Andrew Hall does not deserve $100 million from Citigroup

Gee, when did morals and ethics enter into anything Citi Corp did? The fact of the matter is Mr Hall negotiated a contract and it was accepted by Citi. Your gripe is with the management of citi corp. Contracts used to be sacred but now with the democrats in power nothing is sacred. The republicans screw us and now the democrats are trying to outdo them and I think they are doing a pretty good job of is.

Leo, I partially agree with you. However, a contract may be contested under many circumstances. Certainly, an "outlier" contract negotiated by a corrupt group of people merits review.

another unconscious incipient liberal fascist using moral outrage as a false weapon because it plays in Peoria.

you know nothing about contract law... nothing
read Williston, Corbin, Calimari,

andrew hall will get his money
i'm jealous too, but he should
a legally binding contract with consideration without fraud or duress is a legally binding contract
no matter what the talking heads or blogging heads
say no matter who's potus no matter what party's in power noi matter what the current politically correct thing to do is. Wise up Sheldon

Bob, a "liberal fascist" -- is that possible?

"a legally binding contract with consideration without fraud or duress is a legally binding contract" This is in question.

Apart from your position about the legality, would you consider this contract with such terms to be unusual, one sided, and if not done under some duress, why the extreme reward?

Another factor to be considered is that bankruptcy might void the contract. Since Citi actually would be bankrupt without government buttresses this situation has highly unusual circumstances.

History will record that the biggest failure of our public companies has been the total lack of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders that has been shown by many directors. They rubber stamp all these outrageous bonuses, don't they?

Sheldon, do you have a daily blog besides posting here? You are one of the most "sane" bloggers at Blogging Stocks and would welcome the chance to read more from you.

"Energy prices skyrocketed last year and his business was exclusively energy focused by design."

No one said he needed to be long or short energy. And in case you didnt notice, energy prices collapsed last year and finished lower than they started. You are an ignorant dope. Get your facts straight. How easy is it to pull up a graph of oil prices? Clearly not easy enough.

PS, a 25% of profit agreement for basically a hedge fund manager is not an outlier. Again, please check your facts.

TR,

I always appreciate when readers take the time to comment, thank you, even if you lack manners or any decorum.

Regarding being long or short. In no month last year did the oil companies not report huge gains. You just had to be in the business -- the same as Mr. Hall. Regarding his performance the important point is that he was in the right place at the right time and if he could replicate these results year in and year out he is more than worthy. The truth is he is being rewarded for an anomaly not of his making and he will not be able to repeat it.

A typical hedge fund takes a 1% to 2% fee on the gross deposits and 15% to 20% of any profits. The fee generally goes toward expenses. The 20% share of the profits is distributed -- it does not go to one person and 25% is beyond the norm.

In addition, you ignore most of the issues raised in this article to justify your position of support for the $100 million bonus. Taking exception to a specific point or throwing insults does not provide us with an argument to the contrary.

Perhaps someone that actually has the depth of knowledge you fain might enlighten us more.

Peace

A contract is a contract. People need to stop making up their own rules because they don’t like the outcome. The guy negotiated a great contract. Lets all admit if you went to a new job and were in negotiations wouldn’t you got for as much as you can get? I really doubt any of us would say…ya know what I like your offer but pay me less. Yea right… I don’t see that happening. Who in their right mind do that? The guy made a profit and his contract says he gets paid $100 mil for the profit he brought in then he should get it. If you’re going to be upset with someone be upset with the person that negotiated the side for Citi. Let’s not go down the path of breaking contracts because we don’t like the outcome. We need to uphold the laws not change it at a whim to suit our needs for instant gratification. How can the government have an opinion on this anyway? Haven’t they caused the biggest deficit in history?? You better watch the government. They are notorious at changing the law for their own needs. Case and point they are trying to take Halls money away and also trying to limit what top CEOs make in a year. It’s not the governments business to stick their noses into every aspect of our lives. Has anyone heard of the slippery slop. Well folks we are on it. Next thing you know the government will want to take over health care… wait … they are already trying. Let’s see if I can’t think of a better example. Next thing you know they will want to know how much money we have in the bank. Heck missed it again. They are already trying to do that as well in the health care bill. Let’s try something easier. Next thing you know they will make it mandatory to buckle up in the back seat of a car. Oh man…. The government has already passed a law that takes care of that. I wonder when they will start telling us what to eat and wear. Its bad news when you let the government overrun their boundaries.

Michael,

You and others that have voiced the opinion that a contract is a contract, and it must be honored, stand on solid ground.

I do not disagree with this at all if the contract is deemed valid. In this case anyone's personal distress must be set aside.

I started off by stating that the contract is outrageous and I am not swayed otherwise. However, I did not mean to imply that the government should be able to weasel out of it, just because we don't like it.

The points I have raised speak to how ridiculous I think it is -- and it is. I would like to see it and I would like to know the circumstances that led to it's approval.

Of course, not only possible but required. Today "Liberal" is used exclusively to mean Left-winger. In days o' yor Jefferson was a liberal. He believed in Liberal Democracy and Liberal Capitalism. He believed in freedom from government above all else.

Reagan was a liberal too.

But now the term liberal is only embraced by the far frindges of the radical left. Mussolini, you invented the term was a socialist, and the editor of a socilaist newspaper. His ideas were called Corporate Socilaism. Hitler too was a Facsist Leftist. When he was a spy for the army (which was controlled at the time by the Leftist Social Democrat Party), he was an activew member of the Social Democrat Party. He was twice sent to spy on the "right-wing" German Workers Party. The first time he concluded they were insignificant. But was sent back a second time. At this second meeting a "Liberal" meaning free market capitalist was speaking. He jump up verbally put him down and got the rousing support for his anti-capitalist ideas, from the Leftsist in attendence. He took over the party and changed it to a left-wing party called the Nationalist "Socialist" German Worker Party.

So yes it is required to be a modern Liberal before you can be a Facsist. Not all Liberals are Facsists but all Fascists are Liberals.

But keep this in mind No contract is valid if the Consideration "money" given if it grossly exceeds the value of the product or service granted for said consideration. Clearly this was excessive to the extreme.