I am impressed.

#101
#101
allvol123 said:
I addressed a particular point you made. Your point is 100% incorrect. Agreements mean something or they do to some people. Don't come back with "of course not" on what bonus you deserve if your company performs poorly while you do a great individual job. If you don't like the agreements you subject yourself to, find a new one. I don't like the mindset that sits behind that statement.
Click to expand...

The spot bonuses take care of me, and I earn them, and it isn't because of some contractual agreement. As far at the annual bonus, it is contractual, and it is tied to the company's performance. So my point still stands, and you don't have the slightest clue as to how my company structures it's pay. The difference between this mindset and this AIG crap is they think they are entitled to a contractual bonus without any accountability tied to it.

There isn't any accountability with the way these bonuses are being handled. Period. I say again, if they deserve the bonuses, defer them until they are earned...and they can even come out of the taxpayer coffer for all I care. We are all invested in this thing now and I want it to succeed, but I don't want my investment money going to a bonus based on a contract, and not performance. Simply based on the fact that the company needed a bailout last year and the stock price plummeting, nobody should get anything extra this year. But they are, because it is contractual. Again, agreement or not, where is all this accountability you seem to be so high on?
 
Last edited:
#103
#103
rjd970 said:
Way to not even address the issue at hand. Your post is complete horsesh*t. And for what it's worth, without the financial collapse last year we would have done really well, so it isn't even really the company's fault.

These guys are acting like they are entitled to a contractual bonus up front despite the company's performance. I get what is called "spot bonuses" for a job well done throughout the year for something specific I have done, and I get it AFTER I did it. This is on top of my annual bonus. Obviously this system of just handing out bonuses because they are contractually obligated, without any accountability to the company's bottom line didn't really work.

If these bonuses are really what is needed to keep these guys around to fix the problem then they should be deferred until actual results start coming in. Pray tell, where is the accountability in any of this the way it is being done?
Click to expand...

Not all bonuses are created equally. In your company, it may be a "profit-sharing" bonus. In much of the financial sector they use deferred payment bonuses or retention bonuses or whatever. You are putting your standards onto these bonuses. As I posted before, I worked in a consulting role for a trading company - I and every other person in the company received at least 25% of our salary as a bonus in any year. It was more if the company did better. It was clearly viewed as part of salary (25%) that was deferred with any thing over 25% being what you view as bonus.
 
#104
#104
volinbham said:
Not all bonuses are created equally. In your company, it may be a "profit-sharing" bonus. In much of the financial sector they use deferred payment bonuses or retention bonuses or whatever. You are putting your standards onto these bonuses. As I posted before, I worked in a consulting role for a trading company - I and every other person in the company received at least 25% of our salary as a bonus in any year. It was more if the company did better. It was clearly viewed as part of salary (25%) that was deferred with any thing over 25% being what you view as bonus.
Click to expand...

I am simply using my company's standard as a comparison. Let me ask you this, what accountability is there tied to these so called payment or retention bonuses?
 
#105
#105
T-TownVol said:
Bottom Line......Government should not have EVER gotten involved.
Click to expand...

I agree, but what is the alternative? Letting AIG fail? Refer to droski's posts as to what we are being told would have happened otherwise. It is frustrating to no end.
 
#106
#106
rjd970 said:
I am simply using my company's standard as a comparison. Let me ask you this, what accountability is there tied to these so called payment or retention bonuses?
Click to expand...

In my case - as long as I did my job in a satisfactory manner then I was getting one.

My guess would be that some had performance metrics tied to them. However, just like sales commissions performance metrics are not always tied directly to net profitability.
 
#107
#107
rjd970 said:
I agree, but what is the alternative? Letting AIG fail? Refer to droski's posts as to what we are being told would have happened otherwise. It is frustrating to no end.
Click to expand...

The private sector will always work it's self out.
 
#108
#108
volinbham said:
In my case - as long as I did my job in a satisfactory manner then I was getting one.

My guess would be that some had performance metrics tied to them. However, just like sales commissions performance metrics are not always tied directly to net profitability.
Click to expand...

sales commissions are owed to the rep even if the company lost money on the bottom line
 
#109
#109
The whole thing is a mess. I just don't see the bonus issue as greater than any of the other BS issues with this company including:

1. the limited oversight that went with the bail out money
2. the administration, the previous administration and Congress' role in 2#1
3. the grandstanding by Congress/administration about greed -- simply for political gain
4. the populace over reaction
 
#110
#110
T-TownVol said:
sales commissions are owed to the rep even if the company lost money on the bottom line
Click to expand...

Yep - that's my point. The narrow view that "bonuses" or extra comp beyond base pay must always be tied directly to net profitability is in no way connected with compensation reality.
 
#111
#111
volinbham said:
In my case - as long as I did my job in a satisfactory manner then I was getting one.

My guess would be that some had performance metrics tied to them. However, just like sales commissions performance metrics are not always tied directly to net profitability.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt it. The whole justification we keep hearing is that it was all contractual and that's why they needed to be handed out. Given the performance of the company, and specifically the financial products division, I don't see how anybody should be getting a bonus, whether they had anything to do with the current mess or not. The fact still remains these bonuses wouldn't be handed out if the taxpayer hadn't stepped in.
 
#112
#112
volinbham said:
Yep - that's my point. The narrow view that "bonuses" or extra comp beyond base pay must always be tied directly to net profitability is in no way connected with compensation reality.
Click to expand...

Then why not just call it salary? Why have a contract in the first place guaranteeing more than what they already earn?
 
#113
#113
volinbham said:
Yep - that's my point. The narrow view that "bonuses" or extra comp beyond base pay must always be tied directly to net profitability is in no way connected with compensation reality.
Click to expand...

exactly. many traders get a bonus based on the profitiability of their trading. it has nothing to do with the overall company's performance. and whether you think these guys deserve it or not, the fact is that eliminating this compensation ensures your best and most productive talent will leave and the taxpayers will never see this money again.
 
#114
#114
rjd970 said:
As far at the annual bonus, it is contractual, and it is tied to the company's performance. So my point still stands, and you don't have the slightest clue as to how my company structures it's pay. The difference between this mindset and this AIG crap is they think they are entitled to a contractual bonus without any accountability tied to it.
/quote]

Your point on "of course not" is still incorrect. Where did I say I know how your company structures their pay? I am going by your statement. You think you are entitled as well. The whole "of course not" screams entitlement. You absolutely deserve a smaller or no bonus if your company does poorly, if that is the agreement you have entered into. If they(AIG people) have a contract that says they deserve a bonus with no accountability tied to it, then they most certainly do deserve it.
Click to expand...
 
#116
#116
rjd970 said:
Then why not just call it salary? Why have a contract in the first place guaranteeing more than what they already earn?
Click to expand...

how many times have i said that congress is arguing semantics. this "bonus" is no different than deferred compensation. no one has explained to me what earning a ridiculous salary is ok, but bonuses are not.
 
#117
#117
rjd970 said:
Then why not just call it salary? Why have a contract in the first place guaranteeing more than what they already earn?
Click to expand...

Why does it have to conform to your view of compensation? Compensation practices evolve for any number of reasons - there's no reason they must conform to your strict view of what a bonus should be.

WRT sales compensation, commission (bonus) is geared to motivate certain behaviors such as number of new customers, growth in existing accounts, number of calls made, sales of one particular product over another, etc.

Notice, most of these are top-line (revenue) focused rather than bottom-line focused. Why? Because that's sales' role. They are still performance-based in most cases but that performance may or may not be profitable. I would guess many of the bonus recipients at AIG did meet their performance goals as defined by their contracts.

Sales commissions are a common frustration among employees and often sales people are among the highest paid people in an organization.
 
#118
#118
droski said:
how many times have i said that congress is arguing semantics. this "bonus" is no different than deferred compensation. no one has explained to me what earning a ridiculous salary is ok, but bonuses are not.
Click to expand...

The difference is between AIG funding said salary/bonus and taxpayer funding said salary/bonus during a period where many are losing their jobs and have lost a lot of invested money.


Why do you think the Federal Government as a whole has locked-in salaries?
 
#119
#119
droski said:
how many times have i said that congress is arguing semantics. this "bonus" is no different than deferred compensation. no one has explained to me what earning a ridiculous salary is ok, but bonuses are not.
Click to expand...

You can find your answer in Websters under "bonus".
 
#120
#120
volinbham said:
Sales commissions are a common frustration among employees and often sales people are among the highest paid people in an organization.
Click to expand...


and the sad thing about that is management can not handle it and find a way to screw the very ones bringing in all the revenue
 
#121
#121
allvol123 said:
Your point on "of course not" is still incorrect. Where did I say I know how your company structures their pay? I am going by your statement. You think you are entitled as well. The whole "of course not" screams entitlement. You absolutely deserve a smaller or no bonus if your company does poorly, if that is the agreement you have entered into. If they(AIG people) have a contract that says they deserve a bonus with no accountability tied to it, then they most certainly do deserve it.
Click to expand...

We have different definitions of "deserve".

That is the crap people are pissed about. There is no way there is any public outrage if taxpayer money isn't used. These companies can, and have, operated anyway they want. The guy that didn't get a bonus this year because his company lost money, the guy who didn't get a raise this year, and the guy who lost his job through no fault of his own have every right to be pissed these people are getting bonuses with his tax money simply because it is "contractual" and there was no accountability with it.
 
#123
#123
DC Vol said:
The difference is between AIG funding said salary/bonus and taxpayer funding said salary/bonus during a period where many are losing their jobs and have lost a lot of invested money.


Why do you think the Federal Government as a whole has locked-in salaries?
Click to expand...

I see. So would you approve of all salaries at AIG being taxed at 90%?

UT IE 95 said:
You can find your answer in Websters under "bonus".
Click to expand...

So if they called it a "retention package" rather than a "retention bonus" than it would be ok?
 
#124
#124
volinbham said:
Why does it have to conform to your view of compensation? Compensation practices evolve for any number of reasons - there's no reason they must conform to your strict view of what a bonus should be.

WRT sales compensation, commission (bonus) is geared to motivate certain behaviors such as number of new customers, growth in existing accounts, number of calls made, sales of one particular product over another, etc.

Notice, most of these are top-line (revenue) focused rather than bottom-line focused. Why? Because that's sales' role. They are still performance-based in most cases but that performance may or may not be profitable. I would guess many of the bonus recipients at AIG did meet their performance goals as defined by their contracts.

Sales commissions are a common frustration among employees and often sales people are among the highest paid people in an organization.
Click to expand...


I would guess they did too, and that is part of the problem.

The word "bonus" has been thrown around so much and given so many different definitions trying to defend this crap that I don't even know what it means anymore.

Exactly how many people at AIG have a bonus based on commission? I would love to know what performance these individuals showed that justified some of these bonuses. How many execs are intimately involved in actual sales?

The CEO is doing it right. If the ship doesn't get righted, he makes almost nothing. If it does, he is worth every million they decide to pay him. He is entitled to nothing upfront. You know, like what a "bonus" really is.
 
#125
#125
THe AIG CEO is earning $1 a year. So is the Citi CEO. Both deserve over $1 a year even if the ship doesn't get righted.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top