Basically, nothing.
We suspected, and told you, dear reader, that there was very little that the government could, should or would do. Not only did they do very little, other than nearly incite a riot (including here in the comments sections), but *gasp* AIG employees in all the groups are still actually getting paid- and there are few if any restrictions on those payments going forward.
Steven Davidoff sums it up for us in “We Fought AIG and AIG Won,” which amuses us to no end because it implies that AIG and “The Law” are synonymous- though we doubt Davidoff caught the overt cheer for sanctity of contract implicit in his poorly chosen title.
Just in case you might have forgotten that DealBook is a New York Times venture, Davidoff salts his piece with thinly disguised indignant rage, but the key stuff is here:
The only thing in these agreements (accessible here, here and here) that the Treasury did to pursue these retention bonuses is to deduct the $165 million in total payments from the approximately $183.5 billion made available to A.I.G. In addition, the Treasury charged A.I.G. a commitment fee of $165 million to be paid from the operating cash flow of the company. Since money is fungible, and the government has now agreed to support the company anyway, the latter requirement is meaningless.
How’d you like to be one of the AIG people who bothered to return your bonus now?
We Fought A.I.G. and A.I.G. Won [Dealbook]
I recall you more fueling the fire than reassuring that this was a nothing to worry about thing.
I don’t understand the bitterness of NY Times employees toward the economy and American businesses.
Is it just their crazed left-wing socialist Schadenfreude?
Or do they have some kind of stock plan and they are bitter that NYT is down as much as BAC but with less likelihood of recovering?
@1: Absolutely I was incensed. The tortured interpretations being forwarded to stop the payments should shock the conscious of anyone who gets a paycheck.
Question is, why weren’t you?
@1: Search the yahoo message boards for the answer. To make it easier – it starts with J and Ends with W.
It’s like at a baseball game, when the other team hits a home run, and the crowd shouts at you to throw the ball back.
Fuck that! I want the ball!
@5 You’re obv not a cub fan.
Gotta love how Obama doesn’t show 1% of the sort of outrage he showed towards AIG to people like Castro and Chavez. We’re so fucked.
What is up with Pimco (PFN especially) loading up on AIG bonds?
So the whiner from MIT who said he never lost money in his “I’m quitting” letter got his bonus? Well, he’ll always be known as the whiner guy from MIT who said he never lost money.
And, as anyone at SemGroup knows, “contracts” are sacred.
@7: Don’t you have to be in class at this hour or are you getting free wi-fi at the student union building?
It is well understood that the point of the AIG bailout is to pump money into Goldman Sachs.
Maxine Waters has not been particularly articulate on this front, but she does have the concept right.
I argue that it would be more efficient to shut AIG down, and give Goldman however many billions its management feels it needs.
In stopping the pretense that this is about AIG and the financial markets, U.S. taxpayers would save money by not having to pay money to overseas institutions.
Taxpayers would also save the frictional cost of funneling the money through AIG.
-@11
Who is your CEO?
@3
You should not be incensed when everyone should know that political posturing amounts to a big nothing. It’s equivalent to all the grandstanding that goes on in congressional hearings. Whoever buys it needs a huge lesson in politics.
“How’d you like to be one of the AIG people who bothered to return your bonus now?”
Oh, they’re probably gone to competitors and are trying to ensure that AIG never unwinds some of those derivative contracts.
@11 here again.
There was nothing surprising in the story above.
What also won’t be surprising is the article that we will read months from now indicating that AIG continues to write new contracts on terms favorable to Goldman.
Again, it would be more efficient to terminate the intermediary that is AIG and just wire the money directly to Lloyd Blankfield.
“Steven Davidoff sums it up for us in “We Fought AIG and AIG Won,” which amuses us to no end because it implies that AIG and “The Law” are synonymous- though we doubt Davidoff caught the overt cheer for sanctity of contract implicit in his poorly chosen title.”
Absolutely brilliant. They fought the rule of law and the rule of law won. I can’t help but hear The Clash’s version of the song and enjoy the further irony of a quasi-socialist band potentially inspiring the quote.
Also “How’d you like to be one of the AIG people who bothered to return your bonus now?” – no balls, no bonus.
@11, how the fuck do you manage to make THIS about Goldman Sachs as well? I am so fed up with people who are too stupid to understand anything about finance making GS look like the bad guys, the behind-the-scenes fathers of some terrible conspiracy, and so on, and so forth. I know, I know, the temptation to blame them is too much to handle, but put your pants back on, will you? Why are you so fixated on GS? Do you remember that there were like 12 other banks that received money from AIG, the EXACT AMOUNT that they were owed? Like Soc Gen? Do you just secretly want to marry GS? What’s the obsession?
PS Oh, before you start talking trash, I do not work for GS, have nothing to do with them, and am an unemployed English professor. So calm the fuck down and read an article or two–maybe that will help sort things out for you.