PDA

View Full Version : Dear A.I.G., I Quit!



TheSphinx 2.0
03-25-2009, 04:01 AM
This was in the NYT this morning. I thought it was a really good read. It is a resignation letter from an employee from AIG's FP unit.


DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

TheRealist
03-25-2009, 10:39 AM
"AIG loses 61.3 billion last quarter."

"Up to 163 million in AIG employee bonuses."

That is all that most people have heard or will ever hear because this is what the media and government want them to see and hear. Those bonuses are well deserved imo...probably not in "every" case, but more likely than not for sure....

Nevada_Ballin
03-25-2009, 02:13 PM
lol.. he's leaving but he won't say when.... and says, "I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer"

Most resignation letters give a "last day". I don't think he ends up leaving. He's just getting things off his chest (and rightfully so, obviosuly he's upset at the whole mess).

.

Gtrght77
03-25-2009, 02:37 PM
"AIG loses 61.3 billion last quarter."

"Up to 163 million in AIG employee bonuses."

That is all that most people have heard or will ever hear because this is what the media and government want them to see and hear. Those bonuses are well deserved imo...probably not in "every" case, but more likely than not for sure....

Not only that, they are contracted. There is nothing we can do about it. Its just another fake rage for news.

SUPDOG
03-25-2009, 03:46 PM
Not only that, they are contracted. There is nothing we can do about it. Its just another fake rage for news.

And fake rage for the president to "scare us" into big spending and corporate take overs.


Just like he has planned it!

feardaram
03-25-2009, 04:09 PM
bankrupt companies don't pay bonuses. i don't feel sorry for him. go work for a profitable company.

SUPDOG
03-25-2009, 07:31 PM
These sorts of stories fall on deaf ears when it comes to Obamabots.

To Obamabots everyone who makes "too much money" is a criminal.

Case in point:


lol... find me one that hasn't ripped someone off.......


.

It doesn't mean too much. Obama has the liberal left, and those who are uneducated eating out of the palm of his hand.

His telepromter directs the minds of the emotional, and is leading us to a global economy. ANyone hear Geitners thoughts on the possibility of replacing the U.S. dollar with global currency? huh?


Remember what I told you.

TheSphinx 2.0
03-25-2009, 08:42 PM
bankrupt companies don't pay bonuses. i don't feel sorry for him. go work for a profitable company.

I disagree with you here. He was asked to work for $1 based on the fact that we would have been paid a bounus. If he was as good as he said he was he probably could have went to UBS along with the sale. He stayed at AIG to help (from what he said) and now he is being screwed over for it. That is not the signal you want to send to the people you need to help you turn the business.

The second thing is bankrupt companies do pay bonuses. Filing allows them to void contracts but they don't do that. The same thing would have happned if the company went into bankrupcty. They would have had to incent people to stay at the company after they filed. Imagine if after an airline filed for bankruptcy they didn't pay anyone anymore. Every good person would leave the company leaving them with the worst of the worst. That is not what people want to happen in a company that is being restuctured.

The point is that everybody at AIG isn't a criminal and to cast them all as one and throw them all under the bus is shameful.

-TS

feardaram
03-25-2009, 10:08 PM
i agree, they aren't all criminals. however, there is just no money to pay bonuses. they had to get a loan from the govt to stay afloat. the govt money was to turn around the company, not pay bonuses. without the govt money there is no aig and the bonus couldn't even be discussed. ok, so dude took a $1 salary to help the company... so then help the company. aig hasn't been turned around. turn the ship around and then get your bonus. profitable companies are the ones who should be paying bonuses, not ones who only exist because they got a bailout.

Nevada_Ballin
03-26-2009, 01:17 AM
These sorts of stories fall on deaf ears when it comes to Obamabots.

To Obamabots everyone who makes "too much money" is a criminal.

Case in point:



It doesn't mean too much. Obama has the liberal left, and those who are uneducated eating out of the palm of his hand.

His telepromter directs the minds of the emotional, and is leading us to a global economy. ANyone hear Geitners thoughts on the possibility of replacing the U.S. dollar with global currency? huh?


Remember what I told you.

Yes, there it is again, the right wing "can't & no" sermon without any answers or solutions from their side. As much as you may not want to hear it, America is going to bounce back and be just fine. And it would have done so even if Mickey Mouse was President. We'll figure it out.

Geithner isn't President. Dude is on the job for 3 weeks and everyone wants his head on a platter because everything isn't fixed already. I did hear the President say last night that he is against a global currency, so i guess that ends that.

Nevada_Ballin
03-26-2009, 01:21 AM
i agree, they aren't all criminals. however, there is just no money to pay bonuses. they had to get a loan from the govt to stay afloat. the govt money was to turn around the company, not pay bonuses. without the govt money there is no aig and the bonus couldn't even be discussed. ok, so dude took a $1 salary to help the company... so then help the company. aig hasn't been turned around. turn the ship around and then get your bonus. profitable companies are the ones who should be paying bonuses, not ones who only exist because they got a bailout.

The bonus was like a roster clause in an NFL contract. If the team keeps the player after a certain date he gets a bonus. Even if the team got bailout money from the NFL, they'd still have to pay him - even if he didn't play a down all season.

The only issue i have with the bonuses right now are the ones paid to people who had already left. Still not clear on what that was all about.


.

resnor
03-26-2009, 01:18 PM
Yes, there it is again, the right wing "can't & no" sermon without any answers or solutions from their side. As much as you may not want to hear it, America is going to bounce back and be just fine. And it would have done so even if Mickey Mouse was President. We'll figure it out.

Geithner isn't President. Dude is on the job for 3 weeks and everyone wants his head on a platter because everything isn't fixed already. I did hear the President say last night that he is against a global currency, so i guess that ends that.

You want answers and solutions? The answer and solution is the same as it was back in October/November when the first bailout bill was shoved down the American people's throat, or up their ***, whichever way you want to look at it, and that is, DO NOTHING. Let the market correct ITSELF. All this spending is doing is postponing the inevitable, while putting us a couple TRILLION DOLLARS MORE in the hole.

And you're right, the economy WILL FIX ITSELF, and it would have done that, even with Mickey Mouse as President, which is what the right wingers have been saying for months...all while the libs and moderate Republicans (like Bush) were telling us that we had to take immediate action to prevent the total collapse of the economy. Seriously, how many times in the past four months has Obama used the words "crisis" and "worst economy since the Great Depression?" Even though it technically isn't the "worst economy since the Great Depression..." It is the worst economy since 1980.

Bottom line, Nevada, you are now reversing what the typical liberal thought was. You are now saying that the economy will correct itself, when only four short months ago you were saying that we needed to fix it ourselves.