall Street numbers.)

I know nothing of John Stewart's finances, but considering what he's likely to be paid for a successful national show and where he lives, I'd guess he had (and lost) enough skin in the game to have more right to be pissed off about the situation than I have, though I probably lost a higher percentage of money I'll actually need for retirement than he did.

@BigFoot_Pete:

I agree with you that the attempted voiding (he still got his money did he not?) of his contract is wrong if the state laws do not allow such things.

However, my hang up is the fact that if his company had come to the end that it should have (no bailout means bankrupcy which likely means no payroll paid ala when Bennigan's Restaurants closed its doors in 2008).

PR stunt, maybe. But the person, the circumstances, and this resignation letter are real. I first heard about this letter from a friend who knows this guy.

as "heartfelt" as this letter tries to be, it reeks with entitlement & arrogance. so what if his division wasn't responsible? my company's been profitable, didn't invest in any of these products & i had to take a pay/hour/benefit cut triple-whammy. our institution has to take a write-down even though we've never had a single investment in MBS or CDS. still, both our profitability & liquidity are going to be directly impacted by indirect associations.

so, suck it up. this is the financial industry today. enjoy the ride or get off the f-ing train.

They get many more forms of compensation that can be very large, including bonuses. In the current corporate climate, the CXOs and senior management have little or no stake of the company, so their money isn't at stake. They simply don't care - if something goes wrong, then it's a problem for someone else.

That's why I think that corporate compensation should be directly linked to company performance. Then you would see a change in attitude to making the company do very well. What we're seeing here is just like in the 80's, when companies were going to shit while their CEOs were making millions in bonuses. Just sickening.

As for contracts being so sacrosanct that it is not humanly possible to renegotiate them, tell that to the United Auto Workers.

I appreciate that Mr. AIG Executive wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but give me a flippin' break. Where would his precious bonus be if not for the $160+ billion the US government has pumped into the company? He would get nothing and like it, that's where it would be!

As for the "waaah, it's not my fault" crap, give me another break. If my boss or the group down the hall drives the company into the ground do you think it matters one bit whether or not I came to work every day and kept my nose to the grindstone? Hell no, we all lose our jobs whether it was our fault or not.

Even though they may not be directly affected people are pissed off about this stuff because a certain segment of society seems to play by the rule of Heads I win, tails you lose. We are led to believe that these financial geniuses are paid incredible sums of money because they are so smart, hardworking, and perform incredibly well. Yet, it doesn't seem to matter whether they book a $100million profit or a $64billion loss: they get filthy fucking rich either way.

Likewise, the arrogance and sense of entitlement these jackholes exhibit is similarly maddening. We've recently seen that contracts aren't sacred in Detroit, why should they be on Wall Street? If my tax dollars go to bail out anyone I would rather they go to the guy on an assembly line who actually makes something of value instead of a rentier capitalist who figured out an ingenius way to suck $100million in profit from the wealth created by other people.

Contracts are not sacred. The courts have heard plenty of cases where contracts have been breached. And they do not always uphold the contracts as written. Circumstances can and do change, and sometimes a company is not longen able to fulfill their end of of the deal.

I think, as a society we would be better off if the highest paid jobs, drawing the most talented people, actually added value to something. Do we really want the next Edison to start a hedge fund?

I'd be a lot more impressed if I found out about this by accident. Jakey just wants to get some joan of arc action going. Jake my friend, you knew all to well the shenanegans that were going on around you that resulted in financial ruin for thousands upon thousands of "normal" people like me whose only "bonus" year after year was having a job. Period.

So boohoohoo & and double waaaaaaaaa for you giving your 3/4 of a MILLION DOLLAR "bonus" to charity.

Now I'm pissed. Can you tell?

Just because he makes more money than an auto line worker, we have to feel sorry for him? Who the fuck cares about commodity trading? Does trading anything add value to it?

I think the arguments would be significantly different if we were talking about modifying legacy contracts or laying off the warehouse workers because sales had a bad year. Hell, plenty of blue-collar workers lost their jobs in the last 10-15 years because their company was SUCCEEDING and outsourced or relocated in search of higher profits.

Shit happens to rich people too.

I agree with you that a contract is fundamental to the rule of law. Thats what makes the U.S. different from, say...Zimbabwe.

But this points up the problem with the doctrine of "too big to fail". AIG is not really public , not really private. The answer is that this would have been fine inside a bankruptcy filing (contracts get torn up all the time in BK court). AIG should have been made to bankrupt to tear up all of its contracts (including the ones that bailed out idiot investment banks overseas).
And the narrow tax that was passed to punish these people will fuck everyone else,if enacted. Remember,the AMT was aimed at fewer people in 1969 and look at how it drives tax policy today...

It also has to do with benefits. Some employees are considered highly-compensated or key employees by the IRS if they make over a certain amount. You have to structure your benefits to include everyone. If the formulas included ridiculously highly salaried employees, the company would have to pay a lot more. Paying bonuses instead of salary enables the company to offer nice benefits to executives and stiff the peons.

@discordance: I think it will too because he's basically admitting the whole $1 salary thing was just for show.

I'm just as angry at companies like AIG who made short sighted investments that got them quick sums of cash at the expense of the global economy. However, not all the people who work for AIG are responsible, and sometimes in order to fix a problem, things have to be done that seem wrong on the surface.

Personally, I'm frightened of this over emotional populism. It leads to decisions that are even more short sighted than the ones companies like AIG made. I'm afraid it's just going to cause even more damage.

We need to approach the issue calmly and rationally. Sure, with a sense of urgency. But we've gotten ourselves into a frenzy, and we're just going to end up throwing the baby, dog, cat, and mother out with the bath water.

Props to Mr. DeSantis: he's changed my mind in this regard.

Although, if they could craft a law that targeted just those casino riverboat acting brokers, I'm all for it.

@Terraxsu: I read it as he took the $1 salary wit the promise of the bonus, or whatever you want to call it.

I agree with his disappointment/anger. The reason he isn't getting the money isn't because of AIGs losses, he's not getting the money because a bunch of politicians who should have noticed this when they bailed out AIG decided to grandstand so nobody would realize how much Congress bungled this up.

The issue isn't with this guy not taking responsibility, its with the politicians not taking responsibility to acknowledge they messed up, and feel scapegoating these people will sweep their mistakes under the rug.

Ditto.

How does a financial services guy know that the derivatives trader is receiving funds in a deceptive manner?

I'm with balthisar on this one.

This guy has my sympathy. Just because Mr. Discordance (aka Creepy McCreeperson) doesn't have the ability to earnthe same level of income doesn't mean he has to last out and wish ill upon others.

@churnd: Actually, they paid him. no breach of contract on AIG's behalf.

This company will fold as a result of this witch hunt and take all of the bailout money with it.

@SadSam: I can feel for the guy, but at the same time, he had it coming and he should have seen it coming. Now he's part of the ever growing brotherhood of people screwed by AIG.

his letter didn't compell me to feel bad about being part of the angry populous over this either.

I'm actually kind of angry at the guy for doing it publicly. Makes him come off as an insulated whiny prick: I can afford to live off $1 and I can afford to give away 700k, you guys suck because I did my job good and sacrificed and you couldn't pay me. Please, the company lost 100s of billions of dollars. Grow up.

Tom DeLay voted down regulation of derivatives back in 2003. So who's really looking out for the best interest of the country? Our government? HA! They're just as short-sighted as these financial companies when it comes to looking to cover their assed for the next quarter or election cycle.

EVERYONE had their hand in the honey pot. It was just the financial industry that got caught. I just wish our politicians would just point the fingers at themselves for underfunding the SEC and voting down regulations of this derivatives market.

The problem I see with your analogy is that bodily injury was a known risk for military personnel, and part of their contract of service, when they enlisted. While I mean no disrespect to their service, but they knew going in that injury was highly possible.

AIG has effectively voided the contract they had with Jake. This not only screws him out of the money (which admittedly sounds like a non-issue for this guy thus far), but more importantly didn't allow him to shop his employment services to other companies and keep his reputation in-tact.

@mariospants: You realize that Liddy has only been with AIG since September of 08, right? How about blaming his predecessor who ran for the hills when the going got tough?

@I_am_Awesome: I read it and voted "No, his compnay can't afford bonuses, period" because his company lost hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, and what, 65 Billion in just a quarter? what is your definition of not having money?

Sucks that he was shafted by his company, I'd like to say "now he knows how the rest of us feel" except that I'm sure he's pretty well taken care of and won't have trouble finding a job.

It's messed up, and i feel bad for the guy since his department had nothing to do with the CDS's... But at the same time his CEO should have stood by him no matter what instead of kneeling down to Obama and being a puppet...

@bilups: A) I guarantee they could have if they wanted to, there's enough former lawyers up there they could have worked a way around it. B) Nobody broke his contract, he's just a whiny millionaire who was shafted. Now he knows what it's like for the rest of us outside the AIG bubble!

As much as I don't really feel that sorry for the guy, nor am I really a fan of people trotting out look I wen to [prestigious university]!, there is no evidence that he "took" his degree and "did not pay for it." People get financial aid - loans, grants, etc..

Also, MIT is - get this - a pretty comprehensive educational institution, offering degrees in more than just comp sci and enjo-neer-ing (no, I didn't nor do I attend or work there).

But assumptions are fun!

While he is right that the ones who tanked it got out before hand, and he got burned for his bonus, I hope that the janitor cleaning his office also was able to participate in a profit bonus plan that he had to give back.

Oh the "little" people never got bonuses like this- then sorry but you need to give it back.

And the gov't needs to go after the nimrods who got the company/economy to this level...

@GearheadGeek:

Fuck Jon Stewart, and his self-righteous hide-and-seek "we're just a comedy show" nonsense.

But to your point, I agree to a certain extent - the long-term value of transactions traders make should play into bonuses. There are a class of employees this applies to.

For example: In the hedge world, where I'm from, you only get paid if you're at or above the "high water mark." AIG is obviously very far from that. What was excess compensation in 2003-2006 due to irresponsible risk-taking is now being realized as no-or-low incomes at companies that made bad bets on credit.

But Jake explicitly states that he was not part of the credit-default market team at that point in his career, and that's legitimately possible. In that case, how is the at-large performance of the firm relevant? His INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE would be handsomely rewarded at another bank without a few trillion in soured credit insurance. Bailout money is available to compensate him, and it is in the interest of taxpayers to pay talent to stay both to mitigate losses and increase the marketability of business units to be sold in AIG's ongoing unwinding. So you should pay the man.

Unless he's lying and he was one of the CDS guys in 2006. If so, feel free to string him up.

I can see where this guy has a good point, but frankly I doubt that the majority of the people who received these "bonuses" also made a $1 salary.

Besides, if the feds hadn't stepped in, they wouldn't have received the money anyway.

Hard to call, but I'm going to side with blaming Liddy, and not Mr. DeSantis or the feds.

@kd420: A "bonus" is by definition an extra. Everyone should know that you should negotiate your salary first, not your bonus and you should never budget for your bonus. Congrats to him for only taking $1. Good for him for being successful at what he did. If your ship is sinking, you should've taken a salary cut and not an excessive bonus as your compensation.

Sucks what happened to him, but I don't see him living in a tent village.

Watch The Reader and tell me Kate Winslet's character was innocent.

@BrazDane: Of course its a PR stunt, but so is Cuomo and Congress' outrage.

Mr. DeSantis was part of a company that helped destroy the US economy. Mr. DeSantis was part of a company that may very well have destroyed the hope of the "American dream". A dream he admits he fulfilled.

So, I guess in Mr. DeSantis' eyes it's OK that so many other people who had absolutely nothing to do with AIG, who never earned a six figure "bonus", who may have never heard of AIG until recently, should suffer (and wait on his "charity") while he should remain comfortable (his family is "unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust" - his words) because he, while being a part of AIG, had nothing to do with this mess?

It's hard to feel sorry for someone who will feel, if anything, just humiliation while so many are losing everything.

Mr. Desantis should take that quarter-of-a-million dollars and use it to promote corporate openess and responsibility so a mess like this won't happen again.

Anyways, for effective purposes, his bonus IS his salary. Its a bit disingenuous to say that he gave up his pay for ethical reasons when he would have been rolling in cash whether he was paid or not.

@joe18521: he doesn't need your motherf$%king sympathy. he needs his f@#king legal contract to be honored by the people who are supposed to uphold the constitution. He doesn't need to be worrying about a threat from the NY AG to make his name public so that an idiot mob can try to burn down his house.

Whether the contract is good or not is beside the point.

A person of power within a business should be prepared to accept responsibility for the actions of that business. All I see here is another person passing the buck.

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: Figures. That's why I'm trying to find a private industry job before I completely lose my soul.

Add to that how he outlines how he has worked for just $1 a year for the pat year, and how he is now going to donate his entire bonus (which he thinks is just his rightful pay), to charity. Well, what was his pay during those times when all this was being created - the last 5 - 10 years?

I call PR stunt on this one!
How did the NYTimes even get hold of this? - No mention in the original article! Do they believe everything they get in the mail?

This is exactly the kind of letter AIG would like to see appear in the press. It is supposedly written by an insider, who was deeply wronged - it hints that everyone there is really innocent, gives Liddy a little bit of criticism - but only for not securing the already filthy-rich executives their massive bonuses (sorry, rightful pay), quick little acknowledgment that they were overpaid (but not how much they were paid), shows how they are people with degrees from places like MIT, which people normally respect, and finally, adds the 'atonement' (donation) part - even thought "none of it is his fault"!

Why would a normally well-paid executive with plenty of future career opportunities in other companies even bother to write this to the EVP? I am sure he would not want to hurt his chances of employment with another company by appearing to be disloyal to his current bosses. In other words, I am not so sure that all this can be trusted. Sure, the guy might exist - but what is his 'bonus' for putting his name at the bottom of this obviously very carefully crafted letter.

Again, it completely eschews any mention of blame on AIG for the current situation - except to point out that those few that caused it are already gone. Well, if he knows who caused it, let's hear it so they can be charged! that would be so simple - it is really just the fault of a few greedy guys!

Honestly - this is just a PR stunt!

Well most of the guys that ruined the economy and reaped the benefits have already left the company and got away scotch free.

Me -- frustrated at not getting $800 in comensation AGAIN from my employer (a public school system that rather than give yearly raises, ties all raises in with local sales tax #s... economy down? So's my pay)

frustrated that my Altzheimer's-riddled grandmother's AIG nest egg is SNAFU'd

frustrated that my Parkinson's-riddled father's ESOP plan fell south with the rest of the market, his perfect credit -- which was to pay for one last trip to Tennessee before he gets to ill to travel -- has been cut to 1/10th of it's previous availability, and that last trip is no longer possible

frustrated that my wife and I (both college-educated professionals) have lost two homes since 2000, are 60 days behind our current mortgage -- mostly due to a catostrophic illness that had me sidelined for two years, and still haunts me

frustrated that last night I has to look my kids in the eye and told them our Summer trip had been cancelled, because of the perfect storm of a recent surgery (illness rearing it's head again), a big-time credit slash by the bank, and the general economy

Mr. Desantis, I promise to say a prayer for you tonight for what the economy has done to you, if in turn, you say one for me and my situation

@KyleOrton: I'm pretty sure DeSantis read "Atlas Shrugged".

@joeblevins: I also read that they kill puppies in their spare time, while barbequing baby gorillas in the back yard, using flaming $100 bills instead of charcoal.

Missing a few words there: "There are many incredibly smart people that come from disadvantaged backgrounds who need a leg up to compete."

I've got no sympathy for someone decrying the public's outrage over a failed company using public tax dollars to hand out bonuses to people who could be standing in an unemployment line instead of sitting behind a desk whining about how the company's failure isn't their fault.

What a great letter from the PR hacks at AIG.
11 years of service and his after taxes pay $750k(before taxes over a million dollars)
Is this another case of I am going to take my ball and go home if you don't want to play by my rules?

So he claims that he was not part of the company that caused the melt down of AIG. Sorry Buddy if you make over a million dollars a year you knew what was going on inside AIG. You were part of the inner circle.

You were in the meetings, you had to see the memos, you claim you are a bright M.I.T. alumni but this stink is not on you? you got a bonus year after year when the cheats made a huge profit. Sorry for you NOT!!!!

In this particular case, the bonus (apparently his entire monetary compensation for the year) was less than $750k. It's still a princely sum, and his letter suggests he had made a great deal of money in the boom years at AIG. It's unfortunate that he was tarred with the same brush as the former employees reportedly being paid bonuses in excess of $4M after they'd already left the company.

If executives want to be handsomely rewarded commensurate with the "marketable merit of their accomplishments" they must be willing to take the bad with the good and make little or nothing (at least in the way of bonuses above salary) when their companies lose money. In DeSantis' case, if his area of responsibility brings a profit within its operation, perhaps he should have demanded a portion of his bonus be based on that, and the remainder on the performance of the company as a whole. This is not an uncommon structure, it's the way my (much more modest!) bonus plan is structured.

If you're going to talk about "burning down the house" you should note that the metaphor has been used before you, and I think John Stewart's use of it was more appropriate.

@snowburnt: still doesn't mean that congress can break his contract.

@xay: It is because you work for the government :)
I work for a defense contractor and have constant interaction with the government. I'm amazed at how quickly government workers resort to backstabbing their coworkers.

How short sighted of a response, donovanr. I agree with tgpt, do you not want smart people filling the ranks of American companies? There are many incredibly smart people come from disadvantaged backgrounds that need a leg up to compete.

Frankly, your assertion that traders were pushing "little pieces of paper around" shows your complete lack of understanding of the complexity of swaps and the derivative markets.

I'm sorry, what? AFTER TAXES you believe that your job function is worth over 15 times the median salary? (I think median US salary is in the mid $40K range)

Look, there's specialized knowledge, and then there's friggin graft, greed, and waste. I'm an engineer, I hold an advanced degree and am pursuing another. I also work 10,12,14 hour days, and yes, I make more than the median salary, however it's more like 1.5x.

THIS is the problem with the system. His time is not worth 15x (more than 15x actually since the $742K is AFTER taxes) than most other people. Yeah, yeah, there's many things that temper that gross blanket statement but think of it this way. What this guy is saying is that 10 years of his work is worth one and a half centuries worth of a median income bringer. NO EFFIN WAY. He's not inventing things, he's not bettering humanity. He's MANAGING A FINANCIAL OFFICE. I just cannot accept that a decade of his contributions are worth more than a century of the average person's.

MANY MANY people work 10-14 hour days, and lots of those are high-knowledge specialties, and just about every single job is high stress. Nothing about his job function could possibly justify paying him more in a year than most will make 20 years.

These people think that because they handle huge financial transactions that some how their work value is proportional to those amounts. You brought in 100 million to you unit? Great! You couldn't have gotten a lick of it done without the army of staff behind you that take home that median level of pay. You deserve good compensation, but not so much compensation that your heirs will have trouble spending it all.

I know I worked *my* ass off last year hoping for a bonus and pfffft.

@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: Maybe it's because I work for the government, but I am usually surprised when management stands up for the employees. Especially in the face of a legislative hearing. It's easy to throw your employees under the bus and it happens all the time.

The difference between this guy and your average plumber is that the plumber gets paid immediately after performing a service... not a year after. Let's assume the plumber took a lump sum payment at the end of the fiscal year and his company went bankrupt before the year ended and couldn't honor contracts. Do you think he would get paid? That's the risk he took by taking the job.

Bottom line is, without the bailout, the guy wouldn't have gotten his "bonus" anyway. The money should be used to stimulate the economy, not pay "bonuses" or salaries.

The derivatives guys most definitely had nothing whatsoever to do with the equity/commodity traders' activities and vice versa.

@xay: True. Still, his bigger complaint seemed to be that his management didn't stand up for the employees.

If I read everything correctly, It appears as though he agreed to work for a salary of $1 with the potential bonus coming at the end of the term for a more substantial amount. Doesn't that seem as though he opted for the risk of a low salary with the hopes of gaining a much larger bonus should the company do well?
This is similar to a waitress agreeing to $4 an hour plus tips. She is foregoing other employment opportunities that pay a lot more base per hour on the concept that hard work will net her tips to exceed those other opportunities. The restaurant owner might have assured her that she could easily make $xxx a night on tips, but if the restaurant begins to fail she should not be upset that they are not providing the income she expected.
Granted, its a stretch of an analogy but its also a stretch to think anyone at a failing company should be so extravagantly compensated for any work done. He does deserve a respectable salary for the work he's done, but millions doesnt seem reasonable. If it were any other company in the USA that went under financially, the company wouldnt be able to honor any payment contracts.

@metsarethe...: Surprisingly - or perhaps I am just wrong to be surprised - there are relatively few hysterical comments here. I think as a lot of people find out more about this they come to realize that they've been played just a little bit.

Besides, with that large of a bonus, he'd be in the highest possible tax bracket anyway.

@BuddyGuyMontag: They got in trouble because they called it a "bonus". Period.

The guy got shafted for agreeing to it. That sucks. If he was as good at his job as he claims, he probably should have seen it coming. That said I feel sorry for him.

I don't regret raining hatred on AIG for it's misuse of the term "bonus" nor for it's wasting of our money on said term.

@SergioDingo: Have you ever worked for a large corporation? There is no way to know what all the branches and divisions are up to, especially if you are focused on the performance of your division.

If the guy does good work, he'll be hired. Hopefully for a salary.

Now go read "Atlas Shrugged" and settle down.

@artki: Boo hoo for him. He was a fool to have agreed to this. He wouldn't have made that dollar from AIG if it wasn't bailed out this year.

Congrats to him for making his division consistantly successful. He made $100 million in profits, good job. +$100 million/year < -$65 Billion in a quarter. How could anyone expect a company to dole out something termed a "bonus" when they just burned down the house.

I feel for the guy. I don't regret and still feel like AIG shouldn't have given out those "bonuses"

Pete Smith, Nashua NH

@icy_one: "Every dollar that leaves the company should be line-itemed and approved or rejected by the US government in return for the bailout money."

Yes, because the US Government has been such a bastion of responsible money management. Personally, I feel like even the crooks that caused part of this mess from AIG would do a better job handling the US finances than our currently elected (or previously elected) officials.

That pendulum swings both ways. When things go bad, turning it from teamwork to finger pointing is shallow and unproductive.

If he wants to bask in the glory of AIG's success and the Financial Products division's good work, he's also gotta make sure that his wagon's also hitched to their mistakes. You can't pick and choose your wins when you're 'all in this together.'

@Oranges w/ Cheese: Bonuses are generally taxed at a higher rate than salary.

Sucks to be him- welcome to the body politic!

Why do you think he doesn't have to pay taxes on his bonus? You have to pay taxes on all income. He even specifically said, "On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes."

@themicah: I think by paying bonuses AIG can avoid paying payroll taxes.
/not a tax accountant

Please. You were a misguided fool to think that your "compensation" would fly. Congratulations on your division making $100 million a year, unfortunately your company lost $65 BILLION in a single quarter making it completely unrealist to think that a BONUS would be appropriate.

WHAAA! You PROMISED us we'd be compensated! Brother, if the company hadn't been bailed out by the federal government -- the American People -- you'd be getting $0 from AIG.

I admire your commitment and accomplishments but your resignation letter tugs at the heart (wallet) strings while providing a void of backing up logic to make me honestly feel like AIG was wrong to have given these bonuses or to feel bad that Congress is going to tax the hell out of the people taking the bonuses.

It sucks what happened to you. It sucks more what your company did to this country.

@LawyerontheDL:

The consequences of failure are far greater to taxpayers than the cost of bailouts. I've yet to see an articulate rebuttal to that simple truth.

While AIG should attempt to limit the liability to the public by reducing expenditures on compensation, there is a certain amount of money required to keep competent men in the company unwinding it. If that money is not spent, these traders will all walk. Jake is neither the first nor the last to do so. And trust me, these guys are not making high six figures to twiddle their thumbs.

The only difference here is he's getting taxed in a different tax year (2009 for the bonus, 2008 for the $1). One way or another, Uncle Sam gets his, he always does.

I hate to say it, but I feel for the guy. As an independent producer, I've had clients stiff me when it comes to pay a production bill. It sucks. The nice thing is I can write that off a business loss, this guy can't.

If a contract is written and signed, it should be fulfilled, and the gov't shouldn't be interfering. The entire "Government bailing people out thing" irks me to no end, but if lawmakers didn't have the foresight or knowledge to close up the loopholes before signing a bill, they shouldn't be retrofitting it. The ship has sailed, time to move on.

@icy_one: Congress allowed AIG to pay the bonuses, and only when people found out did they suddenly cry wolf. The wrong people are getting the blame.

If you want to see AIG pay us, the taxpayers, back FASTER then you would want to see people like this guy stick around long enough to right the ship. Threatening to rob them at gunpoint via ex-post facto taxation is not exactly an incentive.

Greatest. Resignation. Ever.

@churnd:

Hahaha. The government doesn't care so much for your silly contracts! They couldn't tear them up, so they passed a bill of attainder that won't clear Congress. Or, if it does, it won't clear Obama. And if it does, it won't clear the Supreme Court. But by then, hey, it'll be out of the news!

How the heck does taking money away from AIG change anything in your life? What, is the government then going to pay your mortgage and send you back to school with the extra? (Even if they would, then trust me - you don't want to sit through THAT process at the unemployment office...) Is it really worth some sort of sick satisfaction at seeing rich people pout - but be unaffected financially? We chose the officials that chose to give money away with no strings attached. We chose to do business with AIG without asking how their business is run. Take some responsibility. I wish the best of luck to Jake DeSantis.

Also: the dog that bites ANY hand in front of it gets put to sleep. The dog that learns to trust the workers at the no-kill shelter gets adopted into a good home. Personally, I plan on getting myself out of the shelter.

Hey, reply and preview are working!

Considering that tonight thousands of children in America will go to bed hungry, sleeping in tents, shelters or on sidewalks, I find it difficult to squeeze out a tear for someone at AIG who's so obviously wealthy.

For some people it is a matter of honor. Something that is in short supply in this country now days.

I, too, have trouble giving my sympathy to whiny millionaire AIG executives.

Sorry, I have no sympathy. You're not the first person to be talked into staying at a company with a dismal outlook with the promise of compensation down the line. You won't be the last.

While I think the bonus issue is somewhat overblown and that there's a lot of anger related to it, it's really not that the employees are being docked because they were bad, it's that the company was so broke that it needed to borrow money from us to stay alive, and thus can't afford to pay people as initially contracted. I get that Jake's unhappy about it, but so are all the other people who've gotten pay cuts, contract or no contract.

I was hoping that maybe folks here at the Consumerist would read this letter and see that these bonuses were not going to pencil-thin mustache evilbanker types, but instead to people who had invested 11 years of their lives in the company and tried to fix what caused the mess to begin with.

I don't understand who anyone can blame Mr. Desantis for trying to earn more than $1 for a years worth of 10-14 hour days trying to fix this mess.

And those who think that Congress and this administration had no input or control over these bonuses needs to watch this video again to see WHY this was the case.

@ToddMU03: I couldn't agree more. If I was asked to take a $1 salary, I'd hit the streets because a) I have bills to pay; and b) I'd suspect the company was up to something that wouldn't pay off in the end. Someone with his background and qualifications could have easily secured a position elsewhere.

If you find yourself being asked to 'trust' the collective decisions and behaviors of a large corporation, you've opened yourself up to a tremendous learning experience. In the same way that it is difficult for a mob to be held responsible for the harm of a single individual, it's difficult to hold a large corporation accountable for their actions towards a single individual.

Do you blame the ocean when the splash of a wave gets you wet while you stand on the shore, or do you learn a lesson and stand farther away, or seek to protect yourself?

It's a shame it's taken this person so long to learn this life lesson, but I'm overjoyed to see a fellow human being learn.

I'd like to know why AIG didn't just call them "delayed compensation payments" or something instead of bonuses, if this is true across the board. The key outrage was that these were BONUSES, paid on TOP of salaries.

What he's getting wasn't a "bonus" and shouldn't have been described as such. Now I'm wondering if the plan was "Get a bunch of these guys to work for dirt, and then make their compensation a source of outrage."

But every single goddamn one of them knew what was going on. They are all accessories, and should be dealt with like the criminals they are.

Unless he was physically forced to sign a contract to work for $1, it was his choice. Or am I missing something here?

Its a gimmick. If this is what they'd get yearly, then give it to them like the rest of us so they have to pay taxes on it too.

The $1 is a sympathetic "Look at me suffer" to which I reply "You poor poor baby" and then roll my eyes.

@artki: Stop calling your regular annual salary a bonus then.

bonus - Noun - something given, paid, or received above what is due or expected

If it isn't a bonus, call it deferred salary or something.

Yes and no. Certainly there are many people who worked or are working in financial services that had nothing to do with the subsequent collapse of the market and the major hit we all took to our investments and our tax payer wallet.

So do I feel bad that this particular guy's circumstances, based on the fact that (1) he can afford to work for a $1 for a year and (2) he can afford to donate $700,000 to charity I'm going to save my sympathy for others.

I'd like to know how much he earned in the last 10 years before I figure out whether or not to cry over his current misfortune, I'd also like to know how much stock he received and when he sold it. Maybe he deserved each and every dollar he earned over the last 10 years and I will feel sorry for him or maybe he, like many other financial sector workers, was highly overpaid and or over rewarded for short term gains.

Bottom line, I'd like to know more.

While I do feel for this guy getting the blame for what others did, I can't help but wonder why letters and press releases directed at AG Cuomo weren't released sooner. It isn't like this all happened overnight.

Mr. DeSantis now knows how we taxpayers feel after a small group of scoundrels fucked everything up for everyone and walked away scot free.Yes,it hurts. It hurts a lot. It instills bitterness and cynicism. This guy makes some valid points and a small part of me feels for him.
My question is simple. If he had known that some rogue gamblers were taking irresponsible risks that could ruin the company and the economy,would he have blown the whistle ? Would he have had the integrity to put his paycheck at risk to serve a greater good ?
The Wall Street code of ethics is simple : Grab everything you can and run before it hits the fan.

Doesn't matter if it's his fault or not.
Doesn't matter if he was "honoring his country" (wtf? what about the servicemen/women who can't afford homes now?).

I'm sure none of the Iraq/Afghanistan vets were expecting to get their legs blown off either. Doesn't mean they were let down.

Or to use the resignee's analogy:
If the plumber knows the homeowner is a con man and he knows the money he is to be paid with comes from a scam, then it doesn't matter who burned down the house. The money's still ill-gotten gains.

It seems to me that he'd expect us to get hurt, get hurt, get hurt and get hurt again by people in the financial sector then respond favorably to him just because 'oh baawwww I took a pay cut out of a sense of duty.'[*] We're like dogs, man. Beat us enough and we'll lash out and any hand that comes near our mouth.

[*]: I'd like to point out that his attempt at garnering sympathy is going to backfire when people realize that his getting a $1 salary means that either A) he received money from some other means, such as stock or B) the dude had so much money stockpiled that he could maintain his lifestyle for that year.

Every dollar that leaves the company should be line-itemed and approved or rejected by the US government in return for the bailout money.

Mr. DeSantis should have seen the writing on the wall and done a little bailout of his own. If he's half as successful as he implies, he'll land on his feet at another company that isn't in dire financial straits.

@P_Smith: But apparently not everyone who worked for this particular division of the company "caused the mess." The problem is how to sort out the mess-makers from the non-mess-makers.

Make the bastards live up to their dollar-a-year contract. They caused the mess, they can clean it up.

And if they quit or fail to perform, charge them with fraud and breach of contract. Make them repay their wages (one couldn't call them "earnings").

If I were to set up a scholarship tomorrow I would design it as a loan(w. 20% interest) that only comes due if you work for government or finance.

He worked for $1, he more than deserves that bonus.

The sad fact is that most Americans want to see someone, ANYONE get punished for this mess, even if they are not responsible. These "bonus" takers are scapegoats.

Good luck at Deutsche Bank, Jake. Or at any one of the thousands of other financial institutions eager for your contributions - and unmoved by the fickle, irresponsible passions of the body politic. You delivered a well-reasonsed, responsible analysis of your situation and arrived at what I believe is the correct conclusion.

If the taxpayers want to cut off their noses to spite their faces, fine. If they want to burn down the house they built with their own money, let them. Don't stick around and let them burn you too. It isn't worth it, and men of your qualifications deserve a society constructed on the marketable merit of their accomplishments, not the derision of bitter armchair CEO's and their opportunist allies in the Federal Government. Fuck 'em.

Wait, everything we have seen from the press indicates all of these guys are dirtbags and forced poor people to get bad mortages. So this has to be a lie.

The guy sadly has a point.

His job was to dismantle FP. The more I read into this, Cuomo may have overreacted.

Granted, I think they were overcompensated - but they are entitled to a salary.

That's the problem - the media confused "bonus" for AIG's people and "promised compensation" - which is what the bonuses were. Basically a pushed off salary that would be on the books for 2009, not 2008.

> No, his company can't afford bonuses, period.

Arrrgh. Read the letter. His salary for the last year was ONE DOLLAR. The "bonus" was his payment if worked then entire year.

People, if Congress can change his contract then Congress can change any contract that you're a party to.

'm srry, bt tl;dr