GS CEO Blankfein Gets $67.9 Million Bonus, New Pay Record

[TonyM]

Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein claimed a $67.9 million bonus, the biggest ever awarded to the CEO of a Wall Street firm, after delivering a record profit amid the subprime market collapse.

Blankfein, 53, received $26.8 million in cash and $41.1 million in restricted stock and options, the New York-based firm said in a Dec. 21 regulatory filing. His payout rose 26 percent from 2006 while mortgage-related losses drove Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack and Bear Stearns Cos. chief James ``Jimmy'' Cayne to forgo year-end awards.

Goldman, the largest U.S. securities firm, shattered Wall Street earnings records for the fourth-consecutive year even as banks and brokerages including Citigroup Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. were forced to take at least $96 billion of writedowns. Blankfein's bonus amounts to about two days' profit at his company during the 12 months ended Nov. 30.

``This year has really separated the pack,'' said Gary Goldstein, chief executive officer at Whitney Group, a New York- based financial recruiting firm. ``In the face of what could have been a disastrous year for Goldman Sachs, they had the best year ever and he deserves to be recognized for that.''

Blankfein, a Harvard-educated lawyer who grew up in Brooklyn and joined Goldman as a metals salesman in 1982, succeeded Henry Paulson as CEO last year. Paulson, now U.S. Treasury secretary, took his bonuses in stock during the last three years he headed the firm. Blankfein has taken some of his bonuses in cash.

Goldman gave Blankfein $27.3 million in cash last year, plus $15.7 million in restricted stock and options to buy shares that the firm valued at almost $10.5 million at the time. Added to his $600,000 salary, he made a record-setting total of $54 million. Blankfein's salary was unchanged this year.

Cohn, Winkelried

Goldman set aside $20.2 billion to pay employee wages, benefits and bonuses in 2007, a 23 percent increase. Co- Presidents Gary Cohn, 47, and Jon Winkelried, 48, each received awards comprised of restricted shares and options worth about $40.5 million, up from $25.7 million last year, according to the firm's regulatory filings.

The firm will disclose cash bonuses for executives other than Blankfein in its annual proxy statement next year. Goldman paid Cohn and Winkelried cash bonuses of $26.7 million each last year, bringing their 2006 pay to $53 million apiece.

David Viniar, 52, Goldman's chief financial officer, received an 81 percent increase in the non-cash portion of his bonus this year -- the biggest of any executive. He was awarded restricted stock and options worth about $34.5 million, up from $19.1 million in 2006.

Paradigm Shift

John Weinberg, 50, a vice chairman and co-head of investment banking, was granted restricted stock and options valued at about $19.1 million, up from $15.1 million in 2006.

The biggest stock bonus awarded to any Morgan Stanley executive was $8.9 million of restricted shares granted to Walid Chammah, 53, who was promoted to co-president in November when Zoe Cruz was ousted. James Gorman, 49, the firm's other co- president, received restricted shares worth about $7.98 million, according to company filings on Dec. 21. Cruz received almost $19 million of stock and options last year.

``What you're seeing is historic,'' said Jeanne Branthover, managing director of Boyden World Corp., an executive recruiter based in New York. ``It's going to set a pattern in the future for how people and firms differentiate themselves in extraordinary times.''

Goldman's 2007 earnings jumped 22 percent to $11.6 billion as the company maintained its top rank among merger advisers, profited from the sale of power plants and wind farms, and positioned itself to benefit from a decline in the value of subprime mortgages.

Wiped Out

Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest U.S. securities firm, reported a 60 percent decline in earnings to $2.56 billion. Mack, paid $40 million last year, won't take any bonus this year after his firm wrote down $9.4 billion in debt securities during the fourth quarter, plunging the company to its first-ever quarterly loss.

None of the executive committee members at Bear Stearns, the fifth-biggest securities firm, are taking bonuses after a $1.9 billion writedown and declines in trading and investment banking wiped out fourth-quarter revenue.

``Probably for the first time here we've got people forgoing the bonus entirely,'' said Charles Geisst, a finance professor at Manhattan College in Riverdale, New York, and author of ``100 Years of Wall Street.'' ``We've never seen losses like this before.''

Stan O'Neal, ousted in October from his job as chairman and CEO of Merrill Lynch, didn't receive any 2007 bonus or severance. He was allowed to leave with $161.5 million of securities and retirement funds.

Charles O. ``Chuck'' Prince, who resigned as CEO of Citigroup in November after the firm lost as much as $11 billion in subprime mortgage investments, is keeping about $30 million of stock and option awards and will get a bonus linked to the firm's share price.

[TonyM]

I forget where I posted it, but I told you guys someone needed a new Benz...and apparently a Veyron an Enzo and another house in the Hamptons.

Put GS in your investment portfolio and fuggheddaboutit.

[aiki14]

I saw some commentary where people were taking a very negative view of Mr. Blankfein's bonus package. As a shareholder in GS, I am quite happy, in fact elated, with the performance of GS. They have so grossly outperformed their peers it's an embarrassment to call them peers. As Mr. Blankfein is chiefly responsible for this, I am happy to see him get the bonuses and incentives, and hope the year to come sees an increase. His good fortune is my good fortune.

[TonyM]

That's what I thought, if he has saved them from losing billions in subprime then pay the man!

[reef]

I saw some commentary where people were taking a very negative view of Mr. Blankfein's bonus package. As a shareholder in GS, I am quite happy, in fact elated, with the performance of GS. They have so grossly outperformed their peers it's an embarrassment to call them peers. As Mr. Blankfein is chiefly responsible for this, I am happy to see him get the bonuses and incentives, and hope the year to come sees an increase. His good fortune is my good fortune.

You make a good point, but it still bugs the hell out of me when these CEO's get large bonuses like this. But that has more to do with caring more about the little people than most. But with GS, their job is to make the company money and he did do that.

[cramerica1972]

You make a good point, but it still bugs the hell out of me when these CEO's get large bonuses like this. But that has more to do with caring more about the little people than most. But with GS, their job is to make the company money and he did do that.it is the rank and file ppl who made that money,not the CEO!!!!give the under ppl credit.

[TonyM]

it is the rank and file ppl who made that money,not the CEO!!!!give the under ppl credit.

Hefty bonuses all around at GS I'm sure, but it is customary for the CEO to take the lion's share, after all he will be persecuted if the company turns a loss.

[cramerica1972]

Hefty bonuses all around at GS I'm sure, but it is customary for the CEO to take the lion's share, after all he will be persecuted if the company turns a loss.tony,would you pay a person that type of money to fire 30,000 workers?

[TonyM]

tony,would you pay a person that type of money to fire 30,000 workers?

That's an incomplete question, short answer is yes as long is it improves the bottom line.

[cramerica1972]

That's an incomplete question, short answer is yes as long is it improves the bottom line.improve his bottomline,while 30,000 workers lose a livelihood?that is 30,000 less cars sold,houses sold etc.

[reef]

improve his bottomline,while 30,000 workers lose a livelihood?that is 30,000 less cars sold,houses sold etc.


Is the company supposed to lose money?

[discrat]

I saw some commentary where people were taking a very negative view of Mr. Blankfein's bonus package. As a shareholder in GS, I am quite happy, in fact elated, with the performance of GS. They have so grossly outperformed their peers it's an embarrassment to call them peers. As Mr. Blankfein is chiefly responsible for this, I am happy to see him get the bonuses and incentives, and hope the year to come sees an increase. His good fortune is my good fortune.


Yeah right !! This is baloney !! No one and I mean no one deserves this kind of Bonus. How can you be "elated" by this ?? Thats a ridicolous statement.

It doesnt matter how profitable the company is. Give him $10 million, which incidentally, is plenty of money for one person to enjoy and put the other 60 million in the hands of the shareholders.
Period. End of story !!!

[Imperator]

Did you drink your Hater-aid today?

Unless you're an owner of the company, as I am (a microscopic one), you don't really have any business making a judgment on his compensation. He isn't the only one in the company, everyone at Goldman Sachs is paid VERY well. GS has come through the credit debacle so far. GS has provided value to it's shareholders. GS has increased in value by the tens of billions of dollars. 67 mill for the top dog is not outrageous.

[aiki14]

Yeah right !! This is baloney !! No one and I mean no one deserves this kind of Bonus. How can you be "elated" by this ?? Thats a ridicolous statement.

It doesnt matter how profitable the company is. Give him $10 million, which incidentally, is plenty of money for one person to enjoy and put the other 60 million in the hands of the shareholders.
Period. End of story !!!

You may want to relax a bit and reread my post, I said I was elated at the performance of GS, not the bonus itself. That said, I will reiterate that Mr. Blankfeins bonus does not bother me a bit, you would whine if he got 10 million as well. Who are you to determine what is "plenty of money"? If you have a problem with the package don't buy the stock or use their services.
I am a shareholder and GS manages my lg cap value portfolio, as well as some structured products, and they have wildly outperformed their index's and their peers. That means I am ok with the bonuses and I get to vote, you get to whine, any idea how this is gonna turn out? That's capitalism, don't like it , get an education and join the party or go to cuba.

One more thing, if you are going to whine, and call a statement "ridiculous" spell it correctly, or you're just going to come across as an idiot, rather than the sour grapes whiner you are.

[TonyM]

Hmm, it seems that a XXXL bag of Capitalism isn't what somebody wanted for Xmas. Forward it to me, I eat it up like an addict does crack.:mrgreen:

[primer]

It doesnt matter how profitable the company is. Give him $10 million, which incidentally, is plenty of money for one person to enjoy

Putting an arbitrary cap on the dollar amount he can receive as a bonus? I'm sure that would promote more growth and give him, or any CEO for that matter, more of an incentive to succeed. That notion seems a bit counter-intuitive for a society predicated on capitalism and free-markets, don't you think?

[netwrangler]

OK, folks, let's get the issues lined up here.

How much of a bonus does it take for CEOs to turn in their best work? I suggest there is an 80/20 rule in effect here. That is, you get at least 80% of a CEO's effort from the first 20% of the bonus. After that, your ROI goes down.
How much of a bonus does it take for a specific CEO to do their best work at one specific firm? Ah, there's the question. The answer, of course, is that it takes more than another specific firm would pay. And this issue involves more than just supply and demand. We are talking some world class personal marketing here.


If the Board pays an exorbitant stipend to a financial "player" with a great pedigree, and that person screws up...well, those are the breaks of Naval-Air.
If the Board pays a reasonable stipend to a sharp cookie without the pedigree, and that person screws up...well, that's the basis for a share-holders suit.

So, what are those Board-Mothers to do?
Ideally, I'd like to see them base at least 80% of CEO compensation on performance. I'd like to see that performance pay spread over a rolling five years. Juicing earnings or stock prices for just a few quarters should not be enough to qualify for the big bucks.

I do think there is an inherent conflict of interest when the Board's Compensation Committee includes CEOs from other companies.

Should the stockholders have a say in CEO compensation?
Well, if one stockholder owns 90% of the stock, there wouldn't be any doubt that stockholder would have a great deal to say about how the CEO was compensated. It isn't clear to me how that stockholder prerogative should be lessened simply because that 90% of the stock is spread amongst more holders.

[TonyM]

The CEO's compensation package is determined when he is hired and at periodic reviews, that would be the time to voice opposition. If you were a shareholder during those times and complained at that time, then you have a legitimate reason to complain now, all others have no basis for complaint.

Seems to be a common theme here lately; people get hung up on the dollar amount and fail to look at the percentages, his bonus is equivalent to two days worth of profit. His base salary is $600k, he has a good incentive to perform if he wants to make some real coin. Lastly, let's not forget that a huge chunk of that money will be lost to taxes.

Let's say that you own a business and you have some employees. How would you like to be told by the public how much you are allowed to pay those employees? How is it their business? Who the hell are they to say what you do with your profits?

How many of the people that responded negatively to the compensation in this thread are even GS shareholders?

[netwrangler]

Let's say that you own a business and you have some employees. How would you like to be told by the public how much you are allowed to pay those employees? Couldn't agree more, Tony.

Of course, the stockholders do own the business. :D

[TonyM]

Couldn't agree more, Tony.

Of course, the stockholders do own the business. :D

I disagree to a certain extent, the stockholders own a piece of paper that entitles them to share in the profits or losses and the right to vote on how the company is run.

However, I have the feeling that the people that do not Blankfein's bonus, would not like the compensation package that the guys at the head of Cerberus are giving themselves either.

[netwrangler]

I disagree to a certain extent, the stockholders own a piece of paper that entitles them to share in the profits or losses and the right to vote on how the company is run.

However, I have the feeling that the people that do not Blankfein's bonus, would not like the compensation package that the guys at the head of Cerberus are giving themselves either.
I'm just sending a cutter through to reveal the zone defense here.

You said a business owner should be able to set compensation.

Then you said, in effect, "Well, not those business owners."

In my view, this is a slippery slope. I think there are two arguments going forward here:

The average shareholder is not competent to set executive compensation. True enough, in my view, if blatantly elitest. The counter argument is that, to a man on a horse, it doesn't appear the compensation committees are competent in this area either. We are back to the slippery slope.
The Government (or the SEC) should not be involved in executive compensation. I can't disagree there. Of course, if corporate governance took care of business, government involvement wouldn't be an issue. It is amazing how industries cleave to the self-regulation creed once they sense the shadow of impending government regulation.

Are you saying that the way executives are compensated now can not be improved upon?

[TonyM]

It may appear that I said "not those business owners", but I'm talking about ownership in the truest sense here. Can a shareholder of GM walk into a factory and start giving orders? Shareholders are more akin to being unequal partners. Even a 51% owner isn't going to be able to dictate policy at the production level, he/she must follow standard protocol if changes to the business are desired. How many shares are outstanding? What about stocks with class a & b shares such as Dow Jones? Let's not forget about the bond holders, if the company goes belly up, who likely gets paid something and who likely gets nothing? Who then are the real owners? To me an owner is able to do with his property anything he wishes to.

I also stated a requirement (imo) for being able to complain about the compensation package. Shareholders that bought in after the level of pay has already been agreed to, have in effect agreed to those terms by buying the stock.

My main point is that I have yet to see a large group of shareholders in an uproar over this. Non shareholders and the govt should have a say in this why?

I don't see the CEO pay structure as something that needs improvement, it's answering a question that should only be asked by a controlling shareholder contingent.

Can we, the public, demand that professional athletes be paid more modestly? Can we ask our government to cap their salaries? Is there a way to improve the way in which they are compensated?

[aiki14]

However, I have the feeling that the people that do not Blankfein's bonus, would not like the compensation package that the guys at the head of Cerberus are giving themselves either.

Mr. Blankfein would be around number 92 in the Trader Monthly top 100 traders of 2006 (last year available, 2007 will be out in apr '08). John Arnold of Centaurus made better than $1.5 Billion in '06. If you invested in Centaurus and got back 45% after fees on your $2 million minimum stake, would you begrudge Mr. Arnold his salary? I doubt it. Usually it's just the whiners with little or no skin in the game who object.

[netwrangler]

I also stated a requirement (imo) for being able to complain about the compensation package. Shareholders that bought in after the level of pay has already been agreed to, have in effect agreed to those terms by buying the stock.

My main point is that I have yet to see a large group of shareholders in an uproar over this. Non shareholders and the govt should have a say in this why?Yes, you did state this requirement earlier. I didn't quote it because, basically, I agree.

I don't see the CEO pay structure as something that needs improvement, it's answering a question that should only be asked by a controlling shareholder contingent.Executive compensation is, imo, a perfectly valid topic of discussion — a discussion in which any open and inquiring and mind might wish to participate. The operative words here are "open and inquiring."

If a discussion opens with, "Obvious, that jerk is making too much money;"
And if the response is, "There is no such thing as 'too much.' Shaddap and siddown;"
Well, that's not really the discussion I have in mind.

On the other hand, I'm not certain I want to get into the biz-consultants game of drawing 2x2 matrices on a white board and talking about "stakeholders." :wink:

I still think there are some valid MBA-type issues in play here, but I'm going to move on. I realize that I vote with my investment dollar...and, for my long term holdings, I vote my shares. Evaluating how well a company is served by management is just part of DD.

=====
Can we, the public, demand that professional athletes be paid more modestly? Can we ask our government to cap their salaries? Is there a way to improve the way in which they are compensated?Nice try, Tony. You know I didn't suggest capping athletes salaries.

The topic of 'Bread and Circuses', however, might make for a lively thread. :p

[TonyM]

I think maybe I haven't explained where I'm coming from properly, Net.

Discussion is fine, that is what we are doing in this thread. By saying that only a majority shareholder contingent should ask the question, I am saying that all others can discuss to their hearts content but should not have the ability to influence government to regulate maximum compensation.

I brought up the pro athletes because I think it is exactly in the same vein; I don't see where throwing or hitting a baseball is worth millions while putting your life on the line as a police officer or firefighter is worth under $100k. However, I don't think I have right to make the pro -athletes take a pay cut either.

As far as quality of debate, I don't think anyone has presented much of a reason as to why an executive should be limited in his compensation other than it's not fair, they don't need that much money, etc, etc. I'm arguing that to be able to impose those limitations goes against our form of government. Not to mention that once you let them start regulating one group of people it's not usually too long before they get around to your group.

[netwrangler]

I think maybe I haven't explained where I'm coming from properly, Net.

Discussion is fine, that is what we are doing in this thread. By saying that only a majority shareholder contingent should ask the question, I am saying that all others can discuss to their hearts content but should not have the ability to influence government to regulate maximum compensation.

I brought up the pro athletes because I think it is exactly in the same vein; I don't see where throwing or hitting a baseball is worth millions while putting your life on the line as a police officer or firefighter is worth under $100k. However, I don't think I have right to make the pro -athletes take a pay cut either.

As far as quality of debate, I don't think anyone has presented much of a reason as to why an executive should be limited in his compensation other than it's not fair, they don't need that much money, etc, etc. I'm arguing that to be able to impose those limitations goes against our form of government. Not to mention that once you let them start regulating one group of people it's not usually too long before they get around to your group.You did explain that, Tony, and that's why I'm bowing out.

Can't argue with any of that...well, not and win. The debate on compensation has to turn on the question, "How do you make sure you are getting your money's worth?" As a "trained economist", I believe folks do what they are given incentives to do. The question really is, "Is there a point where adding to compensation no longer returns value?...no longer creates commensurate incentives?"

Note: "Fairness" is not an issue here. I believe we agree on that. The issue is ROI and marginal return. Do you get more from that last $10-million by improving your plant, or giving it to the boss?

=====
BTW: The NYTimes yesterday had an article about a divinity professor who believes the "tax and spend" policies of many states go against the teachings of the Bible. There's another lively thread topic.

Also, as I recall, a while back the UK had a 98% marginal tax rate in the top bracket which really invoked the law of unintended results. Made it cheap to buy a Rolls as a company car. :o

[TonyM]

Well alrighty then. :wink:

If we are only talking about the ROI from a shareholder point of view, then yes I'm sure there is always room for improvement. Where should that last $10M go? Well, this is going to vary depending on the type of business, GS obviously has no manufacturing to invest in, perhaps they could upgrade their hardware and software, but I doubt that they don't already have the latest and greatest and an upgrade cycle in place already.

For a company such as GM your question takes on much more importance, however the other factor is one of CEO retention; will spending that last $10M on him convince him to stay? This is very difficult to answer as it will depend on the individual as well as the bonus level of his peers and their performance.

If we cap the max bonus for Blankenfein and he meets that bonus level in May, mighten he take a protective view for the remainder of the year? He would have an incentive to concentrate on capital preservation over profits, perhaps changing what made him successful in the first place.

Would it be worth it to you as a GM shareholder if the CEO recaptured market share and exceeded TM in profit but was then paid 2 days worth of profits for doing so? If not and the CEO is compensated to a similar level as some of his less successful peers do we think he would stay on?

I'm not sure we can separate the ROI math from the human part of the equation, CEO's can be known for having large ego's in need of nurturing:wink:

I know I went back & forth between GS and GM but I think the different type businesses present unique problems. I would expect more reinvestment in an auto manufacturer or an integrated oil company vs a financial. Maybe we could compare percentage of profits dedicated to reinvestment vs bonuses?

[netwrangler]

Well alrighty then. :wink:

I'm not sure we can separate the ROI math from the human part of the equation, CEO's can be known for having large ego's in need of nurturing:wink:
Very true. What's more, it's probably the CEO [or the Executive Committee led by the CEO] that has to approve that last $10-million project. :?

Classic micro-economics says bliss [or, at least, max profit] is when MC=MR ... that is, when Marginal Cost = Marginal Revenue. Anyone who has ever worked in the analyst trenches knows how difficult it is to determine cost and revenue at the margin, even for a reasonably well defined [and accounted for] business unit. Trying to come up with marginal figures for a CEO is a bit like trying to dissect a frog with a back-hoe. It's really tough not to make a mess of it.

So, in the real world, Compensation Committees look at what other firms are paying other CEOs, and, maybe, how to tie compensation to "company performance."

Of course, your CEO is going to claim to be better than the others. [The CEO's ego factor at work.] And your Board is going to want to believe that it is so...that they have selected/retained the right person [The Board's ego factor at work.] This feeds a sort of bubble in CEO salaries. Tends to cascade into Board compensation as well.

Tying compensation to performance is a great concept [second only to MC=MR :wink: ]. Certainly helps, however, to tie compensation to the right performance metric, as the folks at Home Depot found when they paid Nardelli.

So, to get back to the subject of the thread, is $67.9 million for Blankfein out of line? Hey, could be. I don't really know. But given that GS is making money and GS's peers are not, I don't think Blankfein is where I would start if I wanted to find someone who is overpaid. ;)

[TonyM]

So, to get back to the subject of the thread, is $67.9 million for Blankfein out of line? Hey, could be. I don't really know. But given that GS is making money and GS's peers are not, I don't think Blankfein is where I would start if I wanted to find someone who is overpaid. ;)

That's a damn good point.

I think we've covered the majority of the angles now, so does anyone have issue with a recommendation to invest in GS, especially if any sub $200 entries appear?

[cramerica1972]

The CEO's compensation package is determined when he is hired and at periodic reviews, that would be the time to voice opposition. If you were a shareholder during those times and complained at that time, then you have a legitimate reason to complain now, all others have no basis for complaint.

Seems to be a common theme here lately; people get hung up on the dollar amount and fail to look at the percentages, his bonus is equivalent to two days worth of profit. His base salary is $600k, he has a good incentive to perform if he wants to make some real coin. Lastly, let's not forget that a huge chunk of that money will be lost to taxes.

Let's say that you own a business and you have some employees. How would you like to be told by the public how much you are allowed to pay those employees? How is it their business? Who the hell are they to say what you do with your profits?

How many of the people that responded negatively to the compensation in this thread are even GS shareholders?tomy,it is YOUR attitude that i hate:you think that just b/c ppl who post in here arent GS investors or investors in general have no right to comment on this board,technically i do invest b/c i am have a retirement account in thr county that i work for,so i will say whatever the heck i want in regards to this obscene pay in corporate america.NO man or woman is worth $60 million.

[TonyM]

tomy,it is YOUR attitude that i hate:you think that just b/c ppl who post in here arent GS investors or investors in general have no right to comment on this board,technically i do invest b/c i am have a retirement account in thr county that i work for,so i will say whatever the heck i want in regards to this obscene pay in corporate america.NO man or woman is worth $60 million.
2384

[Rich]

Perosnally, I wish I would get another bonus, like MORE DIVIDEND would be nice....

Yep, I deserve it just as much as the CEO, I lost sleep, hair and fingernails over this stock, Heck, I deserve at least a couple of $ 100,000 for the damages all this worrying caused me ~~ I might sue for my share!








<G>

[reef]

2384

Damn thats funny! :lol:

[cramerica1972]

2384you should give a damn tony,who pays that $67 million bonus?consumers do,the higher the stock market goes:the higher consumer prices get b/c someone has to pay for that high stock price.

[aiki14]

you should give a damn tony,who pays that $67 million bonus?consumers do,the higher the stock market goes:the higher consumer prices get b/c someone has to pay for that high stock price.

This statement indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the market.

[TonyM]

you should give a damn tony,who pays that $67 million bonus?consumers do,the higher the stock market goes:the higher consumer prices get b/c someone has to pay for that high stock price.



2397

[reef]

you should give a damn tony,who pays that $67 million bonus?consumers do,the higher the stock market goes:the higher consumer prices get b/c someone has to pay for that high stock price.

Looks like my ignore list is going to be started again. I dont think I can read another post of yours.

[AJLightning]

NO man or woman is worth $60 million.



Tony Romo is! :wink:

[netwrangler]

NO man or woman is worth $60 million.

Tony Romo is! :wink:And it appears that Oprah is.

[Rich]

I wouldn't be surprised if AIKI is too! At least he should be....

[reef]

Tony Romo is! :wink:


:lol:

Oh you meant that?