Fiserv
Thoughts & Comments
The People's Republic of America
If Congress can get away with taxing earnings arbitrarily and after the fact, that's what the country will become

Vernon Hill  ( about me )
Posted 03/24/2009
bankstocks.com
vhill@bankstocks.com

As the ongoing financial panic unfolds, no event has been more staggering—or dramatic---than the collapse of AIG.   

This was once one of the world's great companies, not just in financial services, but in any industry, anywhere. At its peak, the company had a market cap of $190 billion and assets of $1 trillion.

Now AIG has become the poster child for Wall Street’s excesses. Cost to taxpayers so far: over $150 billion, with no end in sight. 

But the latest controversy surrounding AIG—those $165 million in retention bonuses that seemed to have gotten everyone in Washington up in arms last week—actually reveals the absurdity of what happens when government tries to play an active role in managing a for-profit enterprise.

Let’s review what happened. Soon after its bailout, AIG decided, sensibly, to shutter the source of its problems, its Financial Products unit. In order to retain key people who suddenly knew they’d soon be out of a job, AIG offered retention bonuses to traders and others, as an incentive for them to wind down their positions as efficiently as possible. The CDS traders, who were the ones the caused all the company’s problems in the first place, were already long gone and not included in the deal. 

So all that sputtering in Washington aside, the deal made perfect economic and commercial sense. Which is one reason, presumably, there was no uproar when the retention plans were first announced last November, and why key members of the government signed off on them.

But once word emerged last week that the bonuses have actually been paid, every politician in Washington suddenly got a convenient case of amnesia, and started hollering. Politicians from the President on down vowed to move heaven and earth to get the money back—money, recall, that was paid according to a contract freely entered into by both sides, and publicly disclosed.  

But to the politicians, such legalities don’t matter. They want blood, from individuals who haven’t done a single thing wrong. Congress’s latest tactic is to retrospectively tax the bonuses at 90%.

And so the destruction of free markets accelerates. 

This is outrageous. If the government can tax these legal payments at 90%, after the fact, it can arbitrarily tax any of your income, regardless of when you earned it, at whatever rate it chooses.

If it can take back these AIG bonuses, it can do anything it wants, whenever it wants. In the process, our free market system would collapse, and be replaced by a system where the government, in all its arbitrary majesty, would essentially be in control of everything.  

And you think the economy is having problems now. . .

What do you think? Let me know!

 


  Add your comment

 

 

JOE,EXc Posted On 3/24/2009 12:03:04 PM

WISH WE THE POEPLE HAD THE POWER TO FIRE THE POLITICIANS WHO SCREW UP BEFORE THEIR TERMS FINISH. THAT WOULD BE REAL JUSTICE.

DoYouBelieveThis? Posted On 3/24/2009 12:21:09 PM

I had a "discussion" with someone this weekend who works in the government. It was his opinion that all the people at AIG's Financial Products unit covered by these bonuses should be let go and replaced by new MBAs. His reasoning is that new MBAs would be happy to go to work for a fraction of what the current employees would command and do the job equally as well. My question: Is there no end to the ignorance of those in government?

Vats Posted On 3/24/2009 12:42:11 PM

I think the crux of the article is that giving retention bonus for quality employees in tough times is justifiable. And making noise about showcases the inefficiency of the Government. I generally agree with most of your views, but this time I humbly beg to differ. In most companies(that are robust enough) belts are tightened when times are tough and bonuses are given only for performance not for gratitude of sticking around. Now the fact that some people feel that such bonuses are justified shows the tendency of 'entitlement' that is still hovering out there. I'm disappointed that this article is from you.

Parkite Posted On 3/24/2009 12:57:02 PM

Our free market system would collapse? It already did with these foolish bailouts of private enterprise. Capitalism is supposed to be more Darwinian.

JimBob Posted On 3/24/2009 1:25:16 PM

Vats, agreeing with your argument, but don't you really think that decision could have been made back in November when the bonuses were actually announced? Where was the outrage then? That would have been the time to tax FUTURE earnings, not POST FACTO. Doing it not sets up for the government to have the unprecedented ability to tax anyone, anywhere, for any reason. That's got me quaking in my shoes and holding onto my cash with both hands.

Banker Posted On 3/24/2009 4:54:27 PM

I agree. This is setting the tone for complete control of whatever whenever. Hopefully we the people rise up before we lose everything...

Wow Posted On 3/26/2009 4:10:17 AM

Vern must be irony-impaired. Or at the least selectively arguing this point. Government involvement in the taxation of bonuses within an entity it essentially owns will bring down capitalism? But the TRILLIONS of public dollars to save these institutions DOESN'T undermine capitalism? You have been a leader with a great retail strategy and top notch execution, but logic appears to have eluded you on this one. I expect your next article to cover all the reasons why the government and the Fed should NOT have provided a penny in bailout money, liquidity, TARF loans or TARP funds, as the capricious act of saving a capitalist enterprise threatens the foundations of our nation. But I suspect you will not, because like Tom, the competent insight you once provided has been replaced by incessant whining about how the system is screwing the architects of the system. At least be honest with yourself. You want the government backstop when it benefits you, and you want it no strings attached. Which means you are fine with government's meddling, as long as it is in your benefit, i.e. you are devoid of any real principle or integrity.

hoightoider Posted On 3/26/2009 12:44:18 PM

I understand government interference in business is not generally a good thing. However, why is there not more being spoken and written about why congress had to respond to the outrage of their constituents? I think more focus needs to be directed toward CEO's, BOD's and others so they understand it behooves free enterprise that they not personally make themselves unseemly wealthy while causing great hardship on the American people in the process. If capitalist don't want government interfering in their business and the market place, then they need to conduct themselves more responsibly.

ceekay Posted On 3/26/2009 1:22:31 PM

exaggerated statements..do not make for a cogent argument....generally a serious turnoff

Erich Riesenberg Posted On 3/26/2009 1:24:18 PM

Amen, Wow. Even those of us who agree the politicians are pitiful for harping on the bonuses must, if we are honest, find it remarkable that Tom and the other folks here at bankstocks are also harping on this issue. No outrage at the feds bailing out the banks? Really? It is so much like little Rick Santelli's rant against the homeowner bailout, while neglecting to rant about GE's own 100 billion dollar plus bailout from the FDIC. Are all big investor so self absorbed and arrogant and intellectually dishonest? That is a much better indicator of the downfall of capitalism, and the progression of crony capitalism.

jsc173 Posted On 3/26/2009 1:46:27 PM

Vernon, this "scalp hunting" exercise by Frank and Co. has cast a pall over this entire debacle and by debacle I don't mean AIG, I mean the whole mess. Just at a point in time when we taxpayers need private equity to begin taking some of the risks we've been taking, the "inquisition" has made it incredibly risky for private investors to step in and help. Who's to say what contracts Congress or Treasury will seek to nullify at some future date? What if some of these assets that get purchased for 30 cents get sold in a month or two for 50 cents and, given the leverage available, the private investors (as well as the government) make 5x their investment in such a short period of time? Will Barney and Co. seek a windfall profits tax on these "outrageous" gains? What do you think??

douglas hughes Posted On 3/26/2009 3:12:42 PM

hughesinvestmentmanagement.com you nailed it, you can trade great values and stay in cash thats it for now, great article to the point get it on tv/cnbc and let it be heard loud and clear by all!

Flo Posted On 3/26/2009 3:23:23 PM

We really need term limits!

Old Hand Posted On 3/26/2009 4:21:51 PM

This government meddling is likely to cost us the taxpayer a ton more money and it is maddening that congress rants on $180 million when we have Trillions in play right now that needs to be managed. AIG's losses will likely go up as the company empties out and other financial players eat their lunch every day in the market. And any company that the government is involved with in the future will not be able to keep anyone around since they will turn on them at any moment and take away any promises made. The deadbeats will stay but anyone with skills will be gone. Congress does not understand this because many of them are deadbeats that don't want to leave Congress, pay their taxes, balance the budget, etc. Does anyone remember the financial institution that Congress had access to in the Capitol some years back and many of the congressmen owned it money, etc.? That is how Congress runs a company..........never mind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mark V Posted On 3/26/2009 4:23:05 PM

Forgive the drama, but elected officials legislating out of anger, misinformation and fear is what caused this country to put American citizens of Japanese descent in camps during WWII. Let's hope cooler, more informed heads prevail. As we listen closer than just the sound bites, it is becoming clearer that the "bad guys" were not recipients of the bonuses. Even if they were, where does it say the government gets a Mulligan on its contracts? Did they make a bad deal? I dunno! As they say, a deal is a deal. But, there is some precident for the government going back on a deal. Does anybody remember "appraised equity capital" or "regulatory goodwill?"...LOL

PeteG Posted On 3/26/2009 4:43:35 PM

Imagine if this passes...In history books, along side the Tea Tax and the Boston Tea Party, our children' schildren will read about this. Known to them as the "AIG Tax"; there will be protesters dressed up as Wall Street executives throwing senators into the Potomac River!

PeteG Posted On 3/26/2009 4:52:53 PM

Imagine if this passes...In history books, along side the Tea Tax and the Boston Tea Party, our children' schildren will read about this. Known to them as the "AIG Tax"; there will be protesters dressed up as Wall Street executives throwing senators into the Potomac River!

JB Posted On 3/26/2009 9:32:37 PM

Businesses make lots of mistakes...but their biggest is making government their partner.

Joseph Posted On 3/27/2009 4:24:03 AM

This is total nonsense - part of the usual ideological claptrap that got us into this mess

Pete McCoy Posted On 3/27/2009 9:50:42 AM

This event will bring into full view the gradual degradation of the financial efficency that, has been one of the few bright spots for the US. As a society, while adjusting painfully to our reduced advantages, the political class will be able to determine who wins and loses on the business playing field going forward. If nothing else, businesses will have to provide more "pay to play" type of benefits to our political leaders as a cost of doing business. Very unfortunate.

Marty Posted On 3/29/2009 11:11:03 AM

This act by Congress is unconstituional. Google "Bill of Attainder" and see for yourself. A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. Bills of attainder are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution. It is time to show and shout-out our outrage! Marty

Kathleen Posted On 4/1/2009 10:19:37 PM

We live in a world gone mad! What you didn't mention, which is equally disgusting if not disturbing, is that a member of law enforcement, namely Cuomo THREATENED to publish the names of the beneficiaries of these bonuses knowing full well that threats were made being made to harm these individuals (does not matter if they were real or not). As Americans and patriots we should all be appalled at this behavior!!!!! P.S. By the way, when is Metro Bank coming to NY?

Tony Palumbo Posted On 4/6/2009 11:39:34 AM

Icould agree more, Vernon. Every time I get into a political / economic discussion, which is occurs every single day due to my work as a financial planner, I warn whomever I'm speaking with that if we're not careful, the United States will become the United Socialist Republic of America... ndividual work ethic and dedication come from pride which is derived from ownership which requires responsibility. It is inherent everyone’s psyche because the responsibility of ownership creates a sense of accomplishment which escalates pride which generates happiness which elevates productivity. Integrity must be taught at the grass roots level of every corporation. Integrity and Ethics are a necessity in life for without honor you have chaos and without the entrepeneurial spirit of a capitalist free market system we might as well be a society similar to that of Communist Russia, Cuba, Venezuela and China
Fiserv
Ad for Bankstocks
 

     Bankstocks.com is a public web site operated by individuals who also operate investment advisory firms that serve as investment advisers to hedge funds (the "Firms"). Some articles are authored by employees of the Firms while others are authored by third parties. Under no circumstances does any article posted on Bankstocks.com represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. This article is intended to provide insight into the financial services industry and is not a solicitation of any kind. The Firms do not vouch for the accuracy of any information contained in any article posted herein and the views expressed in any article herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firms. The Firms buy and sell securities on behalf of their fund investors and may do so, before and after any particular article herein is published, with respect to the securities discussed in any article posted herein. The Firms’ appraisal of a company's prospects is only one factor that affects the Firms’ decision whether to buy or sell shares in that company. Other factors might include, but are not limited to, the presence of mandatory limits on individual positions, decisions regarding portfolio exposures, and general market conditions, and liquidity needs. As such, there may not always be consistency between the views expressed in this article and the Firms’ trading on behalf of their fund investors. There may be conflicts between the content posted on Bankstocks.com and the interests of the Firms. For an explanation of these conflicts, including an explanation of our trading policy, and how we resolve them, click here.

Neither the authors nor any Bankstocks.com team members can provide investment advice or respond to individual requests for recommendations. However, we encourage your feedback and welcome your comments on any of the articles on this site. Neither the authors nor Bankstocks.com has undertaken any responsibility to update any portion of this article in response to events which may transpire subsequent to its original publication date.