What's to suggest bonuses would not have been paid out in stocks even without the bailout money?
To me it reads as if grants reduced the loans they'd be taking, but they've rewarded their top execs with stock (meaning they need to have a lot of trust in company to they just arranged 3B worth of loans for).
To clarify my point: I just do not see a connection between bailout money and bonuses (mostly paid in stock), which the OP emphasizes. Your point stands regardless of subsidies.
To me it reads as if grants reduced the loans they'd be taking, but they've rewarded their top execs with stock (meaning they need to have a lot of trust in company to they just arranged 3B worth of loans for).
To clarify my point: I just do not see a connection between bailout money and bonuses (mostly paid in stock), which the OP emphasizes. Your point stands regardless of subsidies.