It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Now Wall Street May Shun $700bn Bail-Out

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:56 PM

Now Wall Street May Shun $700bn Bail-Out

The bill was passed on Friday afternoon, however, after the inclusion of $149bn of tax breaks and strict rules for participating banks.

But Wall Street analysts, believe the addition of so many terms to the bill might deter potential participants.

One of the least attractive elements is a section designed to curb executive pay at banks that participate in the bail-out package. These include limiting stock-related pay and banning 'golden parachutes' for executives.

'I think this hodge-podge of
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:56 PM
Do you think that the greed in the banking and mortgage industry would let this widfall pass them by due to the fact that it will limit their future earnings and cause their companies to be regulated more?

Sounds like something those greedy ___ might do!

The article states that this, along with the feeling that the market has just about reached the bottom, is causing some companies to rethink if they actually want to accept the bailout.

Well, if the Bailout Bill does indeed contain language that limits CEO salaries and adds more regulations to the companies I say kudos to the politicians who put it there!

It would seem that by adding these restrictions to the bill, it might just keep these companies from accepting this bailout and the extra burdens unless they absolutely, beyond a doubt, positively need this money!

At least they might not be thinking of this bailout as a "gift" now.
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 10/6/2008 by Keyhole]

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:58 PM
Here's a quote from the article!

Now Wall Street may shun $700bn bail-out

'I think this hodge-podge of regulations and rules will be enough to put many [chief executives] off participating,' Caldwell said.

Sources close to Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch indicated the banks might choose not to participate in the bail-out as there is a growing view on Wall Street that the market may be bottoming out.

Analysts also believe that the mere presence of the government as buyer of last resort will be enough to get credit markets moving again, and that a large number of banks would not need to take part for the legislation to succeed.

Well, Ive got my fingers crossed!

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by Keyhole

WOW.. the arrogance..

I say we take our money back damnit, their stocks are going to hell anyways. Good riddance.

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:16 PM
The greed of these people sickens me, also seems to show a lot of the current problems with these companies are created by executives only interested in quick money.

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:20 PM
Kind of amazes you what a little salary cap and a few more regulations can do to the same CEO's who have been drooling for this bailout money!

Like I said before!

KUDOS to the politicians that added these parts to the bill!

I hope it scares those greedy muti-millionaires (some of them probably billionaires) away from accepting the bailout unless absolutely necessary!

I must say that I am stunned though that some of our politicians in DC may have actually been looking out for us when they were drafting this bill!

[edit on 10/6/2008 by Keyhole]

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:36 PM
Here in Belgium, the CEO of Dexia actually said he would not pursue a 'golden parachute' now he had been forced to leave after the recent 'restructuring'.

It is the only CEO I ever heard of who acted in this way.

I think a large part of the problems with the financial system stem exactly from the ludicrous amounts the priviliged few get to pay ... to themselves, using company funds.

And now, they'd refuse to execute a plan that was supposedly engineered to save the global economy.. now thàt's a huge FU finger in our faces..

imho, the firing squad is too quick a way to deal with these vermin.

I was allways horrified by the inquisition etc, but a good pair of rusty pliers and a hot poker might be exactly what they deserve..

*edit for spelling*

[edit on 6-10-2008 by Phatcat]

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:02 PM
reply to post by Keyhole

I think it might be a good thing that these CEOs have decided maybe they want to handle this on their own so they won't lose any money from their cushy paychecks. That may have been the intention of the Legislative and Executive Branches when the bill was drafted and passed. However, just because the money doesn't get used for the purpose it was intended, doesn't mean that it will go back into the coffers. The money has been appropriated. If it isn't spent bailing out these corporations, it will get spent on bonuses for the members manning the board that were supposed to handle the distribution and regulation of the bailout. When you think of it that way, how likely is it that the developers of this plan were actually thinking about us? I think I might enjoy a $7M bonus right now. Then I could pay my power bill tomorrow. Hey, I might even be able to put gas in my truck.

Edit: To help make sense. Made a grammatical error.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by RealityisanIllusion]

[edit on 6-10-2008 by RealityisanIllusion]

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:09 PM
it never ceases to amaze me how completely greed can consume some people.

those CEOs pay themselves insane amounts of money and yet it just isn't enough.

i would love to earn what they do in a year, hell, even a lifetime with some of the earnings these people pull in and yet they can't seem to part with a single cent.

to be totally honest i would love to make more than 10k a year at a single job but i guess i have a different purpose than being financially secure in the present time hehe

i'm sort of glad that these people are potentially refusing it though. i'm hoping that perhaps it will wake honest, hard-working people up as to how greedy and self-centered the people are that are in charge of everyone else' money, retirement savings and just plain quality of life. maybe it's time for real, honest, incorruptible people to be in these positions of authority and heavy responsibility.

i'll do it for 20k a year and a good medical/dental plan

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:14 PM
problem is.. power corrupts, and in many cases you nééd to be corrupt to even find yourself in the situation where you can profit from being corrupt.

How many honest politicians do you know that are in any position of power for example ?

same goes for CEO's and their boards of directors..

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:19 PM
that's certainly true

i get fairytale hopeful about the world sometimes but then i read the news and it snaps me back to reality

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 01:32 AM
This isn't great or even good news. Regardless of whether the banks "take the cheese" or not, the traps have already been baited and the precident has been set. Please don't anyone kid themselves into thinking the federal government is going to rip up the IOU to themselves they forged our names on. The $850 Bil will almost certainly be used and then some, any surplus caused by banks refusing to particpate will merely be siphoned off to other outlets the feds can waste the money on. The banks may be the rats the money was originally intended to catch, but the feds will eventually attract some new rodents from some other sector of business who are willing to become nationalized entities in exchange for the money stolen from us.

Face it, the feds have become the Homeboy Shopping Network from "In Living Color." They have a truck loaded with all the money stolen from We the People and they'll just drive around, ocassionally opening the back of the truck up to exchange that stolen money for contractual agreement to become a nationalized corporation. When they hear the sirens (AKA when we start to get wise to what they're doing) they'll close the truck back up, drive a few blocks over, and open themselves back up for some other group of businesses. The fact that the banks are saying "no" right now is probably because the sirens are currently blarring and the American people are eyeballing those golden parachutes. The next time the truck comes into the banking neighborhoods, it will be in the dead of night with no sirens and that golden parachute provision will have magically disappeared or a work around will have been negotiated, and suddenly these banks will happily accept the payout to become nationalized.

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 02:26 AM
It wouldn't surprise me if they threw a tantrum. Just looking at that Lehman Brothers CEO makes my skin crawl. I saw such darkness inside of him when he was on TV a short while ago. I'm very talented at reading people and using my other talents to get a glimpse of what they have done during their lives. This guy is severely disturbed.

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 02:43 AM
actually there already is a work around in the limiting of the golden parachutes. The current CEO's are exempt its when the current CEO leaves his position and a new CEo comes to play and takes the bailout that he'll get stuck with the no golden chute clause of the deal. But the Share holders can give the new CEO his golden chute before he signs his contract with the company. and still keep it. it was a sign on bonus.

Wall street don't want the money then fine! Take that money and give it to the 15 or so states that are going bankrupt because of these bastards! give it to companies that had nothing to do with the sub prime mess. invest that money in alternate energy research.

line the bankers up and put a bullet in their head, they deserve it

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 02:47 AM
Well clearly this shows that included in the bill should be express permission for people with no food to go over to the executives houses and get something to eat.

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 03:03 AM
reply to post by Keyhole

WEll from the information i could get yesterday when the pakage was in full effect was even more downturn, and today dowjones is down again yet another 3%, but in the EU the makets are upp, but still the pakage could not help. atleast oslo and Copenhagen so far today, but i have suspicions to this packed, i mean what we should look on is who is buying upp everyone, i have a strong suspicion that its Rockefeller etc. behind that but, thats just my personal assumption.

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 12:56 PM
I'm no economist or very knowledgeable of the the banking industry, but wouldn't it be in the best interest of the companies holding peoples mortgages to lower their monthly payments instead of repossessing the home due to the fact that the home is now maybe only worth 3/4 of what the mortgage was written for, or what they paid for it?

Why would they want to repo the home in a market where homes are worth a fraction of what they paid for them and where they aren't even selling right now?

It would just make sense to me for the mortgage holder to do everything they possibly can to keep the homeowners in the home, paying something towards their mortgages rather than repo'ing the home the way the real estate market is right now and taking a big loss on every foreclosure!

At least this way, everybody can weather out this financial crisis with little loss!

Why would the mortgage companies want to keep foreclosing on homes that they can't sell, or even if they can sell, would have to sell for a loss!

Maybe this makes no sense at all, but like I said, I'm no financial genius!

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 01:03 PM
I'd like to know why these guys get "golden parchutes" in the first place! How does it benefit a business that is failing, to offer a fired executive millions? What good is it for the business and/or shareholders?

The only thing I can think of is that it is hush money. That these CEOs know things that could get a business in a lot of trouble, so the business pays them to keep their traps shut.

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by Keyhole

I believe it is because once the house has been foreclosed on and sold at auction, even for pennies on the dollar, it leaves the banks' books and is no longer considered a liabillity to them. If they accept lower monthly payments instead, it remains on the books, is considered a high risk liabillity, and suddenly their stock is percieved to be less attractive plus, in the current market, the banks with alot of risky debt holdings on their books are viewed as extremely risky debt themselves and cannot get bank to bank loans to maintain liquidity.

It makes no sense to those of us dealing with a paltry 4 figure monthly budget, but in the world of big business and billion dollar dealings, it benefits the bank more to take a massive one time loss and make the bad debt holding disappear than to break even on the individual debt, but in the process have it hanging on your books like a tiny sword of Damocles.

EDIT: It also bears mentioning that it wouldn't even be possible for us to do something like this even if it did make sense on a personal finance level. Most of these banks have sold debt to other banks, meaning that when they foreclose and take a fraction of the ultimate payout for the property they then turn around and pay that amount to whichever bank they sold the bad debt to (depending, obviously on whether the original contract between the banks was "at risk" or insured). In effect, they claim a form of bankruptcy on that individual debt alone, rather than on all their debt holdings. But then, like magic, *poof* it goes away. Once it has been written off their books it no longer can be used as a measuring stick of that institution's risky holdings. Very, very different from personal debt write offs in which your debts, even after being forgiven by bankruptcy, stay on your "books" (credit report) for at least 7, in many cases 10, years after you've written them off. We are fully and completely held accountable for our personal finances and blunders, especially blunders. The corporate world is not held to the same standard. Lenders in the corporate world don't care how many poor decisions and losses a potential corporate debtor has had in the past, they only care about how many of them currently sit on their books.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by burdman30ott6]

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 01:41 PM
Thanks for the reply burdmam

Like I said I'm no economist, but when I read this,

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
In effect, they claim a form of bankruptcy on that individual debt alone, rather than on all their debt holdings. But then, like magic, *poof* it goes away. Once it has been written off their books it no longer can be used as a measuring stick of that institution's risky holdings. Very, very different from personal debt write offs in which your debts, even after being forgiven by bankruptcy, stay on your "books" (credit report) for at least 7, in many cases 10, years after you've written them off.

It made me feel that this is part of the problem with the system that needs to be corrected!

They can claim bankruptcy all day long and it just disappears for them and they are forgiven, but when a regular citizen goes bankrupt they aren't forgiven for 10 years.

Somethings wrong there!

They can just keep writing loans with their bad loan practices, loan goes bad, they claim bankruptcy, they are forgiven, bad loan practice used again because there is no legal actions taken against them.

Repeat as many times as they want.

Ooops, now we have no money to lend out!

[edit on 10/7/2008 by Keyhole]

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in