AIG Chief Not Getting Paid Much This Year

Author:
Publish date:
Updated on

But! Despite only receiving an annual base salary of $1 for 2008 and 2009, and no bonus for either year, Edward Liddy will be "eligible for a special bonus for extraordinary performance payable in 2010." And, you know what? Giving up that money was definitely worth it. Not because his company is a black hole of insolvency, and not because it was the "right" thing to do and not because he spent most people's annual take-home (x3) on manicures and pedicures, but because it meant he got to get this figurative hair ruffle/knock on the chin/great job, Champ/whatever you want to call it:

We have received Mr. Liddy's response to our letter of last week outlining the action AIG will now take regarding executive compensation. AIG has taken a positive step by eliminating bonuses and salary increases for its top executives. Taxpayers have been slammed with a one-two punch seeing their investments dwindle while simultaneously having to fund the Wall Street bailout with billions of their tax dollars. It is only fair that top executives, who benefit the most when firms do well, should also bear the burden of the difficult economic consequences their firms now face. This gesture by AIG is appropriate and I encourage other firms to wake up to the new reality on Wall Street and follow AIG's step quickly. The taxpayers of this country deserve nothing less.

He's also been granted permission to attend Andy's birthday party-cum-fundraiser this year, which is huge.
STATEMENT FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL ANDREW CUOMO CONCERNING AIG'S DECISION TO ELIMINATE BONUSES FOR TOP EXECUTIVES [Office of the Attorney General]

Related

Vikram Pandit Is Committed To Getting Paid

If you didn't know Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit, you might think he enjoyed not being compensated for the work he does at Citigroup because for quite some time, he wasn't. And although the "I will only get paid $1/year until Citi turns a profit" exercise was fun for a while, he was pretty happy when the old jalopy started making money again, in part because it meant he could receive a paycheck. Then last April, his shareholders rejected the bank's executive pay plan, claiming the Big C "lets Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit collect millions of dollars in rewards too easily." And while it's possible that Citi shareholders are just a bunch of pricks who chose to overlook the fact that Uncle Vikula didn't collect squat for several years and once had an entire article written about the fact that lieutenants attributed a "new bounce in his step" to him daydreaming "the day when he is going to earn more than a $1 a year,” maybe they just assume that he doesn't care about getting paid either way? Anyway, here's Vickles, reminding anyone who forgot about the sacrifices he made and setting the record straight: “The board has this process with them, they’re going through it, and they are committed, as I am, to making sure that they resolve this,” Pandit said. “I want to get paid what the board thinks is right for me, for the job that I’ve done and for the incentives that they think I ought to have.” Pandit told lawmakers in 2009 that he would take a $1 annual salary until he restored the bank to profitability. Citigroup made a $21.7 billion profit for 2011 and 2010 combined, compared with a $29.3 billion loss for the two preceding years. “When the company was losing money, I stepped up and said I’ll take a dollar a year and I did, exactly for that reason, exactly the right thing to do,” Pandit said. For those having trouble separating the nice guy/don't want to offend anyone statement from what he's actually trying to say, a rough translation of the above would be: get me paid, bitch! Citigroup Will Resolve CEO Pay By End Of Year, Pandit Says [Bloomberg]