I quit: Leaked internal AIG e-mail

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vic

***** freak.
LIFETIME SPONSOR
May 5, 2000
4,008
0
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
 

Patman

Pantless Wonder
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Dec 26, 1999
19,774
0
Interesting, I can understand where he is coming from on some issues but as I read it the $742,006.42 was more than a quarter of the final contract amount?! HOLY CRAP!!! I would be more than happy to put in those kind of hours for that kind of money! Heck I have put in those kind of hours and not made anywhere near that! Oh sure I see some value in the position he held but was it really worth somewhere north of $2.2M after taxes? What makes that position worth so much more than a social worker helping keep kids safe or a teacher or nurse what about cops, fire fighters and armed forces? Seems quite a bit out of alignment with what other workers that put in similar hours make. Is this the only guilty party? Oh heck no! Greed is a terrible problem in the management of large companies and a major factor in why things are in the current mess they are in. I have no problem with a reasonable base salary and performance incentives that are also reasonable and fair but the reasonable & fair part seems to need a bit of adjustment.
 

James

Lifetime Sponsor
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Dec 26, 2001
1,839
0
Flawed logic. We can't limit private compensation based on civil "service" positions. Cops, firefighters, armed forces, and social workers don't generate profits. We can get mired in the value of these positions but the fact is, private corporations need to be able to recruit and compensate the best within the bounds of their ability to pay for it out of their own revenues. If it takes a 4 million dollar base and 10 million dollar bonus to recruit the right executives to run a multi-billion dollar company...then that is the reasonable amount. Any firefighter, social worker, military personnel can't step in and run a large company.

What we can do is let irresponsible companies fail instead of throwing tons of tax money at them. I think it would also be prudent to legislate more stringent legal/financial/reporting requirements for different categories of investments...example UPS is a tangible business that provides a service and uses traditional and reliable financial/accounting standards...should be traded on the stock market and available to broad 401k/IRA plans. AIG sketchy insurance contracts on hedges should have different disclosures and not be available for investment by just any 401k and IRA. Certain rules should prevent traditional companies/investments like UPS from becoming non-traditional without sufficient warning/disclosure/notice.

That way, the whole financial system can't be jeopardized by shell games and gray area "investments" and taxpayers won't be extorted into bailing out crooks. There is no reason why we should have let ourselves get to the point where one dept in one insurance company could topple the entire financial system. I don't actually believe that was the case, but that is the crisis that was sold to the American people.

Greed is part of the problem in large companies. The other part of the problem is the ever increasing burden placed on these companies by excessive government regulation and taxation. That's part of the reason it costs so much to employ executives...you can't just run your business...you have to interpret millions of tax, public accounting, SEC, environmental, corporate liability, and labor laws as well...that isn't easy or free. Can't wait for carbon credits.

I'd argue that greed and excess is an even bigger problem within our government.
 
Last edited:

High Lord Gomer

Poked with Sticks
Sep 26, 1999
11,790
34
If I generate $100 thousand in income for my boss, I don't think it is wrong for me to get $40 thousand of that. If I generate $100 million, I might not get $40 million, but I don't see anything wrong with getting a few million for doing that.

I really don't want the government to set my, and everyone elses, pay scale. I don't think that worked too well for other countries that tried it.
 

Papakeith

COTT Champ Emeritus
Damn Yankees
Aug 31, 2000
6,695
50
RI
Sorry guys. This one is political. Gotta close it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom