MATERIALITY AND THE AIG BONUS PROBLEM
When I was reading about the AIG bonuses I was as outraged as anyone
else. The first thing that came to my mind was "How could Geithner let them get
away with this?" Then I stopped and thought about the days when I managed a
half-billion dollar portfolio. Number in the thousands didn't seem very
significant. The problem arises from the fact that large numbers contain a lot
of digits. Most people working with large numbers drop several digits due to
what accountants call immateriality. For example: Most company financial statements
have (000) written under the title of the individual financial statement and all
of the numbers are in thousands of dollars. So, $1,985 is really $1,985,000. We're
talking millions of dollars, not thousands and hundreds of dollars get lost in
the shuffle.
So, how did Mr. Geithner miss $250 million? It is easy to do when the
bailout is in the billions. Simply, most of the numbers crossing Mr. Geithner's
desk were probably written in billions. The bailout package to AIG was probably
written as $185 instead of $185,000,000,000. This means that the bonuses would
have been written as $0.165. This is a number that looks insignificant in the
overall scheme of things and could easily be missed. Especially by a person who
is dealing with a national debt number in the trillions. Let's face it, if all
day long you're seeing number like $9,654.4 which is the national debt, $0.165
looks like peanuts. That fact that the true numbers are $9,654,400,000,000 and
$165,000,000 gets become obscured.
What is needed is to have people working with the Treasury Secretary and
the Fed Chairman who understand that apparent small percentage numbers have a
high impact when read as whole numbers. People in the rarified air of
Washington and New York do not realize that the AIG bonuses could eliminate the
debt of many smaller cities and pay for the complete budgets of many school
districts. I do not blame Mr. Geithner for missing the impact news of the
Bonuses would have on the public. I do blame the loud mouthed critics who would
have claimed that the Obama administration was destroying the capitalist system
if the bonuses had been blocked. Once the bonus contracts were written, it
became a loose-loose situation for the Obama team.












Rec'd for and from the accounting standpoint.
However, it's "lose-lose", not "loose-loose". I always nitpick on this point, so please don't take it personally.
March 21, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
geez, writers, always looking down on the rest of us plebs!
;0)
March 21, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This from a big talking pug, oy.
March 21, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
mea-culpa
March 22, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
de nada
March 22, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly why nobody in the government should be running AIG or any other private company. The government has owned 80% of AIG for months now and SHOULD have been conducting a proctology exam on the company's P&L. But somehow they didn't do a "line-by-line" exam like Obama said he'd do with the federal budget. But now everybody is "outraged" about the bonuses. It's like a parent being outraged when they discover their kids are doing drugs. It's just as much their fault as it is their kids' fault
March 21, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill;
You seem to forget that it was unregulated private industry that got us into this mess to begin with. AIG is big enough that the bonus would have gotten lost in their numbers fog as well as they would have by government people. The head of AIG, although appointed by government, came out of the private sector. The bonus contract were written before the government owned 80% of AIG.
Your biases are now showing.
March 22, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who is unregulated? Are you saying that AIG is not regulated? Citi and BofA are not regulated? Lehman not regulated?
I thought you were smarter than that as a former treasurer of a multinational corporation that managed a half billion dollar portfolio.
You can call it bias, but you're sounding just as biased by throwing around terms like "unregulated".
March 22, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink