Morningstar ®

Footnoted is now part of Morningstar

  Text Size:   A A A

May 8, 2009 at 9:45 am by Michelle Leder

AIG: Blame the negative publicity…

AIG buildingJournalists really can’t catch a break. The daily tales of more layoffs, unpaid furloughs and magazine closings (including Portfolio, which ran a monthly footnoted column). But now there’s this: those darn journalists are responsible for the problems at AIG (AIG).

We’ll borrow a line from our friend, Jeff Matthews: we are not making this up! In both the 8-K and the 10-Q that AIG filed yesterday, they repeatedly mention how negative publicity and/or criticism were “adversely impacting” various parts of their business. Here’s a snip from the Q, which notes that the negative publicity has actually become a risk factor:

Adverse publicity and public reaction to events concerning AIG has had and may continue to have a material adverse effect on AIG. Since September 2008, AIG has been the subject of intense scrutiny and extensive comment by global news media, officials of governments and regulatory authorities around the world and segments of the public at large in the communities that AIG serves. At times, there has been strong criticism of actions taken by AIG, its management and its employees and of transactions in which AIG has engaged. In a few instances, such as the public reaction in March 2009 over the payment of retention awards to AIGFP employees, this criticism has included harassment of individual AIG employees or public protest affecting AIG facilities.

To date, this scrutiny and extensive commentary has adversely affected AIG by damaging AIG’s business, reputation and brand among current and potential customers, agents and other distributors of AIG products and services, thereby reducing sales of AIG products and services, and resulting in an increase in AIG policyholder surrenders and non-renewals of AIG policies. This scrutiny and commentary has also undermined employee morale and AIG’s ability to motivate and retain its employees. If this level of scrutiny and criticism continues or increases, AIG’s business may be further adversely affected and its ability to retain and motivate employees further harmed.

All told, the company mentions negative publicity in one form or another 18 times in the nearly 170-page Q. The word criticism is also sprinkled liberally throughout the Q. The earnings release attached to the 8-K mentions negative publicity twice.

But if AIG was really concerned about the negative publicity, maybe they wouldn’t include this sort of employment agreement in the Q. The agreement is with Edmund S.W. Tse, who announced his retirement in March, but will continue to serve as an honorary chairman. Granted, Tse is an AIG lifer, having started at the company in 1961. And the agreement, at least as far as these things go, isn’t especially gross since the annual consulting fee is only $250K (though we’re guessing some of that will be made up by the unnamed completion bonus that Tse will get when the Asian operations are sold or spun-off). There’s also this: Tse will get office space, administrative support, a car and driver, hotel accommodations, club memberships, and (here’s the cherry on top) first class travel between Hong Kong and New York.

Advertisement

6 Responses to “AIG: Blame the negative publicity…”

  1. Martin Says:

    Awwwww……..

    Too f’n bad.

  2. mokenman Says:

    It is the lack of critical examination, scrutiny, transparency, and greed on the part of AIG management which finally caught up with them. But taking responsibility for your actions is not part of Corporate American speak! In China Mr. Tse would either be dead or in the big house for a long stretch.

  3. Curious Says:

    At least there were no “leaks” at AIG as Krugman describes in his NY Times blog about the recent stress tests…. Banks leaked information about how much money they needed for the “stress tests.”

    Please tell me how this information can leak (such as Bank of America needing $ ? billion) and it NOT BE INSIDER TRADING? Regulation is a complete joke. The people leaking this information comes back to the same old lax attitude of Wall St. getting away with making billions at every one elses expense.

  4. Mark R Says:

    AIG I wish it was Japan in the 1930′ the whole b unch would have to commit suicude. This time they nearly killed us instead. The thing about corporate America is that is they just o not understand that you cannot win a war with the media the ink and now the intternet are pretty cheap and they just keep making more of it. We should nationalize it and close it down asap

  5. Brad Says:

    Salancik and Meindl in their 1984 “Corporate Attributions as strategic illusions of management control” (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2393176) found that all managements tended to attribute positive outcomes to internal events and negative outcomes to external events. They found that the management of unstable companies were less inclined than those of stable companies to blame negative outcomes on environment factors, but more inclined to accept blame themselves.

    What does this mean for AIG? I don’t know. I think the message of the study is that if you find management blaming journalists doesn’t necessarily have bad implications (many companies of all stripes do it; it is a cognitive bias), but finding management accepting blame is a good thing.

  6. Dave G. Says:

    I guess it’s not just Republicans that blame the media.