What would you do if you’re the pay czar?
Honor the contract or not? What would you do in this case if you were the pay czar?
The New York Times reports on a tough decision that the Treasury Department’s czar of executive pay will have to answer: Should Andrew J. Hall get his $100 million bonus or not?
Essentially, Hall, head of Phibro, a small commodities trading firm in Westport, Conn., is contractually due for a big bonus to pay for his cut of the profits from bets he placed in the oil market.
The problem, the Times writes, is that his contract is with Citigroup, which was saved with roughly $45 billion in taxpayer aid.
Hall is a top performer at an operation that has netted Citigroup about $2 billion over the last five years, the Times writes. If Citigroup will not pay him the huge sums he has long made, someone else probably will.
A spokesman for Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury’s pay czar, said the reviews of executive compensation figures were just starting and that pay levels must strike the right balance between discouraging excessive risk-taking and encouraging reward.
So if you’re Feinberg, what do you do? Approve the bonus or not?
(If you’d like more details before deciding, clink on the link above for the Times story.)
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
164 comments Add your comment
Jack
August 4th, 2009
8:35 am
We do not need any Czars at all.
Good Dawg
August 4th, 2009
8:41 am
The government should stay out of corporate America. Both in terms of bailouts and pay. Get rid of the Czars in the Government.
vince neil
August 4th, 2009
8:53 am
the czar is extra constitutional with no congressional oversight…but congress gladly abrogates their power to avoid having to make any substantive decisions….government of the weak, by the weak!
Sam
August 4th, 2009
9:16 am
“pay levels must strike the right balance between discouraging excessive risk-taking and encouraging reward.”
Oh magic wizard of all-knowing knowledge, please determine this exact amount and eliminate all strife in the world of financial compensation. Oh blessed federal government, please accept my newborn as a sacrifice to your all-knowing all-doing power of noble righteousness. I shall smash his head on the rocks for thee. Praise and love be for our all-hallowed government. Save us and amen.
Big Al
August 4th, 2009
9:22 am
He should pay and then resign the position because it is ridiculous to begin with.
OedipusTax
August 4th, 2009
9:25 am
There never should have been a pay czar of any kind. The encroachment of heartless bureaucrats proceeds unchecked in this Obama-nation.
Sherl
August 4th, 2009
10:00 am
Why should we honor his contract, we did not honor the contracts made with union workers? Is a contract only a contract if you are a white collar employee?
Amy
August 4th, 2009
10:00 am
I didn’t get my bonus… why should he? Thousands, if not millions, of Americans gave up a lot. Why should this jerk get a bonus?! $100,000,000.00 could do a lot more going to help families who have lost everything!!! If I was that guy, I wouldn’t take that bonus.. or I’d dictate where it should go. Think of how many foreclosed homes that money could save. Foreclosure doesn’t just happen to lazy people who don’t pay their mortgage. Its happening to good, hard-working American citizens of all income levels.
gagirl
August 4th, 2009
10:00 am
This company was bailed out with our money. This man should not get that kind of bonus nor should he accept it knowing what the citizens of this country have done to ensure he even has a job. With so many Americans out of work because of the greediness of these people. He should be ashamed of himself for even asking or considering it.
Catherine
August 4th, 2009
10:04 am
Just another case of “banks gone wild” and the rich getting richer by making the poor poorer. CITI has the largest increase on their credit card interest rates, compared to other banks. There should be a class-action lawsuit against CITI.
Carlton
August 4th, 2009
10:07 am
He earned his bonus. He signed a contract. He’s entitled to it.
You Democrats should take notice and start working and maybe one day you too will get a bonus instead of sitting around complaining and waiting for government handouts that are funded by people who actually work for a living.
Art Vandelay
August 4th, 2009
10:09 am
Oedipus — heartless? Is this guy somehow a victim of an oppressive government, or is he a greedy trader who’s part of the reason our economy is circling the drain? If it’s ok for the auto companies to unilaterally void union contracts over and over again, it’s perfectly fine for the government to step in and keep this guy from taking 100 million taxpayer dollars as a reward for gaming the oil market.
Pandora
August 4th, 2009
10:09 am
Are you kidding me? Heck NO the gov’t..or should I say the hard working tax paying citizens of this great country should pay for their bonuses they have to give out!!! We are already using our hard earned money to bail the big boys out! That’s too much!!!! Let them either sink or sail on their own…they have PLENTY of money!
Stan
August 4th, 2009
10:09 am
If I were the “Pay Czar”, I would end the minimum wage, encorage any company that took Gov bailout moneies to pay it back ASAP so they can pay whoever whatever they want. Then I’d resign.
Amy
August 4th, 2009
10:10 am
I’m entitled to my full salary but I’m not going to get it.
Stan
August 4th, 2009
10:11 am
Well then Amy, you are also entitled to quit and go get a job that will pay your full salary.
JB
August 4th, 2009
10:13 am
Wow Amy. You are an idiot. Let’s just take all the money in our country and divide it equally. Will that make you happy?
whodean
August 4th, 2009
10:13 am
Play a tiny violin for the girls above who post about not wanting this man to get his bonus.
#1 he did very very well at what he was hired to do
#2 he should be paid for it to the full extent of the contract.
#3 Don’t be jealous. Work hard, get educated and you have a chance to do the same as this guy, make big, big bucks.
Dan
August 4th, 2009
10:14 am
Seems if it is a legal contract they really don’t have a choice.
JB
August 4th, 2009
10:15 am
$100 million. Really? Sorry Mr. Hall. Once Citi took $45 billion from us the taxpayers, bonuses get nixed.
Wil Walton
August 4th, 2009
10:17 am
There should not be a czar. However, there currently is. I also agree with some on this that the bonus should NOT be paid. Why should he get his bonus when many others have not? Just because he takes risks??? After reading the piece from the Times, I would tend to think that fact would be even MORE proof of why he should not get the bonus… reward someone who’s job inherently takes more money out of the taxpayers’ pockets (high gas prices) after those taxpayers bailed out the company he works for. Umm, no thank you.
Bushwacker
August 4th, 2009
10:17 am
We do not need a pay czar but no bonuses for maikng huge profits for the oil companies, the game is rigged so they always make money, you don’t have to be a genius to invest in something they makes money no matter what happens to market.
Victoria
August 4th, 2009
10:19 am
If it’s in the contract, then he’s entitled to the money.
Bill
August 4th, 2009
10:19 am
Pay the man, it was in his contract. We don’t need a pay CZAR. And no more governmental monies should go for bailouts in the future.
Wil Walton
August 4th, 2009
10:20 am
Whodean:
1. I do my job very, very well, however, I did not get my bonus b/c my company decided that NO ONE would get bonuses this year (and maybe more).
2. Contracts are broken every minute.
3. Just because I may disagree with this bonus, does not mean than I am jealous of him or his $.
JG
August 4th, 2009
10:21 am
This is a no brainer. Give back the $45 billion and the top performer can have his bonus. The reality is without the $45 Billion the gentleman could not collect. Citi would have ceased to exist.
datominator
August 4th, 2009
10:21 am
The question is not whether or not you belive the bonus to be excessive; to most people of course 100 million is excessive. The question is whether you believe a legal, binding contract that says you will be paid x dollars if y goal is achieved can simply be discarded? Come on people, if we start casually disregarding contracts and laws simply because you personally think its too much, we are in big trouble as a nation.
DHD
August 4th, 2009
10:24 am
NOTHING is ever said about Hollywood entertainers, sports figures, etc. They get paid based on performance, which is in their contract. So does this guy. I don’t care if the taxpayers pays the salary or not, it is in his contract. it comes with the deal.
Here is something that I have NEVER heard anyone address: If the government stopped 500 million in bonuses, didn’t they cut themselves out of about 250 million in tax dollars back to the country? Was that smart?
Joe McLain
August 4th, 2009
10:24 am
The guy earned the money. If he met his goals he should get the bonus. Shoot he should run the company if he made money while Citi lost it.
Skillet
August 4th, 2009
10:25 am
The “pay czar” should quit, as should all “czars” in the US. This is not the Soviet Union.
Honor the man’s contract.
Wil Walton
August 4th, 2009
10:26 am
DHD: that’s actually a GREAT point… No bonus, no tax paid on that bonus.
Timmy T
August 4th, 2009
10:27 am
Whether or not the bonus is excessive (it is beyond excessive, it’s grotesque) IS relevant. It became relevant the instant my tax dollars went to Citi’s coffers. It’s also symptomatic of our economic situation in general: executive compensation spiraling out of control while regular workers’ wages have been stagnant or declining. It’s called GREED, and it’s one thing for a business to do it on their own dime. It’s another completely to do it with US taxpayers’ money.
Sting 'em Buzz
August 4th, 2009
10:28 am
pay the man…does he need an assistant?
RockPaperScissors
August 4th, 2009
10:30 am
I was under contract to a small law firm that went belly-up in March. I’m still owed over $3000 in back wages and expenses. Can the government please bail out that law firm so I can pay my godamn credit cards????
whodean
August 4th, 2009
10:31 am
Timmy–
You realize this bonus is a very small fraction of the profit he made for his employer (Citi)?
If you made your employer billions of dollars you would deserve this bonus also.
Don’t be jealous.
Get Real
August 4th, 2009
10:32 am
Yes he should get his bonus. If you contract a job for someone and when it is over and you have done what you say you are going to do they say “No, that is too much money now” you will be okay with that? I would NOT at all. Is the pay ridiculous, YES. Is he owed it YES. The problem is with CITI not this guy.
Bradley G
August 4th, 2009
10:34 am
“is contractually due for a big bonus to pay for his cut of the profits”
It’s his cut of the PROFITS. It should be given to him, and the czars should go away!
Peadawg
August 4th, 2009
10:34 am
I 100% agree w/ Amy @ 10 am. I’m not getting my yearly raise in Janurary. Why should he get his bonus for playing golf every day?
nana
August 4th, 2009
10:36 am
Pay the guy, fire all the czars, fire congress and fire this abomination in the White House.
Gail
August 4th, 2009
10:36 am
Yes he should get it. It says he earned them $2billion over the past 5 years. What shape would Citigroup be now if he had not done that? I must add though that I don’t think the government (AKA taxpayers) should have given any bailout money.
Chip
August 4th, 2009
10:36 am
Why is it that just because taxpayer money was put into Citi all leagal contracts are VOID? The people all of you should be pissed at are the politicians for investing this money in the first place!
Get Real
August 4th, 2009
10:37 am
Pee Dawg
How do you know he played golf everyday and believe me if you made a company $2,000,000,000.00 you would want is due to you. You are lucky to have a job. Don’t complain about a raise. That is real GREED
PoliticalMan
August 4th, 2009
10:37 am
This is a no-brainer. When tax payers bailed out these companies, their extravagance should have gone out the window. It is a small glimpse of how financial firms have distorted our economy. What real company dealing in real goods with real competition could possibly pay anyone $100 mil. That dude may be entitled to $100 mil in fantasy land, but not in the one where tax payers are providing the stability.
RJ
August 4th, 2009
10:37 am
I do not know the specifics of this particular contract, however calling his pay a “bonus” is a blatant misnomer. The vast majority of these individuals receiving large or “grotesque” bonuses as Timmy called it are really a commission of sorts. You bring in X dollars and we will pay you a % of X. Now he brought in roughly $2 Billion dollars of pure profit to the organization…his cut of which is $100,000,000. This number equates to 5% of total money brought in.
Are you saying that because he has done his job well he should not be paid?
I work on Commission and I work with seven and eight figure deals daily. If I were to sell something and then be told that someone has decided my employment contract stating I get 5% of profit is excessive, I would venture to guess I would leave my job and so would everyone posting here.
Another thing many don’t understand is that people that work on commissions this size generally do not take any salary or any other form of payment. How is this to be considered a bonus. Another case of our nations media skewing terminology to get people to believe what they want them to.
whatever
August 4th, 2009
10:38 am
I say that you have to honor the contract – if not – what good is any contract for. If a NFL player or MLB player did not live-up to his potential (example – Francoeur, Michael Vick, etc) – he is still going to get paid for what his contract says – Francoeur even had the guts (which is why I was glad to see him go) to ask for much more even after a miserable season.
tso
August 4th, 2009
10:39 am
H to the dbl L someone should stop that! they company should be allowed to die… but of course this admin wont let that happen… spending freaks… they are robbing us blind! i hope everyone who voted for this guy is happy… way to go
ADAMS SOCKS CUCK
August 4th, 2009
10:40 am
Pay it. Betting that oil would make a profit at $4/gal is not a risky bet. Also, I think unions by design are a good idea, if corporations can profit in a free market economy, then why can’t corporations of workers profit in a free market economy. The market should balance itself out, right. Well it turns out it works in theory but not in practice, because just like every other top level management union heads get greedy and start messing things up for all of their constituents and then take the money and run. I doesn’t make sense that a guy that is a line worker and relatively unskilled labor can make $80,0000 a year. That’s why all the auto production is moving to the South now. We don’t have established unions. People get paid what they deserve and are happy to have the work. Just because you got paid $80k last year doesn’t mean you’re worth $80k this year. The most powerful unions are just as rediculous as the CEO pay. By the way, I support Obama and his reforms.
Rollo Tomasi
August 4th, 2009
10:41 am
Screw the Pay Czar! Screw Citi! Screw the Car Companys! Screw the troubled Banks! The government never should have stepped in and all of them should have failed. After they all went bankrupt, someone else would have started a new company and relpaced them with a better product. All the bailouts did was reinforce bad market behavoir and teach the world that if your business is big enough and you have enough political friends, you are untouchable. And what is worse, the american consumer is still getting the same crappy products!
NNN
August 4th, 2009
10:42 am
Agree totally with DHD… Everyone raises all kinds of hell when an executive gets “bonus” money in the millions, however no one says a word about the millions in bonuses, guaranteed money or outrageous salaries that professional athletes make…
Jode
August 4th, 2009
10:43 am
RJ-
If the company you’re working for basically goes belly-up and the only reason it continues to exist is corporate welfare- things have to change. I say we take our money back, let Citi burn to the ground, and let this paper-shuffler deal with bankruptcy courts and trustees to get his money- just like you or I would if our employers went under.
Chris
August 4th, 2009
10:44 am
I approve of the bonus. The misunderstanding of the general public is in thinking the bonus was not earned. It is apparent the bonus is due to earnings of billions thus Citi should pay the bonus. The top producers in the industry are very prized. Any end in a profitable endeavor for Citi could put them in the grave. I would not want them in the grave as all of us Americans now have a vested 33% interest in the company so it is very smart to pay out the bonus and also to retain this talented person. The press should tell the entire truth so when they say a bank is paying bonuses make it clear it is due to billions in profit so millions makes sense. Capital economy is better than social govt folks!
ESOL Teacher in Gwinnett
August 4th, 2009
10:45 am
Where do these clowns get off even expecting a bonus??? They presided over the largest, most all-encompassing economic meltdown in human history! Now they want MORE money for their colossal failures? I hear Madoff needs roommates and colleagues! If these guyz were minorities or just plain folks like the rest of us, they would be jailed for stealing taxpayer money in such an egregiously avaricious manner. SHAME on them and their DC-based colluding criminals!! When does the gravy train for bankers stop and when does it start for the rest of us??
dee
August 4th, 2009
10:46 am
fire his ass!
Jode
August 4th, 2009
10:47 am
NNN- are you retarded? The government isn’t burdening the entire country and its future generations with massive debt to keep the NFL or MLB afloat.
Professional athletes earn their money, in the most honest sense of the word. They provide a service (entertainment), and bring in more than enough revenue to justify their huge contracts.
Citi only exists today because of corporate welfare. I don’t care if this guy was really good at speculating on oil futures (and helping us all pay $4/gallon for gas) and made money for them. Let him deal with a bankruptcy court.
D Money
August 4th, 2009
10:48 am
I would blame the gov’t if is happens. If the contract was signed before the bail out then they have to pay the guy. On the other hand, if it was signed after the gov’t bailed them out then there should have been a plan in place which includes the amount given in bonuses. I think the guy deserves a bonus but it should be capped to about $10 million until the bank has paid back its debt. I’m sure this guy will not be in a financial bind with $10 mil plus his regular pay going to his bank account.
gem dawg
August 4th, 2009
10:50 am
The article said the bonus is due for profits “from bets he placed in the oil market”. What happens when he loses money? Or has he ever lost money? It’s easy to gamble if there is no repercussion to your personal finances when you lose. Gambling with others’ money may be what he is paid to do and he evidently did it quite well. It would be interesting to find out more about the consequences when money is lost.
Audrey in Georgia
August 4th, 2009
10:50 am
New rules for companies bailed out by the government and any companies ran by the government: No employee, employer, contractor, salaried or non-salaried individuals
should be compensated more than $500,000. No bonuses, pension, stocks paid out
should be more than $500,000. Andrew Hall’s contract was null and void when the
company was bailed out by the government. Citi knows this and they should have re-
negotiated the terms of the contract to show he would not receive no more than $500,000.
If he does not like it, then he needs to move to a company not bailed out by the government.
RJ
August 4th, 2009
10:51 am
Jode — So you are saying that if another division of my company is struggling I am not owed my commissions on my sales? That doesnt equate. This guy was told 5 years ago (when times were REALLY good for EVERYONE) that he would be paid 5% of profit he made. He has been working for 5 years. If this guy only turned a profit of $100.00 and his “Bonus” (Commission) was only $5 we wouldnt be here.
HE DID HIS JOB AND IS OWED THE MONEY
Do I agree with bailouts etc? No, but at the same time if we keep breaking contracts and dropping pay of the top performers in our country, they are going to go overseas where they will be compensated fairly. I sell a product that can be sold from anywhere in the world, however I choose to stay here in Atlanta and work for about 50% less than what I cold make anywhere in Europe because I love this country. I know that I am not the only one facing this dilemma and if things keep going the way they are, there will be many people leaving this country where they know their employment contracts will be honored.
cc
August 4th, 2009
10:53 am
not only should we not pay that scumbag, we shouldn’t help the scumbags at citi either. also, citi should not maintain the naming rights for the mets new field at their new stadium. citibank, or shi##ybank should not spend 20 million dollars just to have citi field on the outside of the stadium, what a waste.
N
August 4th, 2009
10:53 am
First of all, it’s not a bonus. This is the compensation this man gets paid. While it’s called a “bonus” it is not the same kind of “bonus” that the rest of us receive around the holidays. Finance is a different world in this respect. Secondly, he should get his compensation, and you should not get your bonus because he brought in $2 billion in profit to his company. That’s a 5% take for him. Keeping 5% of what you “kill” is not outrageous. The populist sock-puppet solution is to not pay him, or any of the other “greedy” “evil” “white collar” workers. That’s fine. He’ll leave, they’ll leave, and the government will be stuck with a $45 billion dollar worthless shell (Citigroup). It’s called being pennywise and pound foolish. Don’t be idiots.
Johnny
August 4th, 2009
10:56 am
$100 million for gambling with commodities that drove up the cost of oil to their highest levels ever; eventually passed on to the struggling consumer last summer–some entities are referring to this as bonus money. This must be a joke!
TheIdiotsInThisTown
August 4th, 2009
11:00 am
Did half of you even bother to read the article or just the headline? The man DOES NOT WORK FOR CITIBANK! He works for an outside firm that is UNDER CONTRACT with Citibank, the same firm that netted $2Billion for Citibank. If you work for a company that requires raw materials or data from an outside vendor and you decide you don’t want to pay them, do you think you’re going to continue receiving those items? NO!
Hell lets tell every company out there that they don’t need to pay their outside vendors and we’ll see how many plants and factories will shut down. I’m sure the bailed out Automakers aren’t receiving any grief for honoring the pay in their contracts with outside vendors. But in typical News Media ways they put a headline up that will incite people to where they don’t even bother to absorb the actual facts in the article.
The man did his job, the contract was legal, the Obama Administration revued all their contracts and agreements before the buyout occurred and didn’t flag it then. So either they’re just trying to stir people up or they didn’t do their due diligence from the start, either way it’s scary that it’s just now an issue.
Sherl
August 4th, 2009
11:01 am
Why are contracts only valid for white collar employees? If a contract is a contract, why can you break a contract with union members? Did they really make a profit or did they just count the bailout as income?
Bob
August 4th, 2009
11:02 am
If he doesn’t get it from them he’ll just go gamble elsewhere.
It’s hard to believe people make this much money. I don’t think it’s wrong, especially if they’re generous with it. I’m just jealous. I’d be happy with getting 100,000th of that for a bonus this year.
Dude
August 4th, 2009
11:04 am
Yeah, we’re furloughing teachers and cops and voiding their contracts. Yeah, unemployment is over 10% (and in reality much, much higher than that with all the construction workers). Yeah, these same banks that took government money to “retain liquidity” are cutting off consumers and shutting down their credit.
Who cares? Let’s pay this guy $100,000,000.
JG
August 4th, 2009
11:07 am
Profits!!! what ^%#$&%* profits they were broke until they got their hands on our money
Carlos
August 4th, 2009
11:07 am
Oil speculator? This guy is the reason that gas prices go up for no reason. Remember the summer of 2008. Blame this guy. No bonus for him. As a matter of fact I say arrest him.
Ray
August 4th, 2009
11:09 am
Pay the man his money….This is not a government issue.. It is a contactual issue, and they must honor the contract.
FreeMarket
August 4th, 2009
11:09 am
Of course he should get his bonus. He made CITI a fortune and they agreed to pay him a percentage of any profits. He made money for every shareholder of CITI, including all the pension funds and mutual funds that own CITI stock.
Hall added an enourmous amount of value to his employers bottom line. When was the last time any of you made 2 billion dollars for your employer? Hall and CITI negotitated a contract in good faith and he should be paid. The amount is irrelevant, be it $500 for hitting your convenience store sales target or $100,000,000 for making your boss billions.
As far as the union workers who had their contracts changed or nullified, if it was either done in bankruptcy court or agreed to by union leadership. If you don’t like it, don’t work for a company heading for bankruptcy or get rid of your union leadership.
Bravo
August 4th, 2009
11:11 am
When did the word “bonus” become a bad word? Take a look at the NFL, NBA and MLB contracts. When Arod gets a $100 mil. contract to play a game no one complains. When this guy creates a 2 billion dollar profit for working his rear off, he gets nothing? Wow – glad you are not my employer….
g4u
August 4th, 2009
11:13 am
They should defer the bonus until after the Fed has been repaid the the $45B. If The Fed had not stepped in Citi would have filed bankruptcy and he would not get it at all.
Tony
August 4th, 2009
11:13 am
hey, if I make $2.0 BILLION for a company and the contract is legal..he gets paid..this is still America where the rule of law applies..
BH
August 4th, 2009
11:14 am
Citi should pay him ONLY AFTER CITI REPAY GOV THE BAILOUT MONEY.
BH
August 4th, 2009
11:19 am
Uncle Sam should not have given Biti baiout money, None of this issue would happen.
gtfan
August 4th, 2009
11:22 am
Yes, he should get paid! I also don’t really care if CITI or any other firm pays back their debt. It’s not like the govt. is going to erase that cash they created. They’ll just direct that money to some entitlement program and we will still be stuck with the bill.
Dan
August 4th, 2009
11:23 am
This blog is a perfect example of the real reason for the recession. The complete economic ignorance of the majority of the electorate. The federal government simply has zero basis or authority to void a contract that was agreed to prior to the bailout. That is a simple fact. You might make moral or indignant arguments as to why he doesn’t deserve it (inane as they may be) but the real danger is that people actually believe the government should have that authority! Truly frightening!
Business is Society's Business
August 4th, 2009
11:26 am
I don’t care if he worked for Citigroup or his own “small firm”–these so called deserving; legally contracted handful of folks, made plenty of money artifically driving up costs and passing them along to many. I wouldn’t have much of an issue if something of a positive nature had been created–let’s say in the arts or sciences–where society can benefit as a whole. And for the ones who want to go to Europe or elsewhere to make your money, then just go–who cares other than close family and friends. And you are right–Big Government (be sure to include State and Local folks, and not just the Obama Administration) shouldn’t meddle in everything, but the collapsing of the enconomy was an inevitable move–we do know all too well.
brandon
August 4th, 2009
11:26 am
should the government bail out any person or company with tax payer money, NO! now that they have should someone be paid a bouns, NO! not with my money, the only bouns thats should be paid by citi is to the tax payers for saving there sorry @$$. we are the real asset to that company, with out me working, paying taxes, they would not even be in operation now. No one is due ANY bouns’s from a company that should be bankrupt, regardless of their proformance. 100Million, are you kidding me, i dont think there is a person in the world worth that. This is the problem we have in this country.
Capitalist
August 4th, 2009
11:27 am
I know – capitalist is now a dirty word. It’s awful for a company to try to pay people to improve their business. We are all indebted to the government for everything and should not try to make it on our own or encourage companies to pay for performance. We should all make the same thing regardless of the value we bring to a company.
For all those saying “I didn’t get my bonus, so neither should he.” Really? I know people who lost their jobs, does that mean you shouldn’t have one either?
Do you guys not realize that it is business that creates jobs, pays taxes, pays employees that pay taxes? The government only spends our money – they don’t make any product or sell any service.
Fed Up
August 4th, 2009
11:28 am
I like how Unger says, “his cut of the profits from bets he placed in the oil market” as a way of diminishing the investor’s talent. The investor is probably very skilled, and hard working. He most likely did countless hours of research and analysis to make smart decisions with the bank’s assets. He should not be likened to some shmuck on a slot machine who got lucky. Just another example of biased media seeking to make impotent hard working capitalists.
brandon
August 4th, 2009
11:30 am
if citi had declared bankrupcy then his contract would be void, the only reason they didnt is because our money was handed to them. so i dont think the law of contract applies here.
Keepin it 100
August 4th, 2009
11:32 am
HECK 2 DA NAW!!!!!!!!!! THEY SHOULD PAY DAT MONEY TO THE HARD WORKING PEOPLE DAT HELP BUILT THIS DOG GONE COUNTRY & THE ONES WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED THEM EXECUTIVES CAN MISS A WHOLE LOT OF CHECKS WIT AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY GOT DANG!!! STOP BEING SO GREEDY!!!! U SEE AMERICA SUFFERING SHARE THE MUTHAF****** WEALTH!!!!
the evil rich
August 4th, 2009
11:34 am
I don’t believe in any government bailout at all. But, if you are getting tax payer money, you should have to prove you are spending the money wisely, and a bonus of that size is NOT very wise.
Bravo
August 4th, 2009
11:35 am
Wow! The Mets play at Citi Field. Using the crazy logic posted here, I guess the players should return their bonuses too? Not get paid until the government is paid back? The players have contracts – should they be honored? I guess not according to these posters….
johnnyboy
August 4th, 2009
11:37 am
If he can find someone else to give him $100 million, then have at it buddy. But if he wants to stay with Citi he should be willing to use common sense and renegotiate a smaller bonus.
FCM
August 4th, 2009
11:37 am
He can have the bonus once the $45 million is paid back to the government…..
the evil rich
August 4th, 2009
11:38 am
Bravo you are missing the point. Without the taxpayer intervention, Citi would be NO more, and gone would be ANY bonus. Also, the park would have a NEW name.
Randy
August 4th, 2009
11:38 am
I agree that this is a ridiculous amount of money to pay one individual. However, they have a contractual agreement to pay this person and they should do so. Shareholders in the firm should address this problem. The government has no right to interfere in private business, including saving them from their own mistakes, and should stay out of it.
Antony Kumar
August 4th, 2009
11:39 am
Great America
Vs
Worst America
Bonus
Vs
Layoff
Amazing America !!!
DrinkSlinger
August 4th, 2009
11:39 am
Everytime something like this comes up, republicans are so quick to use terms like “Obama-nation” to place the blame on him. This didn’t start under Obama, and you know that. He walked into one of the biggest messes that any president ever has. He is just trying to fix it. How about opening your eyes and mind a little? There is too much of this “I am a Republican so, therefore, Democrats must suck” (and vice versa) mentality. How about the welfare of this nation? How about you give a guy a chance without jumping the gun?
Bush started this mess… Especially with the war in Iraq. $10 billion a month on an endless war was a big start on this economic downturn.
Like Bo Burnham said:
“George Bush Won’t, he will just yell and rant, ’cause he’s a Presidon’t who American’t.
Tea
August 4th, 2009
11:41 am
Andrew J. Hall – I wish we could could take away the U.S. citizenship of greedy scum like you! Why don’t you take your dirty money and go live in China where you can make more money than you can over here. Good riddance!
And to “Capitalist” – Businesses only employ people because people are a necessary evil on the road to prifitability. If people didn’t make money for businesses, businesses would not hire them. What planet are you from anyway, you talk about businesses as though they are alive and have the same value as human life. Do you think profit is more imprtant than people? For your information the primary principal of capitalism is that it is a system that SERVES people. Paying the $100 million dollar bonus only serves one scoundrel – Andrew J Hall. How is THAT good business?
TH
August 4th, 2009
11:42 am
If its part of his contract, he should be paid, he earned it. It’s not Citi’s money or the government’s money, it’s his. It’s not his responsibility to pay off people’s bad debt or bail anyone else out. If Citi earned 2 billion dollars from this guys work, $100 million doesn’t seem that bad. If you want to help others, help with your money and not someone else’s.
Bravo
August 4th, 2009
11:46 am
The Evil Rich, no – you are missing the point. It wasn’t “taxpayer” intervention, it was “government” intervention at “our” expense. I was just pointing out the ridiculous comments and that no one complains when their favorite athlete makes $100 mill.
Derek
August 4th, 2009
11:46 am
Here’s a thought! FIRE all those stupid CZARS!!! how many do we hve now? 145? and at what pay rate? at least SES’s! These are made up jobs for areas that could be assigned to already existing departments and personnel. This is the same type of tit for tat high paying gift jobs for people that supported the canidate, ala Chicago, New York, DC etc. WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY. The government has never run anything in the private sector well, and don’t say medicare or social security, both are billions of dollars in the red and about to go bankrupt. The administration and congress should focus on cutting costs, just like we have to do when we have financial problems.
BC
August 4th, 2009
11:47 am
Hey Art, the automakers did not just “Decide” to not honor the union contracts, it’s called Filing Bankruptcy.
But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good blog entry.
Andrew
August 4th, 2009
11:47 am
Once Citigroup has repaid the government for the $45 Billion dollar loan from the taxpayers, I am in full favor of him receiving his full $100 Million. The payment of his bonus should be paid in accord with the priorities of the other obligations of Citigroup.
Laurie
August 4th, 2009
11:48 am
The question should first be, “Would CitiGroup have survived if the government did not lend it money through the TARP program?” If the answer is No, then the next question to ask, “Would Andrew J. Hall been paid his bonus if CitiGroup was allowed to fail and went bankrupt?” If that answer is no, then Andrew needs to suck it up. That money ahould go towards paying down the massive debt incurred by taxpayors to keep Andrew employed and CitiGroup afloat. Nuff said…
Tea
August 4th, 2009
11:49 am
Andrew J. Hall makes me so mad I could just SPIT in his filthy face.
Bass213
August 4th, 2009
11:49 am
He should get his bonus and not have to worry about what other people think. He works for a subsidiary of Citigroup which is very profitable, he has nothing to do with the other parts of Citigroup that lost money and needed the government bailout. I didn’t get a raise this year, should I be angry with everyone who did or should I do whatever it takes to ensure that I receive one next year? Wealth envy will never stop because some people are too lazy to try to achieve and it is easier for them to bring someone down instead for brining themselves up.
VOL FAN
August 4th, 2009
11:50 am
No he should not. Apparently he did not do the job he was hired to do if the compnay took aid from we tax payers. He should not get a bonus. This is just another way of draining the government. If the company made money then he would be entitled to his bonus. Heck no.