AIG: Bonuses Well-Earned, Well-Spent
The real outrage is scapegoating its talented employees.
We have a bunch of ex-Goldman Sachs (GS) bankers making $1 a year, and whatever Rubin and Paulson got paid for their government stints, putting together a package paying countless billions to make Goldman whole (which they claim is a side effect of "prevent a global cascade of Apocalyptic scale"). These are guys who are ex-Goldman partners and they're being grilled brutally for exactly the wrong reasons.
It's like having ex-Gambino guys on the stand and grilling them over paying bonuses to the delivery boys at the pizza joints that fronted heroin businesses that were 8 degrees removed from the Gambino guys. It's insane, and it's obvious where the real money is made - and where the real taxpayer losses went.
Explained without the the vaguely slanderous metaphors: It wasn't the AIG (AIG) traders, over-selling of instruments -- which were flawed in a way the AIG people didn't understand -- who got the bonuses. The AIG guys getting bonuses were paid to unwind those positions.
That was what Liddy was trying to explain. They weren't "retention bonuses." The bonuses were based on the speed and efficiency exercised when unwinding the idiocy being practiced by AIG up until last year. It's not immaterial that the banks on the other end of the trade -- those who weren't going to get paid if AIG died, or if TARP didn't go through with no questions asked -- effectively put AIG out of business by buying the flawed instruments in enormous size.
The outrage is that the AIG bonus people were greedy Wall Street fat cats. That's an argument that's easy to sell to the naïve, or to people who don't work in finance. "Greed" from the AIG guys? Even if the bonus babies put together the flawed CDs, or whatever they called the vehicle, they didn't sell it in enormous size because they were greedy. They sold it in enormity because they had mispriced what they were selling in a way they didn't realize.
The AIG traders thought they were selling a low-margin product and didn't realize the risk. The banks on the other side of the trade, the traders who recognized errors in the structure of the AIG product understood more about what AIG was selling than AIG did. That's why they bought from AIG in size -- because in the event of payout, AIG would be paying out big. Real big, even by Wall Street standards. You can get a list of the payouts made to AIG counterparties disclosed so far at Slate.com, in this outstanding article by Daniel Gross.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Daily Recap Newsletter