PDA

View Full Version : AIG VP Resignation Letter


nelson
03-25-2009, 09:29 AM
This is well worth the read. Published yesterday in the NYT.

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

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

nelson
03-25-2009, 09:56 AM
I find this letter very interesting and enlightening. It is a stark contrast to what we have been told this point by politicians and the media, first of all because it's honest and sincere. :rofl

Here are some comments.

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.He and his employees didn't drive the company into the ground (to the point where it sought taxpayer bail-out).

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.He and his employees worked for 12 months under the expectation that they would be compensated. Paying no heed to this, a mob determined in 1 weeks' time that they shouldn't be. The mob was driven by media and our government.

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.I wouldn't work in that arrangement either. Long days for no pay? Count me out, and good luck finding folks to fill that position.

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.

...

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.I can't help but see his point, and agree with it. They made agreements and deserve to be paid according to those agreements; the big problem in this whole equation is government involvement. Without government involvement, when a company fails, the executives and employees quit, resign, are fired, or simply cannot be compensated, remaining debts are handled in the court system, and there is no mass mob of public outrage.

The G
03-25-2009, 10:19 AM
The union member at the big 3 took cuts to help save the company and they didn't quit.

It was his choice to leave.....

truthteller
03-25-2009, 10:31 AM
The mob was driven by media and our government

Probably true. But lets be honest about who was leading this mob:

<Youtube><div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/29745383#29745383" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><style type="text/css">.msnbcLinks {font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;} .msnbcLinks a {text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px;} .msnbcLinks a:link, .msnbcLinks a:visited {color: #5799db !important;} .msnbcLinks a:hover, .msnbcLinks a:active {color:#CC0000 !important;} </style><p class="msnbcLinks">Visit msnbc.com for <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072">News about the Economy</a></p></div></Youtube>

Kondracke (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1821,00.html), Krauthamer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401690.html), Grassley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Grassley).

DeSantis letter is a good example of the (reality) that in most cases there are two sides to every story. And if, as the letter seems to indicate, Mr. DeSantis truly did accept a $1 salary over the past year in exchange for a deferred bonus (apparently in excess of $1 million, given the amount received net of tax) - then he is certainly justified in complaining.

On the other hand, we ought to keep in mind the fact that many, many other people also work long hours in difficult jobs, and end up receiving no compensation whatsoever. There are probably tens of thousands of small business owners who have lost their companies, and their life savings, in businesses that failed. And while Mr. DeSantis feels perhaps understandable outrage over being "blamed" for the mistakes of others, if he is the financial professional he claims to be, surely he had at least some obligation to understand what his (guilty?) colleagues were up to?

The actions of the NY Attorney General, as well as the populist firebrands in Washington and our press, are regrettable, if (in our hyper-partisan environment) understandable. Our "gotcha" news environment seems to demand instant fixes, and instant condemnation. In reality - such problems usually are more complicated, and the knee-jerk reaction usually turns out to be fatally flawed. And yet, as last night's Presidential press conference reminds us, any political leader who follows a considered, moderated course, aware of all (or at least as many as possbile) facts - opens himself up to criticism.

nelson
03-25-2009, 11:23 AM
The actions of the NY Attorney General, as well as the populist firebrands in Washington and our press, are regrettable, if (in our hyper-partisan environment) understandable. Our "gotcha" news environment seems to demand instant fixes, and instant condemnation. In reality - such problems usually are more complicated, and the knee-jerk reaction usually turns out to be fatally flawed.I think you hit the nail on the head here, truthteller. Very well spoken.

Let's be honest about Olbermann: he leaves out a lot of critical info. On January 29, nine days after taking office, Obama himself set his tone. 'President Barack Obama fed a swelling populist revolt against Wall Street bonuses, calling it “shameful” that banks doled out $18.4 billion as taxpayers bail out companies and the U.S. remains mired in a recession.' [1 (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=anzJooSeABDM&refer=us)] This tone continued throughout mid-March, when 'President Barack Obama called the AIG bonuses "an outrage". ... The president is trying to channel public anger over the bonuses without becoming the object of that anger himself.' [1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7949729.stm)] Big name Democrats were part of it all along: 'Senate Democrat Charles Schumer warned the executives, "If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you."' [1 (http://www.kpho.com/money/18946538/detail.html)] Furthermore, (D) Steve Israel introduced a bill to tax AIG bonuses at 100%, (D) Eric Massa and (D) Russ Carnahan co-sponsored it.

Don't get me wrong. Just pointing out for the record. I don't blame it all on Democrats; many Republicans jumped on this bandwagon, too. Many did not. I wholeheartedly agree with your "knee-jerk reaction" assessment; I think it's spot-on. The media's function is to provoke and stir controversy in order to sell product. So public emotions are stoked to this end -- emotions are so easily manipulable -- then politicians on both sides fall prey to emotion-driven sentiments, and pander to it. That's our unfortunate populist political process today. I think it's dangerous.

But I do note that the above story could have been told all along; it wasn't told by anyone... except evil, conservative radio pundits.

Obama Calls Bonuses ‘Shameful’ as Dodd Vows to Reclaim Money
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=anzJooSeABDM&refer=us
Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_go_co/aig_outrage
Congressman Eric Massa takes action to recoup bonuses from AIG
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-eric-jj-massa/demand-100-tax-on-bailout_b_176018.html
Congressman Russ Carnahan - Reclaiming Taxpayer-Funded Bonuses
http://www.carnahan.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=329
Israel Introduces Bill That Would Tax AIG Bonuses at 100 Percent
http://www.antonnews.com/syossetjerichotribune/2009/03/20/news/bonus.html

MYCAR47562
03-25-2009, 01:09 PM
The union member at the big 3 took cuts to help save the company and they didn't quit.

It was his choice to leave.....

they took cut's they didn't say they would work for free like he did minus the bonus

gtrman66
03-25-2009, 01:16 PM
On the other hand, we ought to keep in mind the fact that many, many other people also work long hours in difficult jobs, and end up receiving no compensation whatsoever.

Yep, you are right TT everyone should make exactly the same amount of money, have the same size and type of home and work the same hours. :paper

The G
03-25-2009, 01:38 PM
I guess he can take his ball and go home.

MYCAR47562
03-25-2009, 01:44 PM
yep he's gone take his ball home chop it up into little balls and give it to the kid's who don't have balls

Remphoto
03-25-2009, 01:53 PM
The union member at the big 3 took cuts to help save the company and they didn't quit.

It was his choice to leave.....

But they didn't have their families threatened and a busload of ACORN protestors (who were sponsored by the Service Workers Union, btw) and the state attorney general threatening them. This guy is my hero. Now watch how the mainstream press handles this if you want to see a case of media bias in action.

The G
03-25-2009, 03:15 PM
If they where down here I'll carry a picket sign too. :D

nelson
03-27-2009, 09:27 AM
Zeal for battle over bonuses waning in Washington
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090326/D975TVN80.html

Now this is really funny.

Washington is losing its zeal for an all-out fight over hefty executive bonuses, now that it wants the financial companies it blames for the collapse of the U.S. economy to help clean up the mess.
Gee, I wonder why.

The about-face came as it become clear that financial institutions would not partner with the government on new efforts to restore vital credit flows to businesses and consumers if it meant later being demonized for its use of taxpayer dollars.
Oh, really?

"We do want to encourage wide participation," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the panel's chairman.
Translation: we're complete idiots, and we need you to turn this ship around for us.

'You guys are big, you're bad, you're evil, you're the devil! But we need you to fix our economy for us.'

Sounds right out of Atlas Shrugged to me.

Max
03-28-2009, 05:41 PM
I honestly think they should stop all funding to AIG and force it to bankruptcy. If they still have money for bonuses then fine, if not then they get shit. The whole damn company is a waste IMHO. They have zero chance to ever pay back the taxpayer and billions are going out of the country via the company. I really don't care what his deal was, the deal was based on money I paid in taxes paying his bonus. To say it wasn't him that made the mess fine, he worked in the same division that did and was a vp, IMHO that makes him as much to blame as any of them.

cajun
03-28-2009, 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by truthteller
On the other hand, we ought to keep in mind the fact that many, many other people also work long hours in difficult jobs, and end up receiving no compensation whatsoever.


Class warfare, plain and simple

Oriondk
03-28-2009, 11:16 PM
I'm curious about this whole idea to tax the bonuses at 90%. A point has been made that we're going to drive people out of these companies that had nothing to do with the problems and may be the people we need to fix them.
Also, I received a newsletter from my Congressman, Dan Lundgren, that questions the constitutionality of taxing the bonuses.
"One of the things you probably saw your House of Representatives do this last week was pass a 90 percent tax on the bonuses that went to AIG executives after the insurance giant received taxpayer dollars. Such taxation is known as a bill of attainder; in other words, the legislative branch is punishing citizens without a trial. The Congress is specifically forbidden to pass bills of attainder under Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution. That is why I opposed the taxation. In seeking to deal with the AIG bonus problem, it is absolutely vital that Congress not set bad precedents that could lead to Congress targeting individuals for legislative punishment through the tax code."

TaxmanHog
03-29-2009, 10:32 AM
I'm curious about this whole idea to tax the bonuses at 90%. A point has been made that we're going to drive people out of these companies that had nothing to do with the problems and may be the people we need to fix them.
Also, I received a newsletter from my Congressman, Dan Lundgren, that questions the constitutionality of taxing the bonuses.
"One of the things you probably saw your House of Representatives do this last week was pass a 90 percent tax on the bonuses that went to AIG executives after the insurance giant received taxpayer dollars. Such taxation is known as a bill of attainder; in other words, the legislative branch is punishing citizens without a trial. The Congress is specifically forbidden to pass bills of attainder under Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution. That is why I opposed the taxation. In seeking to deal with the AIG bonus problem, it is absolutely vital that Congress not set bad precedents that could lead to Congress targeting individuals for legislative punishment through the tax code."

Agree with your analysis, which means that the Senate & President will never sign it, typical House Grand standing, worthless P-O-S's, get busy making real LAW that Will work & is LEGAL!

gtrman66
03-29-2009, 11:33 AM
I guess I'll take a congressman or senator seriously when they return every campaign donation from ALL of these companies.

nelson
03-29-2009, 12:58 PM
I honestly think they should stop all funding to AIG and force it to bankruptcy.I fully agree. Companies fail. It happens; it's supposed to; let it. Don't interfere. Bailing them out was a big mistake, that's already very clear.

The absence of massive failures is a danger. When we see big company riches-to-rags disasters, everyone else will undergo a very conservative gut-check to make sure they aren't next. That should be happening. It's not. Instead business is expecting to be saved. Just like the residents of New Orleans.

A point has been made that we're going to drive people out of these companies that had nothing to do with the problems and may be the people we need to fix them.You're on a sinking ship. What do you do? You look for a life raft... then you escape that sinking ship!

How much do you want to bet that many executives are seeking bail out money because the extra cash flow right now will carry their business just long enough... just long enough for them personally to get out of this terrible business environment, and start over elsewhere? Think about it. Would you stick around?

Government is anxious to give away bail out money. Makes it look like they're trying to do something, and increases their power immensely.

We lose all the way around.