lost the company billions? The man brought in to clean up AIG -- Edward Libby -- testified before Congress that the individuals responsible for creating the billions of losses at AIG and thus the need for billions in tax-payer bail-outs, were swept out of the company, and that the ones who received the $165 millions in bonuses were individuals who were kept on specifically to work through portfolios of obligations to wind them down and were not the "bad employees" (I paraphrase).
Do I essentially have this correct?
And if so, did Congress, the media, and the American people just not hear him, or believe him? Did he not make this point clear enough? Or did the outrage just take on a life of it's own such that it refused to die or be quelled with a denial that it was justified and was based on a false presumption?
I'm very upset with AIG on the whole because a few bad apples do seem to have spoiled the whole bunch, particularly when we have to pay good money for the entire shipment. But I am also realistic and know that not everyone at AIG can be bad or blameworthy.
It would be so helpful if they had a few case examples of who got the bonus money and why, showing that their compensation was reasonable and based on good performance according to or above plan and not unexpected losses. But is the uphill battle in trying to change perception so awesome that it is insurmountable? Or would the risks outweigh the benefits of taking one or more of these individuals public?
Has Edward Libby told us the REAL story behind these people who got the $165 million in bonuses?
There's probably a very lucrative book waiting to be written for an insider at AIG willing to spill the beans and give the world the inside story in more detail than what we know.
What do you know about all this and what are your sources? Has our outrage and desire to be outraged at someone just obfuscated the facts before us that we don't want to believe, i.e. that maybe those bonuses were justified?
As having been a former recipient in the bonus system of compensation, I can say that frequently my excellent performance for the year was not rewarded in a commensurate bonus because the rest of the organization did not do well. In other words, no-one could escape the belt-tightening if the entire organization didn't do well. I think some of that spirit should have been adopted at AIG versus the preservation of Prima Donnas despite the performance of the whole.
Do I essentially have this correct?
And if so, did Congress, the media, and the American people just not hear him, or believe him? Did he not make this point clear enough? Or did the outrage just take on a life of it's own such that it refused to die or be quelled with a denial that it was justified and was based on a false presumption?
I'm very upset with AIG on the whole because a few bad apples do seem to have spoiled the whole bunch, particularly when we have to pay good money for the entire shipment. But I am also realistic and know that not everyone at AIG can be bad or blameworthy.
It would be so helpful if they had a few case examples of who got the bonus money and why, showing that their compensation was reasonable and based on good performance according to or above plan and not unexpected losses. But is the uphill battle in trying to change perception so awesome that it is insurmountable? Or would the risks outweigh the benefits of taking one or more of these individuals public?
Has Edward Libby told us the REAL story behind these people who got the $165 million in bonuses?
There's probably a very lucrative book waiting to be written for an insider at AIG willing to spill the beans and give the world the inside story in more detail than what we know.
What do you know about all this and what are your sources? Has our outrage and desire to be outraged at someone just obfuscated the facts before us that we don't want to believe, i.e. that maybe those bonuses were justified?
As having been a former recipient in the bonus system of compensation, I can say that frequently my excellent performance for the year was not rewarded in a commensurate bonus because the rest of the organization did not do well. In other words, no-one could escape the belt-tightening if the entire organization didn't do well. I think some of that spirit should have been adopted at AIG versus the preservation of Prima Donnas despite the performance of the whole.