Andrew Ross Sorkin Vs. John Carney On AIG Bonuses

March 17, 2009 RSS Feed Print

Should the government block $165 million in bonuses to AIG?

In his DealBook column, Andrew Ross Sorkin takes the unpopular position, arguing for the bonuses as a symbol of our belief in the sanctity of contracts as a "fundamental value." He writes:

That may strike many people as a bit of convenient legalese, but maybe there is something to it. If you think this economy is a mess now, imagine what it would look like if the business community started to worry that the government would start abrogating contracts left and right.

Valid point, but I'm not convinced. At Clusterstock, John Carney says the government can break contracts because, well, without the government there wouldn't be an AIG left to write bonus checks:

The key to understanding the AIG bonus issue is that AIG would be bankrupt and in the process of a court supervised liquidation but for the extraordinary government action that has kept the company afloat. If not for the government bailout, the contracts would be worthless because the employees would be unsecured creditors in a company worth less than zero.

To put it differently, the abrogation of the contracts is just a normal form of counter-party risk run by anyone entering into a contract. All contracts are at risk that the other party will go broke before they can perform. You take a job from your employer, perform work and expect to get paid. But if your employer goes broke before you are paid, you have to line up with the other creditors and hope there's enough left over to pay you.

I tend to side with Carney based solely on recent history. Market manipulation by the government (banning the shorting of financial shares, executive pay caps, bailouts generally) may skew confidence a bit, but the majority of frightened investors who are unwilling to borrow, spend or lend aren't concerned about whether or not a new loan would be invalidated. They're worried about getting one at all. Trust in the fundamental value of contracts isn't our biggest problem, and if it is, the shell game in the derivatives markets and credit ratings surely hurt confidence more than the threat of a few clawed-back bonus checks from AIG. Take 'em if you can get 'em.

 

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

+1

soundtracks of AL 7:19AM July 17, 2009

The 165 million dollars bonuses paid to AIG incompetent employees wasn’t AIG money it was the American taxpayer money and thus the American taxpayer aren't obligated to pay the outrageous bonus money to the incompetent employees that caused the bankruptcy of AIG.

Walter A. De Hon of NV 5:15AM March 18, 2009

The 165 million dollars bonuses paid to AIG incompetent employees wasn’t AIG money it was the American taxpayer money and thus the American taxpayer aren’t obligated to pay the outrageous bonus money to the incompetent employees that caused the bankruptcy of AIG.

Walter A. De Hon of NV 5:14AM March 18, 2009

The Ticker

The Ticker

Kirk Shinkle is a senior editor at U.S. News. He writes daily about ups and downs in equity markets, sectors and stocks. Formerly, he covered business and economics on both coasts for Investor's Business Daily.

advertisement

advertisement