Search results

I tried to argue the same point yesterday in a thread. While I don't LIKE the fact AIG paid out bonuses, they legally have to. The government cannot be allowed to be above the law. The idea of taxing the shit out of those bonuses is, to me, the government asserting the idea of them being...

Maybe this is a sucker's rally but damn does it ever have legs.

Somehow I just knew we'd hear from you today.

Good find. I guess the theory is if bailout money restricts the ability to pay bonuses, the company will be tempted to manage earnings in an unethical way in order to receive their bonus.

I'm not sure if the situation you're talking about is related but I do know Trump does not have to pay investors/creditors related to a large building project in Mexico that went tits up.

If your force majeure clause argument was valid I'm sure the government is aware of it. They would have stated this is the case and would reassure the public that AIG can't pay out the bonuses. This did not happen... I don't think it's OK. I even stated in a previous post that I am against...

Actually I know quite a bit about compensation contracts as I am an accountant in Canada. The law may be slightly different in USA than Canada. If what you are saying is true, the government would have already stepped in and disallowed the bonuses to be paid out...Obama wouldn't be on TV...

It is a grey area for sure.

I am no lawyer but I don't think there is cut and dry criteria for a sexual assualt case, whereas a company who is bankrupt has filed for bankruptcy...the criteria is cut and dry. And your second point I agree with completely. AIG SHOULDN'T pay out these bonuses, but it's not a matter of...

Yes I agree with you. Except AIG TECHNICALLY is not bankrupt...and AIG TECHNICALLY now has the money to pay the bonuses thanks to the USA government. So in a court of law I think the employees would have a case to receive bonuses. Not that I agree with the morality of it all, but...

You have the government to thank for AIG using taxpayer money for bonuses. You are correct in that the government should have instituted some kind of clause to ensure bailout money was not used for bonuses. But since they didn't, I don't see any way AIG can be forced to not pay these.

Exactly. I understand the public outrage at these employees getting bonuses, but if their compensation contract states they get a certain bonus if certain benchmarks are met, then AIG can't just disregard those contracts.

Shorting a stock without locating shares to borrow first is called naked shorting which is technically illegal to a certain degree I believe.

Nice to see a fellow Canadian giving it a shot. Good luck to you.

Politics has EVERYTHING to do with economics my friend, whether you like to believe it or not. If what's good for economics isn't considered good politics, then all of a sudden it isn't considered good for economics anymore either.

You are exactly correct. The American consumer was caught in the crossfire but Harper's real intent there was to bash the Liberal's and prop up the Conservatives.

Don't forget our strip clubs! Arguably our greatest asset. Fully nude. Truly a thing of beauty.

Took down the world? That's rather extreme. While the US consumers didn't single handedly "take down the world" as you put it, there is no denying they certainly played a large part. Consumers in other countries also lived beyond their means and contributed to the mess as well, it was...

I also like BNN. The main reason is their ambition to deliver actual news and analysis without the fluff and frills of CNBC. The channel is not preoccupied with grabbing the attention of regular joes. The channel is overall very boring and most people would not watch unless you're actively...

LOL the accuracy of your stock predictions sure is amazing!