Well spank my ass and call me Charlie, populist outrage seems to be good for the First Portfolio, as it now snakes its way up into double digits. U-S-A! U-S-A!
The Obama Portfolio (Since Inception): +10.72%
Earlier: The Obama Portfolio
Archive for March 2009
Connecticut AG Doubts AIG Required To Pay Bonuses Under Connecticut Law– Reuters
So, you just got fired. In this market, you’ve got no prospects and no reason left to live. What’s the next worst thing that could happen? Being quit on by the nanny, of course, over an issue as minor as not being able to compensate him or her for keeping your child at an arm’s length, at least while it goes through that “growing” phase. Enter: some great news. Even if you are to get canned in the near future, and find yourself in the position of no longer being able to come with the scratch to child rear via proxy, your hired help will stick it out, on the assumption you’ll figure something out eventually, even if it’s trick turning.
Might be too little, too late for Detroit, but it is a neat idea anyhow. That is, if you think we need more cars on the road.
Members of the U.S. Congress are working on a new bill to provide incentives for drivers to trade in older vehicles for newer, more fuel-efficient cars, hoping that the recent success of a program in Germany will give the program new momentum, a House Democratic aide said Tuesday.
The so-called “Cash for Clunkers” program is currently being drafted in Congress, the aide said. A similar proposal gained some momentum in Congress earlier this year but ultimately didn’t get the green light from Congress.
We’re betting this one will get the green light, so to speak. But should it? For a country so suddenly green conscious, it seems that we are awfully anxious to start subsidizing automobile ownership. Improving the “national fleet” EPA by 10% (which seems a difficult goal) would be rather expensive, and of limited utility in the end. Surely someone has done the “remaining years in lifetime” v. “fuel savings over life of new car” calculation somewhere, but I’m curious to know where the break-even numbers are.
US Lawmakers Drafting ‘Cash For Clunkers’ Auto Bill – Aide [The Wall Street Journal]
Via Dealbook, the latest between our nation’s favorite pen-pals.
Gerry Pasciucco, head of AIG’s Financial Products division. [via Gawker]
Some of them are hipster douchebags!
The former gov rightly points out that the dollar amount in bonuses going to AIG employees is a fraction of a drop in the bucket, and there bigger questions to be answered, like that business with the counterparties. Unfortunately, he fucked a prostitute last year, and is no longer in a posish to be asking them (with the expectation of receiving a verbal or written response) of anyone in charge, and thus must turn to the internet. So let’s do him a solid, for old time’s sake, and role-play, which you know he’s always down for. He’ll be the Steamroller and provide the Q’s, you be whatever “criminal” whose ass he’s hauled in for answers. Begin:
Here are several questions that should be answered, in public, under oath, to clear the air:
- What was the precise conversation among Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson, and Blankfein that preceded the initial $80 billion grant?
- Was it already known who the counterparties were and what the exposure was for each of the counterparties?
- What did Goldman, and all the other counterparties, know about AIG’s financial condition at the time they executed the swaps or other contracts? Had they done adequate due diligence to see whether they were buying real protection? And why shouldn’t they bear a percentage of the risk of failure of their own counterparty?
- What is the deeper relationship between Goldman and AIG? Didn’t they almost merge a few years ago but did not because Goldman couldn’t get its arms around the black box that is AIG? If that is true, why should Goldman get bailed out? After all, they should have known as well as anybody that a big part of AIG’s business model was not to pay on insurance it had issued.
The Real AIG Scandal [Slate via Clusterstock]
In the House, Reps. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., and Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, introduced a bill that would that would tax at 100 percent bonuses above $100,000 paid by companies that have received federal bailout money.
Not that the AIG’ers deserve the money, but true or false, the last 24 hours have turned into a game of elected officials attempting to one up each other with submissions for how, if we can’t stop the bonuses, we can make things as uncomfortable as possible for those on the receiving end. In which case, it’s pretty obvious that we gather everyone up, head out to a cattle ranch in Montana and throw their bonuses out the window of a corporate jet (from a TARP-taking bank) in one and five dollar denominations. They’ll still get it, but it’ll be hard, and you know at least a handful of individuals will deem it not worth the effort. Or there’s always this route. The first Congressman or Lady to seriously suggest receives a cheesesteak, on us.
Congress threatens to tax AIG executives’ bonuses [AP]
So! Rep. Barney Frank held a press conference a few minutes ago and though he’s “not sure how the government will proceed,” re: prying those bonuses from AIG’s dead lifeless fingers, they’ve got a will and there will be a way. “All legal recourse” is being explored, most notably the matter of the U.S. being a majority owner of the insurer, a title which comes with the right to “get bonus money back” (and to encourage employees to kill themselves).
We realize that there’s probably some technical reasoning behind this, but the whole letter-writing campaign between Andrew Cuomo and Barney Frank, re: AIG bonuses, when they’re you know, on the same side and could just pick up the phone, seems to merely serve as a means to get each other further riled up. (Which we don’t have a problem with, but just wanted to point out.) Anyway, in their latest correspondence, Mary Thompson reports that Cuomo whipped out his quill to tell Frank that 11 people who’ve received “retention” bonuses for last year have already left the firm, 73 were made millionaires as a result of the cash prizes, the top seven got at least $4 million each, the top ten got $42 million total, and the top 22 received more than $2 million each.
As local yokels, we try to keep it casual up in this piece, and sometimes it’s probably difficult to tell, on the rare occasions when it occurs, that we’re being serious. So heads up, ’cause right now we’re saying, completely sincerely, step off bitches. We love ourselves some Daily Show but methinks the “financial crusaders of the world” title has gone to someone’s head. As you know, TDS shamed Jim Cramer for being Jim Cramer last week. But there are more wrong-doers to be flogged! Last night, in a segment by Samantha Bee, the show attempted to take on the Big Bad Short Sellers. Sure, they bring on the “pro-short seller guy” but really just to make fun of him and wink at the audience while telling us how evil these people are (the anti-SS is played by none other than Patrick Byrne). Here’s a free tip for TDS: next time, just replay the interview with Bethany McClean talking about Enron and the “dirty” biz of short selling from several years back. Since she, you know, knows what she’s talking about.
