A black guy to was mean to me once. I guess all black people are jerks.

This isn't an argument, it's an anecdote. And it reflects poorly on Hilzoy and PA. What, you justify your anger about the AIG bonuses by pointing to this guy?

What, exactly, is the point? So this guy's a jerk and a poor manager and negotiated an wildly unreasonable deal that included bonuses. Therefore... um, what?

Gah, it galls me, but it's time to unsubscribe from WM/PA. It's annoying because I actually agree with the politics. I just can't abide by the continuing plunge in editorial quality and so-called reasoning that fit in just fine on Fox News if you just flipped the party affiliations.

The culture of entitlement among the C-level barrons of corporate America will generate a lot more populist anger before it's crushed.

Bye, Brooks. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

And your analogy is strained at best. The way I read that piece was that people are upset with the wealthy because of stories like this. It's not entered into evidence as proof that people should hate the guys at AIG. And your use of a racial analogy in order to put the largely liberal audience here on the defensive suggests strongly to me that you are pretty much full of shit about your political leanings. Go away, little Republican.

I agree, Hilzoy. Every time one of these stories becomes public, it angers a large number of people such as myself. I work closely with a number of very wealthy men (and a few women). Uniformly, they believe in the idea that they absolutely deserve all of the success that they have. They also believe that they deserve whatever they can get for being so superior. Some of them are very nice guys, but if you suggested that maybe they were the beneficiary of societal advantages that others don't have, they would look at you as if you had called their mother an unpleasant name. Guys like Tierney take this attitude to its logical end. Of course he deserves a 60% raise and a huge bonus. Without his leadership, the company would have folded even sooner....

What, exactly, is the point? So this guy's a jerk and a poor manager and negotiated an wildly unreasonable deal that included bonuses. Therefore... um, what?

Dude, if you can't figure out what the point is when hilzoy says, "Or could it be one too many stories like this" (emphasis mine, since you seem to have missed it the first time around), I'm surprised you remember to breathe on a regular basis.

It's not like the AIG guys were an isolated case. The fact that it was not an isolated case was the reason people were angry.

In other news, if you have two apples and then someone gives you two more apples, you will then have four apples. Add it up.

What, exactly, is the point? So this guy's a jerk and a poor manager and negotiated an wildly unreasonable deal that included bonuses. Therefore... um, what?

I am not sure how the point could be made any more clear brooks. There is a question. Why are people so upset about stories like the AIG bonuses? Ultimately those salaries are a drop in the bucket compared to the larger picture bailout. The reason people are so upset is because they keep reading stories like this.

What, exactly, is the point? So this guy's a jerk and a poor manager and negotiated an wildly unreasonable deal that included bonuses. Therefore... um, what?

I am not sure how the point could be made any more clear brooks. There is a question. Why are people so upset about stories like the AIG bonuses? Ultimately those salaries are a drop in the bucket compared to the larger picture bailout. The reason people are so upset is because they keep reading stories like this.

Now, if you disagree that that is the reason people are so upset or you think that people who are upset by such stories are being unreasonable then you have the entire internet, including this thread, in which to state your case. This argumentative space is, for all intents and purposes, infinite. If, however, you would like to huff off like an angry 12 year old who has convinced themselves that everyone and everything sucks then that is also your prerogative.

"What, exactly, is the point?"

The point is that this is not an isolated case. This shit happens more often than we're willing to admit to ourselves, because it means that we'll have to re-examine how we've allowed assholes, like this Tierney guy, to loot the companies that we depend upon for our livelihoods. These are criminal actions that amount to nothing short of embezzlement, and those that were responsible should go to jail.

These jackasses that believe themseles the captains of industry are playing with fire, and they're going to start getting burned badly if it doesn't stop.

This is the culture of the ownership class. I used to be a business owner, of a rather liberal, paternalistic sort. I can remember one day when one of the other owners came back from a business meeting seething with rage, because the advisor he'd met with was telling him how we could advantage ourselves at our employees' expense.

This sort of short-sighted greediness is bad for business. Classical capitalism is about maximizing long-term profits, but these clowns have a slash-and-burn mentality, a 2-year time horizon, tops.

Anyone who thinks they deserve their cash because of all their hard work should spend a season picking grapes. Renumeration is never just.

And Ross says a couple of people emerged from a private meeting with the CEO claiming that he'd spoken to them, in his 12th-floor office, with a baseball bat in his hands.

Hey, for all you young'ns out there wondering why this is such a big deal, watch this classic Robert DeNiro scene from the Untouchables:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73EPp81C97M

(the soundtrack has been edited from the original)

Teamwork!

I think the point is that corporations are out of control.
Carl Icahn wrote an op-ed piece for the NYT today about it.

"We’re Not the Boss of A.I.G."
By CARL ICAHN
Published: March 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/opinion/29Icahn.html?ref=opinion

We might resent the bonuses given to managers of defunct companies, but those bonus plans are presented to and approved by the board. This kind of negligent oversight is one reason, among many, that so many of our big corporations are in trouble today.

But here's a cheery thought. Those board members are going to be in PERSONAL legal jeopardy with the Feds over those unremitted FICA withholdings. True, the amount is small and together I have no doubt that the board members can pony up and make it all go away without too much sweat. But maybe some of them, at least, will have to hire a good lawyer and sit through some kind of investigative interview.

OhNoNotAgain: This shit happens more often than we're willing to admit to ourselves, because it means that we'll have to re-examine how we've allowed assholes, like this Tierney guy, to loot the companies that we depend upon for our livelihoods.

exactly...

look at cumulus, the radio company...

they have had at least 3-rounds of layoffs in the last year..

the company stock is near worthless..

and the family members that run the company recently gave themselves cash bonuses...

Brian Tierney is a weenie. He ran the Inquirer directly into the ground.

It's a question of looting. These companies are going down and these cash bonuses are a way of extracting a lifetime of wealth from them as they go down.

Yep, it isn't being rich that's pissing people off, it's the damaging greed and lack of self-restraint. Screaming "Waaah! You peasants just hate me 'cos I'm rich!" doesn't help either.

Don't feed the trolls. Also.

Beyond reproach. It is the cluelessness and out right contempt for the working class [and their petty taxes] that infuriates me.

The point is that there are at least two Americas. One where the money class exists, and the others, [tent cities], where the commodities, [you and me], exist.

Inexcusable.

We've been seeing jerks like this for quite a while; I don't think it quite captures what people were angry about with AIG. In fact, I think the reason people got mad about that is that they saw AIG as a *welfare recipient.* A lot of the same people who eat up the welfare cadillac stories and rail against paying volcano monitors and giving grants for sacrilegious art saw what happened with AIG as yet another government ripoff.

welfare recipient

Time for pitchforks and torches. It's time to string up a few of these turds.

I wonder why people are so angry about bonuses. Do they hate the rich?

its the arrogance of wealth. the pompous strutting, condescension, and assumption of superiority from people that are clearly no better than most and often are considerably more incompetent, dishonest, and obscenely self absorbed; who most often by dumb luck or devious manipulation have acquired inordinate wealth instead of by any ingenuity beneficial to humanity or sweat of their own, forswear any and all notions of humility, instead spewing the magnificence of themselves on the basis of their undeserved and unearned wealth.

Its not about hating the rich, its about what gets rewarded in America and what wealthy people assume about themselves and everyone else because of their wealth.

But who decides to reward these guys?
The boards.
Usually a crew of bobbleheads who'd sign their own death warrants if the CEO took them to a nice restaurant first. Let's start putting the light and heat on the boards and see how long they take to start doing their duty to protect the company.

This isn't an argument, it's an anecdote.

It's also a fact. And several facts together constitute evidence.

What case is being made?

The case that a significant minority (it only takes a few) of the "ruling class" are looting their companies at the detriment of shareholders, taxpayers and workers. Not one of these assholes is indispensable. Ideally, their role would be to set strategic direction and make long term investment decisions. But how brilliant can their strategic contribution be when businesses are failing left and right? Operations and production actually occur within the ranks of middle managers, supervisors and workers - all of whom are getting screwed at any number of companies based on a WEALTH of news stories (pun intended).

You could argue that each of these stories is an exceptional case, much in the same way that each story about a frivolous lawsuit is an exceptional case. If that's your argument, fine. We cannot know because there is no effort to collect quantitative data on this abuse. But surely you can understand why hearing of so many stories like this prompts many of us to believe that there is a systemic cultural problem within the ranks of upper management in corporate America. Especially when coupled with the fact that the governance structures have no apparent accountability mechanisms. The boards are populated with the people they are supposed to oversee.

And it's not just stories like this, it's the actual events behind them. The Inquirer isn't a terribly big organization, so I'm guessing that Those $650K in bonuses represent the better part of a year's worth of the $25-a-week raise that the employees gave up. And of course there's the criminal behavior involved in pocketing the tax, insurance and pension withholdings...

It's going to be interesting to see how many shareholder suits you get on this kind of looting. That's supposed to be the sanction of last resort in a capitalist system, and with companies that have gone belly-up you have the added twist that the managers can't force shareholders to fund their defense...

Just a thought - in the real world, where most of us live, wouldn't these actions constitute bankruptcy fraud? Deepening insolvency, looting the company as the ship sinks, is a relatively new aspect of bankruptcy fraud, and people without connections usually end up in some trouble over their actions.

What people are upset by, Brooks, is that this isn't the only story - it's just the story Hilzoy decided to use. Trust me, she could have used a hundred others. Probably a thousand.

Just making it personal, people get angry when management of their company decrees without warning that hours will be cut by one-third (in the pay period that ends just before the end of the month, the paychecks that cover fist-of-the-month bills). When asked what sacrifices management was taking in the crisis, the owner (who claims to be a "liberal" and uses that to get clients) said he would continue working full-time "to resolve the crisis" and therefore would not be taking any cut. Trust me, this asshole cut the morale at the company (and it's the kind of work where morale counts) by a whole lot more than a third.

The sad thing is, these kinds of stories are all over the place, and THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE ANGRY, BROOKS!

What a tool you are, you idiot. Good riddance, and like the others said, don't let the door hit your fat ass on the way out.

Oh, you missed the good parts. Tierney originally made his millions with a PR firm that specialized in Republican candidates and conservative causes. He's a long-time political operative, having apprenticed himself at a young age to one of the most powerful suburban-Philly GOP bosses.

In other words, until he went into the newspaper business, Brian's "success" has always depended on his close affiliation with the Republican party. Like most of those guys, he convinced himself his success had more to do with his own genius than his political patrons.

Guess there's something to the free market, after all!

"Usually a crew of bobbleheads who'd sign their own death warrants if the CEO took them to a nice restaurant first."

That about sums it up. Seen it with my own eyes. Like that scene in "Fun with Dick and Jane" when Dick gets called to 55th floor!, and sniffs the rarefied air wafting from the executive office.

Regarding Carl Icahn's NYT op-ed, which you should read, this guy is advancing his agenda here, and it's not necessarily the agenda you or I would want advanced.

Like T. Boone Pickens championing wind energy all of a sudden last fall - so he could get the government to give his company boodles of money to do something that might be possible, but not certainly possible (which is why he couldn't get investors to raise all the money privately) - Icahn has a person agenda. He is currently fighting to get control of Lions Gate Entertainment here in Hollywood, and if he does, one of the last companies that is a good place for people like me who are involved in independent, lower-budget movies, will lose a friendly place to go. The company is fighting his acquisition of power because they know if he wins, he'll demand they start doing "proven material" (trust me, there isn't any such thing, but that doesn't keep the smart boys from saying they just know there's a pony in that room full of horseshit), by which he means the usual crap that's supposed to gross $20 million on opening weekend in wide release. If he wins, Lions Gate will go under inside of two years, but he'll have taken his profits and Icahn Holdings will be on to their next victim. This guy has been doing this for 30 years - he's the one who destroyed both TWA and PanAm with his "genius for management" among other things. He's a corporate raider, and a perfect example of exactly the kind of scummy bastard who should not only be run out of business but taken out and hanged, with the body left to rot on the rope.

Last night I read this great essay by Teresa Neilsen Hayden at Making Light (h/t LGM's Scott Lemieux). About two thirds of the way through after the heading comes the following...

(I am now getting to my point.)

A couple of days ago I finally put my finger on something I’ve been sensing but not grasping—you know, one of those itchy back-of-the-brain apprehensions that there’s a pattern here, only you can’t quite see what it is. Somehow it’s felt like literary analysis. The question is, why do these scams—inheritance cons, MLMs, tax dodges, Make Money Fast, hot stock tip swindles, et cetera—take the forms they do?

What did it was looking at my list of basic scams and observing that what they have in common is the promise of lucrative, risk-free investments. Lord knows the things exist, I thought, but nobody ever gives them away. In theory, high rates of return are the investor’s payoff for taking on higher-risk investments. Achieving that happy state of all payoff and no risk is the main reason the wealthy and powerful manipulate the system.

Oh.

These scams take the forms they do because they’re parodies—no, a better way to put it: they’re cargo-cult effigies—of the deals the ruling class cut for themselves. If you’re an insider, if you have the secret, you can have a job where you make heaps of money for very little work. You can avoid paying your taxes. You can inherit a pile of money because an ancestor of yours left a moderate fortune that’s been appreciating ever since. You can be your own boss. You can have other people working for you, who have other people working for them, who all pay you a percentage of the take.

Of course people believe it. After all, they vaguely know this sort of thing happens. It just doesn’t happen to them. But why shouldn’t they be the lucky ones, this time around?

As the saying goes, do read the whole thing (I notice it's linked to from the home page of Making Light and at least one other blog linked to it today).

Wanna know why people are angry? Because in a lot of ways, our system is a scam. People at the top rake off a percentage no matter what the outcome. Everyone else has respect the outcomes of our 'free-market system' When times are good, or you think that you're in on the scam people are willing to tolerate it. When the thing comes crashing down for some but not for others they get pissed off.

Miss a few house payments and you lose your house. If you're a small business owner and you don't send in the 401k payments and you are in huge (deserved) trouble. On the other hand, guys like Tierney get mulligan after mulligan after mulligan. If you work in call center and it takes you longer than the target time to disposition a call and you get written up. Drive the whole banking system into the ditch and you still make bonus.

And our Congress is desperately concerned that we not alienate this 'talent' while ordinary people can't make their house payments much less send their kids to college. We worry about the moral hazard of mortgage cram downs (as part of a bankruptcy proceeding for God's sake) and come up with a plan to allow hedge fund managers to have non-recourse loans to prop up the price of crappy assets.

Accountability and personal responsibility sound great, but at a minimum they have to apply to everyone.

Had only the Californian arrived sooner with Captain Smith's White Star bonus.

Interesting juxtaposition of short term gains - As mentioned supra, many of the problems in corporations stem from "Get the money as quickly as possible" short term goals. Appears these are justified by the right - However, when a story, such as this morning's sfgate article on the fleecing of the poor by using Magic Johnson to shill for Jackson-Hewitt's quickie tax refunds, one sees the right blasting the poor for wanting instant gratification and displaying poor financial judgement. So, the poor, needing funds for a myriad of reasons, including such mundane things as paying the rent, buying food, or trying to fix an old auto so they can make it to work are ever so "Stupid and Greedy" for taking up offers from H&R Block, Jackson-Hewitt or the like on instant refunds with very large take outs. Amazingly in the comments section of sfgate for this article, there are far more right wingers blaming the "Greedy and Stupid" poor than placing any blame on the usury artists at the tax companies. Didn't Michelle Bachman make her living doing these types of tax returns? These are as bad as the old type Auto Title Loans sucker shops in Oregon. Truly preying on the poor.

That's embezzlement.

Embezzlement is when you take possession of the property of another, with authorization to take such possession, but then use that property for a use other than it's intended use, such as enriching oneself.

It is the difference between title and possession. It is common for a person to have possession but not title. A courier takes possession of property, but does not take title (true ownership).

If an attorney takes money into his trust account, he has possession of the money, but not title. He cannot use the money as he chooses. If he uses it to pay another client he has embezzled that money. This example is sort of like a ponzi scheme, but it's embezzlement.

This company took the employees' withholding amounts. They had the right to take possession of that money, but not the title. They were bound by contract and by law to deliver that money to the appropriate recipients but apparently used it to enrich themselves. That is embezzlement.

If the Obama administration wants to return the justice department to good standing, it should hire/transfer a hundred thousand people into the corporate crimes division and put these people behind bars.

The people are angry because it's becoming increasingly obvious that the elite in this country are not the elite. They are nobility without titles. They didn't really get where they are by accomplishment; they got into the schools they got into because of the private schools they went to or the families they came from. They aren't smarter, more talented, or really even better educated than the rest of us. Economics and Business classes don't make you educated, they leave you indoctrinated.

If we were truly run by the best and the brightest, if people were allowed to rise and fall according to their own merit with perhaps a safety net to prevent them from falling too far, then I can't help but think America would be doing a bit better right now.

During the early 1990's, I worked for a major corporation, which I shall not identify except to say that it was headquartered on Peachtree Street in Atlanta and its primary product offering went ringey-dingey and when you picked up it you said "Hello?"

The C-level executives received very generous salaries but the company still felt it necessary to maintain an entire department whose only apparent duty was to find ever more creative ways to shovel money their way with benefits and bonuses.

And that department worked hard but not hard enough. During a cost cutting phase, executives lost their company automobiles and had to make do with a $10K annual car allowance. Much pouting and sulking ensued. The objection? These overworked and underappreciated executives now had to take their of their OWN CAR MAINTENANCE, whereas before they simply drove into the parking garage, flipped the keys to the parking attendant and returned later that day to find a freshly washed car with the oil changed.

Talk about class envy and democracy run amok!!

We don't seem to have noticed -- and we'd better sit up and take notice soonest -- that the same thing is happening in Europe. There's real fury at the self-bonusing classes. This is more widespread than "populist fury" though it contains many of the same elements.

Even though it means making an effort to get past our narrow media, we really do need to take a look at (and take much more seriously) the growing discontent in Europe and elsewhere, not a small part of which is directed at America.

When was the last time you guys picked on Ted Kennedy for his unearned wealth?

Yeah, I thought so.

I was talking with a friend about this the other day. I think (as Mike pointed out) it comes down to unearned wealth - or the perception thereof. I don't resent Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates for that matter. I don't even resent Warren Buffett. The people who made their money by mostly pushing paper and not making anything of actual value, those guys are who people resent. Inherited wealth falls into the same category. Nobody respects inherited wealth in America, we only respect wealth that was earned. Financial manipulation is not the kind of earned wealth that garners respect in our culture. What earns respect is starting a company in your garage - even if you "borrowed" heavily from someone else's ideas. Our culture respects Oprah, but not John Thain. We respect Steve Jobs, but not Hank Paulson. We respect Sam Walton, but not his heirs.

[Icahn]'s a corporate raider, and a perfect example of exactly the kind of scummy bastard who should not only be run out of business but taken out and hanged, with the body left to rot on the rope.[Icahn]'s a corporate raider, and a perfect example of exactly the kind of scummy bastard who should not only be run out of business but taken out and hanged, with the body left to rot on the rope.

Icahn's just pissed off that everyone took up his tactics and ran the whole economy into the ground. Like so many other things, successful corporate raiding depends on only a select few doing it, and everyone else running their business well. Otherwise, there's nothing there for you to raid.

At least one good thing here: by deducting federal taxes and not paying the US government, they have committed fraud, which the IRS will prosecute. This is a no-brainer...you don't stiff the IRS on payroll taxes.

now berttheclock: by all accounts Captain Smith died with his ship, the equivalent for this would be Smith breaking into the safe, taking the passangers' jewels and escaping on his private mahogany lifeboat. Captain Smith may have made some awful mistakes, but he shared the fate of many of his clients.

Most people work for specified wage. Evem if they word under unusually difficult circumstances, short staffed, manager from hell, not cost of living raise, bad economy, etc. - they still get the same wage and that's what they and their bosses expect - a professional approach to their jobs.

Why the hell should the extra rich need a bonus as an incentive to do their dam jobs professionally?

If we've got an anecdote problem, perhaps it wouldn't hurt to review the nationwide data on income dispersion. No colorful stories about baseball bats or tantrums, but the same economic result -- the extremely rich have been getting richer for the last decade, and everyone else has not. This is largely the result of "conservative" policies, ever since Reagan. Union-busting and tax cuts for the rich.

In particular, when people say "high marginal tax rates discourage hard work", in the case of the very rich, "high marginal tax rates discourage hard work when bargaining for an outlandish salary". It's not like we were all lazy asses in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

"Time for pitchforks and torches. It's time to string up a few of these turds."

Yep, pour encourager les autres
until we make examples of a few of these bastards, this crap will never stop

Q. Why did Republicans get mad that Saddam had 29 palaces and $25 billion in Swiss banks?

A. Class envy.

"Populist anger": The term used by wealthy Wall Street executives, elitist elected politicians, and their media puppets to dis-enfranchize and
throw-under-the-bus the justifiable demands of the MAJORITY of American workers. It's the excuse they give themselves to demonize us so they can ignore us.

They need an attitude adjustment. We are the "Outraged Populace." Ours is the righteous indignation of the blue collar, hard-working, productive, we-want-our-our-money-back, we-want-our-economy-fixed, and we'll-throw-you-out-of-office-unless-we-get-it MAJORITY of the voting
taxpayers.

Oh you poor, poor frightened Big Corporate executives. And you too, you government elitists living out of the pockets of Wall Street lobbyists. Well welcome to the real world, chumps. Did you think we didn't mean it when we warned you to change your greedy habits and to get over your sense of entitlement?

We could let AIG fail if our Congressional leaders weren't being paid in campaign donations to save it. It would be difficult and a bit risky, but it could be done. I''ve said this before and I'll keep saying it until we get our leaders to listen to us.

Breaking The Banks - That's the answer:

Open Letter to Both US Houses of Congress

The current banking crisis is a result not just of Wall Street greed, but of the Republican-dominated Legislature of the 90's giving more and more freedoms to Big Corporations by deregulation. Going forward, campaign contributions donated to candidates from both parties helped to ensure Legislative compliance in giving the Big Corporations their stranglehold over We the People.

I have solutions.

First, on the AIG affair:

It is not just the money in the bonuses, it's that they were paid at all to those who brought down our taxpayer-owned company. Stop listening to these executives' fear-mongering and terror tactics. Stop letting them hold the taxpayers hostage. You take taxpayer money, you are now taxpayer employees. Do as you're told, or do without your jobs.

Regardless of whatever loopholes were left in the law, regardless of who knew what and when, you greedy executives CHOSE to take the risks --
fraught with moral hazard -- which have so damaged the US economy. Then you paid advertisers and set up agencies to encourage the public to
overspend. Then you packaged them up and sold them to other banks and other countries.

And when the housing bubble burst, the people you defrauded lost their jobs and homes and dreams.

1) Taxing to get back the bonuses won't work and is probably unconstitutional.
2) The unwarranted bonuses just paid were the morally-hazardous fruit of fraud, so charge them with it and sue as the company owners.
3) Going forward, it's simple: Unwarranted bonuses = No more bailouts. Period.
4) Repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1998 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
5) Use the Anti-Trust laws to break up AIG (and other financial giants) so it is
no longer possible to be "too big to fail."
6) After the breakup(s), let us deal with the remaining US institutions, and let the other countries deal with their own.

We US taxpayers don't have the resources or the will to bailout the whole world. And we shouldn't be expected to.

On the Big Three Automakers:

Either be as soft on the Big Three blue-collar industries as you are on Wall Street, or else be equally as hard on Wall Street as you are being on the Big Three. Blue-collar workers are just as important the white-collar ones. They may have the campaign dollars, but WE are the ones who have the majority vote. Fair's fair.

On Congressional Campaign Reform, "The Voters' Revolution":

1) We demand that the House and Senate set term limits for themselves.No elected legislator may serve more than four terms in office. This
acknowledges that it does take some acquired experience on your part.

2) We demand reform of the system of campaign contributions. Each Legislator may add to their individual "war chests" only the contributions
of individuals. All corporate contributions must go into a general fund to be distributed equally to ALL candidates for election. This includes not
just the Reps and Dems but the smaller parties as well. This would effectively level the playing field and give us voters more options. "Money
talks" in campaigns. We voters must therefore control the money.

3) We demand the right to recall our elected officials by referendum. Our letters of our officials can be -- and often are -- ignored. I suspect that getting dragged back to your home states to explain to your constituents WILL get your attention. If you fail to explain adequately, we will THEN replace you.

(A version of this letter has been sent to several high-ranking officials in both Houses. If you agree with me, tell your Congressional representatives so, in no uncertain terms.)

You failed to mention the fact that Brian T. is looking for a bail out from the gov. much like the AIG Douches. Toll must really love him to give him a raise for loosing money.