AIG chief threatens to walk

[coyotes_geek]

AIG chief threatens to walk
Robert Benmosche tells the insurance giant's board that he's 'done' after complaining about government constraints, according to a published report.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Robert Benmosche has threatened to step down as chief executive of American International Group, just three months after taking the helm of the insurance company that's received billions in government aid, according to a report published Wednesday.

The Wall Street Journal said Wednesday that Benmosche told AIG's board that he was "done" during a meeting last week. But the "strong-willed" executive agreed to reconsider after fellow directors were shocked, the newspaper said, citing unnamed sources.

Benmosche has reportedly expressed frustration with the constraints placed on AIG by the government after the global insurance company was bailed out last year.

The Journal said he complained to AIG's board about limitations on compensation imposed on the company following a recent review by the Obama administration's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg.

Last month, Feinberg demanded companies that had received government aid reduce total compensation for their top 25 highest-paid employee by 50%, on average.

America's most tone deaf CEO
Benmosche, 65, reportedly told AIG's board that the pay constraints would drive away talented employees.

A spokesman for AIG said the company had no comment.

AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) received a $182 billion lifeline from the government last year as the credit crisis forced the company to the brink of collapse. In exchange, the government took an 80% ownership stake in AIG.

Benmosche, formerly chief executive of MetLife, replaced Edward Liddy as AIG's chief executive in August. He has been criticized for his brash behavior and aggressive at ude toward Congress.

However, it isn't clear whether Benmosche would actually resign. According to the report, the executive was said to be prepared to step down at least once before, in August, before his own pay package had been formally approved.

Despite ongoing criticism of the company's compensation practices, Benmosche negotiated a $10.5 million pay package, including cash salary of $3 million. It was the largest award approved under the Treasury Department's recent curbs on executive pay.

Meanwhile, AIG has benefited recently from stabilization in the insurance business and improvements in the credit and mortgage market.

Last week, the New York-based company said it earned $455 million in the third quarter,an improvement over the $24.5 billion loss from a year earlier. It was AIG's second profitable quarter in a row.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/11/news..._AIG/index.htm

[coyotes_geek]

So the CEO of the company We The People gave $182 billion to, and now own 80% of is threatening to quit over the government imposed pay restrictions. I'm sure most will have the " him" opinion. However, is that really in our best interests? The only hope we have of getting paid back is for AIG to become profitable so that the government can one day sell Our ownership stake in AIG to recoup the money We gave them. If the pay restrictions hinder that, should they be kept in place? Especially considering that the parties affected by these restrictions aren't the same people who put AIG in this position to begin with.

[boutons_deux]

So walk, asshole. You've got so much talent, some other assholes will hire you.

unconstrained AIG failed. AIG is still bankrupt, with the nasty stuff simply taken off the books. poof!

[SpurNation]

Is there something morally wrong with taking (earning) less until financial obligations are paid off to your lenders?

The same people working there owe the taxpayer for even being able to KEEP their jobs.

Perhaps Robert Benmosche was referring to himself and using the "poor" employees excuse as amunition in his threat.

[coyotes_geek]

So walk, asshole. You've got so much talent, some other assholes will hire you.

unconstrained AIG failed. AIG is still bankrupt, with the nasty stuff simply taken off the books. poof!

Unconstrained AIG did fail. Then our government bought it on our behalf. Now that we own it, what should we do with it?

[admiralsnackbar]

Unconstrained AIG did fail. Then our government bought it on our behalf. Now that we own it, what should we do with it?

Run it better, for one.

Honestly, I'm surprised more CEOs of TARP companies aren't complaining that they aren't able to do the extraordinarily risky or extravagant things for short-term profits they're accustomed to.

[coyotes_geek]

Is there something morally wrong with taking (earning) less until financial obligations are paid off to your lenders?

No, there isn't. But as lenders is it in our best interests to force the same people who's performance directly affects whether or not we will be paid back to sacrifice something they don't want to?

The same people working there owe the taxpayer for even being able to KEEP their jobs.

But are the same people working there now the same people who put us in this situation? All the executives who ran AIG into the ground are gone.

Perhaps Robert Benmosche was referring to himself and using the "poor" employees excuse as amunition in his threat.

Entirely possible. Maybe even probable. But that doesn't neccissarily invalidate his point.

[EmptyMan]

government can one day sell Our ownership stake in AIG to recoup the money We gave them.

And then do what with it? "Give" it back to the people? Take $5 from you, eventually give back $1 dollar when in reality they still owe $50 to Ching Yong Dong.

[coyotes_geek]

And then do what with it? "Give" it back to the people? Take $5 from you, eventually give back $1 dollar when in reality they still owe $50 to Ching Yong Dong.

Isn't getting back $1 is better than getting back $0? Or do we get a better return in the form of warm fuzzies over making whatever executives we could convince to work for us suffer financially?

[SpurNation]

But as lenders is it in our best interests to force the same people who's performance directly affects whether or not we will be paid back to sacrifice something they don't want to?


But are the same people working there now the same people who put us in this situation? All the executives who ran AIG into the ground are gone.

IMO...These two fall into the same category. What was promised prior to the employees now working there? I don't know. But it sounds as if Mr. Benmosche is making accusations that the employees now are not being paid according to priorily accepting their positions.

Entirely possible. Maybe even probable. But that doesn't neccissarily invalidate his point.

Or even (correction)> relevant.

[spurster]

All he needs to do is get AIG back on track and then he can "earn" his $100M or whatever. It is hard to believe that $10M isn't enough to attract talent.

[admiralsnackbar]

No, there isn't. But as lenders is it in our best interests to force the same people who's performance directly affects whether or not we will be paid back to sacrifice something they don't want to?

If they don't want to forgo extravagant bonus checks, let them leave and try to find better on the job market -- there are plenty of intelligent, ambitious souls in this country capable of doing everything the present crop of execs do, but for less out-sized, out-dated prices.

[EVAY]

If they don't want to forgo extravagant bonus checks, let them leave and try to find better on the job market -- there are plenty of intelligent, ambitious souls in this country capable of doing everything the present crop of execs do, but for less out-sized, out-dated prices.

I'll do if for 9 million flat.

[RandomGuy]

Boo- ing-hoo.

CEO's and other executives have pissed away shareholder money on exorbitant salaries and give-aways to useless executives for decades.

This guy is just pissed because finally he has to deal with a shareholder who isn't going to just bend over and take it while looking the other way.

I can only hope this is the start of a general shareholder revolt that might actually make corporate governance in this country worth a .

How much shareholder wealth has been wasted on worthless CEOs and executives over the last 20 years?