We have also now obtained the contracts under which AIG decided to make these payments. The contracts shockingly contain a provision that required most individuals’ bonuses to be 100% of their 2007 bonuses. Thus, in the Spring of last year, AIG chose to lock in bonuses for 2008 at 2007 levels despite obvious signs that 2008 performance would be disastrous in comparison to the year before.

The only explanation is massive fraud. Seriously. There is no other explanation that is remotely plausible. Not only should the recipients be stripped of their ill-gotten gains, the people who created those contracts should go to jail.

But as infuriating as it is to contemplate how these criminals have directed $160M of our money into their own thievish pockets, let’s not forget that even that amount is chump change in comparison to the tens of BILLIONS we’ve handed over to these self-same crooks to stabilize the company. I hope we don’t get so focused on the outrageous bonus issue that we ignore the much larger problem of lack of oversight and accountability in general.

I don’t understand why, if the rest of AIG is supposedly so well-off, they don’t just write off the division? It’s gotta be better than throwing billions of taxpayer dollars down the rat hole.

On a separate note, Chris Dodd has some ‘splaining to do.

Obviously, AIG is betting that outright “nationalization” is a bridge-too-far for the Obama Administration, even though it is a de facto reality in all but name.

Refusing to identify the bonus recipients? Ducking behind the “inviolability of contracts” as though they themselves did not employ battalions of lawyers who specialize in thwarting insurance claimants? Insisting on propriety and discretion when they themselves engineered a panoply of frauds?

That takes steel grapes, when you’re on the public dole. They’d really better hope Obama’s spin team doesn’t come up with a happy, acceptable, feel-good substitute for “nationalization”—‘cause, right now, AIG is just one good euphemism away from reporting to a whole new boss.

That takes steel grapes, when you’re on the public dole. They’d really better hope Obama’s spin team doesn’t come up with a happy, acceptable, feel-good substitute for “nationalization”

Changelization?

Speaking of changelization, here’s one wingnut who can’t seem to understand a very serious ... umm ... conundrum.

I wonder if the Obama supporters can explain why it is OK for him to blow off the Gridiron Club and still go to a big money fundraiser?

Stop the ACLU is really one of the dumbest blogs around.  I can’t believe it’s still around.  I remember rubbing his nose in it back when I ran Catch.

Yes, but how else are we going to retain talent if not with million plus dollar bonuses?

Yes, but how else are we going to retain talent if not with million plus dollar bonuses?

That was a question trotted out with tedious regularity by an indescribably snotty City type I got embroiled in heated debates with a while back on a music forum (where politics is always red in tooth and claw).

The implied threat was that the London talent would go elsewhere if not given these astronomical bonuses. The credibility of such a threat was always arguable, but with the current state of the markets and world economies, it’s an even more idle one now.

My attitude was that given the power those who manipulate the money markets wield, if that was absolutely the only thing motivating them, then they obviously had no loyalty to the country, so they should waste no time in getting gone.

I haven’t been back to that forum for quite a while. I wonder if he’s so cocky nowadays.

Good answer, Humboldt, I left mine as well…

Bank Nationalization, meet
TAXPAYER PROACTIVIZATION. I almost know what it means already.