AIG Said to Pay $450 Million to Retain Derivatives Employees

the ET public capital allocation committee(or should I say commies) don't approve this expenditure therefore it ought be cancelled and the management, shot
 
Quote from Daal:

the ET public capital allocation committee(or should I say commies) does not approve this expenditure therefore it ought be cancelled and the management, shot
More...

Do you even know what communism means? Cause you sound retarded.

Dude, if you LOVE this so much, go donate your money to AIG, so that they can pay even more in retention bonuses. Please do so.
 
Quote from Daal:

the ET public capital allocation committee(or should I say commies) don't approve this expenditure therefore it ought be cancelled and the management, shot
More...

How can you say that after the $billions that AIG has received to keep it afloat. Let them lose the traders to a firm that hasn't been so incompetently managed that they can't afford to pay their own stars.

I too know people on the street who are going through tough times and I don't wish their lot on anyone and have nothing against people making money for their hard work, and am all for talent being rewarded. However, why should a firm as incompetently managed as AIG get to keep some of the best talent just because they are getting a governemnt check (they shouldn't even be in business at this point!). Its like in soccer, a team that is very well managed will have the cash to have the best talent, the teams with incompetent management will have to settle for the cheaper talent. This free market dynamic is what eventually forces bad management out and new management in. If you don't have that dynamic you have the old soviet style inertia where incompetents remain at their post until they die or are no longer supported by the state.

Don't you see this is not about punishing some poor trader that has worked his ass off but about not rewarding managment incompetence, and in the larger macro sense economic inefficiency
 
Quote from Mvic:

How can you say that after the $billions that AIG has received to keep it afloat. Let them lose the traders to a firm that hasn't been so incompetently managed that they can't afford to pay their own stars.

I too know people on the street who are going through tough times and I don't wish their lot on anyone and have nothing against people making money for their hard work, and am all for talent being rewarded. However, why should a firm as incompetently managed as AIG get to keep some of the best talent just because they are getting a governemnt check (they shouldn't even be in business at this point!). Its like in soccer, a team that is very well managed will have the cash to have the best talent, the teams with incompetent management will have to settle for the cheaper talent. This free market dynamic is what eventually forces bad management out and new management in. If you don't have that dynamic you have the old soviet style inertia where incompetents remain at their post until they die or are no longer supported by the state.

Don't you see this is not about punishing some poor trader that has worked his ass off but about not rewarding managment incompetence, and in the larger macro sense economic inefficiency
More...

I'm all for getting the incompent out, the problem is who knows who is the incompent?I dont think anyone on this board is familiar with the AIG staff, there were management changes at AIG, do we really want people in washington listening to people who want revenge to run the company
 
Quote from Daal:

I'm all for getting the incompent out, the problem is who knows who is the incompent?I dont think anyone on this board is familiar with the AIG staff, there were management changes at AIG, do we really want people in washington listening to people who want revenge to run the company
More...

Fair enough but unfortuantely that is not how our system works. When Lucent was driven in to the ground by its idiot CEO no one said , hey lets bail out the poor schmucks who spent a life time working their asses off and lost their pension due to their bosses incompetence. No the stock price was crushed. Same with Enron etc. Those who could leave did, and worked for other better managed companies (ironically many from LU went to Nortel and we know how that endded up! but some of the Enron traders went to hede funds like Amaranth, oops again lol), those who couldn't sank with the ship. Eventually Alcatel bought them out and is trying to rebuild was a brand that had been devastated by management incompetence. AIG needs its Alcatel.
 
Quote from Daal:

I'm all for getting the incompent out, the problem is who knows who is the incompent? I dont think anyone on this board is familiar with the AIG staff . . .
More...

The reason you don't know is because I bailed out the asswipes, me and millions of others. Otherwise, there'd have been a huge bankruptcy, a thorough post mortem, with the looters who destroyed the value entirely exposed, including by the scrutiny of potential employers (of the ex-AIGers) who'd be entirely rational about not having the tsunami repeated at their stores. Risk of death concentrates the senses, in business as in life.

And as for being "familar with the AIG staff," I don't need to be. The result speaks for itself.
 
what was so special about AIG,

and no other company, that they of all failures, had to be saved?


let's lift this skirt and see what's under it....

they sure did put lipstick on this pig and sold it to the American public, c/o all those bailouts....

so, what makes this one so special
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top