It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Obama: big Wall Street bonuses 'outrageous'

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
$20 billion bonus while our economy is in a depression, perhaps the government should take over these banks.




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I've worked in this industry for over 25 years and know how this works.The more senior you are the more of your cash compensation is variable.  I currently get over 70% of my cash compensation in the form of bonus.    That number can swing greatly year to year.   Base salaries at asset management firms are kept low on purpose to place more of the comp at risk, hence driving the individuals success and the firm's success in unison.  All bonuses over a certain amount are approved by the compensation committee of the board of directors, which is an independant body.  They also heavily rely on third party market data to assess appropriate compensation levels for given positions.   That being said, I personally think some of the bonuses are too high, but that is a matter for the share holders, not the government to be concerned with.   The compensation of the top 10 employees of any public company are public.   If you have a problem with Dick Fuld, CEO of Lehman Brothers getting a $42M bonus, then don't buy Lehman stock.   I do think that is an outrageous amount of money.  Not because it is too much to give to someone, but because it is too much money that should have been returned to shareholders.  This is just more class warfare meat for the liberal gristmill.  Bottom-line is that it is none of the government's business.   They could, as many libertarians and conservatives suggested, lets these firms fail.   The fact that the government decided to give them money does not give them any right to get involved in corporate governance.   Would you think it was OK if the bank who gave you a mortgage told you what color to paint your house?   Ain't none of their business and its none of the government's business what these dudes make either.  Last I checked these firms were all public and the fact that the government loaned them money does not make them shareholders, it makes them creditors and thats all.Those of you who think these bonuses are too high, do a couple of things.  Check out the public information about what two huge liberals, Robert Rubin and John Corizine got paid when they were CEO of Goldman Sachs.   There are two gents who are worth over $500M telling you that your taxes are too low.  Also check out where the Wall Street PAC money goes.  It goes to Democrats, not Republicans.   Republicans like the free market which is great for the industry, but Democrats like regulating the markets which is fantastic for the industry because the gents on the street are much more clever than the hacks in Washington and can engineer something to exploit the cracks in the regulations.    Every major meltdown in the past 50 years has been through the exploitation of flaws in regulations.   The Democrats who pound the table and complain about the market should just get out of it and let it work.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
The Democrats who pound the table and complain about the market should just get out of it and let it work.


These bankers are begging the American taxpayers to bail them out, I think it's entirely within our right to complain.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by Leto]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


I starred you 15 times but only 1 showed up.

I think you more or less mentioned the best way to protest the huge bonuses that they don't deserve or that are just extremely outrageous. Simply quit buying their stock and quit buying their products and let the board of directors of that company know the reason you aren't.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Leto
 



These bankers are begging the American taxpayers to bail them out, I think it's entirely within our right to complain.


I don't see it that way. I see it as government trying to cover up their incompetency. Who was the ones advocating that these banks make loan to high risk lenders in the first place? Sure the bankers turned it into greed but Congress even ignored the greed. It isn't like corporations just started handing out huge bonuses for the first time. They been giving out huge bonuses for a long time and government never made a big deal out of it. And let's not forget the oversight that Congress/government failed to do.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leto

Originally posted by dolphinfan
The Democrats who pound the table and complain about the market should just get out of it and let it work.


These bankers are begging the American taxpayers to bail them out, I think it's entirely within our right to complain.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by Leto]


Complain all you want. We should all complain about things we want to complain about. Don't suggest that the government do anything about it though. And of course the bankers are begging for money. they are begging because they know that they will get it. Why not beg?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


I starred your post! I found it well presented. I am hoping you will be kind enough to entertain my input because frankly, I hold a different position on some of what you said.


Base salaries at asset management firms are kept low on purpose to place more of the comp at risk, hence driving the individuals success and the firm's success in unison.


That's an understandable practice, although it's premise is the same as the less-than-minimum wage waitress or bus-boy - because of the assumed tips they are to receive. Perhaps the paradigm is broken now, maybe you all should contract for the salary you believe your worth and forget BONUSES because you are making your customers bear the burden of the risk. Unless of course, you tell all your clients that your bonus will be disbursed before their shares are revalued. I assume you do that. (Frankly, I wouldn't know)

If you are worth $500K a year, demand that, and don't play games with your salary on someone else's dime. If you lose money to the point of decimating your funds, do YOU pay the deficit..., because the tax-payers are being obliged to do so, against the threat of monetary collapse.


All bonuses over a certain amount are approved by the compensation committee of the board of directors, which is an independant body.


Independent of what? Outside the industry? Direct representation of the shareholders? Or does the charter protect them from accountability?


They also heavily rely on third party market data to assess appropriate compensation levels for given positions.


Having spent some time in the military I have had experience with "Third Party" and what it can really be. I won't argue that in your example such is the case, but "Third Party" is often another way of saying "Kissing Cousin."


That being said, I personally think some of the bonuses are too high, but that is a matter for the share holders, not the government to be concerned with.


But the shareholders have, by design, little to no control over the actions of the corporation. Some (most?) corporate charters are very..., slanted. Tell me, if you can, exactly how does the shareholder challenge the matter? They can't can they? It's up to the sacrosanct 'board.' But the board isn't exactly holding the same risk as the shareholders do they? They. like those we are discussing seem to be compensated well regardless of the 'market' performance.


The compensation of the top 10 employees of any public company are public. If you have a problem with Dick Fuld, CEO of Lehman Brothers getting a $42M bonus, then don't buy Lehman stock.


I am assuming that's in keeping with my previous proposition... but please correct me if I'm wrong.


I do think that is an outrageous amount of money. Not because it is too much to give to someone, but because it is too much money that should have been returned to shareholders. This is just more class warfare meat for the liberal gristmill.


I agree.


Bottom-line is that it is none of the government's business.


I disagree. It becomes the government's (the people's) business when the magnitude of the revenue leak is such a drain on the market that it imperils the public who never contracted to engage in your 'risk' venture.


They could, as many libertarians and conservatives suggested, lets these firms fail.


I happen to agree with that course of action, only because governments are too political to be allowed to manipulate the market directly.


The fact that the government decided to give them money does not give them any right to get involved in corporate governance.


I happen to feel that it is unlikely that the government's actions can be characterized as 'deciding to give them money.' The government abdicated that authority to the Treasury, currently manned and controlled by the Transnational Banking Cartel which is raping this (and every other) country. But that is not on topic at the moment, so forgive the digression, I will proceed.

The problem is EXACTLY corporate governance and the limitation of liability that has been since relatively recently granted to corporations, such as equal citizenship as a person. Risk with no liability is tantamount to an invitation for abuse; which is exactly what seems to have occurred through devious financial vehicles and practices.


Would you think it was OK if the bank who gave you a mortgage told you what color to paint your house?


If it was contractually stated at the time of purchase..., what choice would I have?


Ain't none of their business and its none of the government's business what these dudes make either.


It is equally none of their business what they lose - that's THEIR risk, oh but wait, they NEVER lose.... as if 'the fix' was 'in.'


Last I checked these firms were all public and the fact that the government loaned them money does not make them shareholders, it makes them creditors and thats all.


If you are correct, and this is an uncontested assertion, what say the government 'calls in' it's loan? What happens? What collateral was placed against this 'loan'? It seems that the industry wants desperately to ensure it's not considered a purchase of shares, up until the time for accounting takes place. Then they are simply 'creditors' lacking the authority to oversee the corporate governance.



Those of you who think these bonuses are too high, do a couple of things. Check out the public information about what two huge liberals, Robert Rubin and John Corizine got paid when they were CEO of Goldman Sachs. There are two gents who are worth over $500M telling you that your taxes are too low. Also check out where the Wall Street PAC money goes. It goes to Democrats, not Republicans. Republicans like the free market which is great for the industry, but Democrats like regulating the markets which is fantastic for the industry because the gents on the street are much more clever than the hacks in Washington and can engineer something to exploit the cracks in the regulations. Every major meltdown in the past 50 years has been through the exploitation of flaws in regulations. The Democrats who pound the table and complain about the market should just get out of it and let it work.


I don't wish to engage in a partisan discussion. Only because I think partisanship became a myth once the Fed's "Annuit Coeptus" was declared. However, I will say that the idea that PACs only contribute to one party cannot be true unless I completely misunderstand the notion of 'game theory' by which these wizards play. The major interests seem always to play both sides.

Well, thank you for entertaining my thoughts for a while. I hope you believe my assertion that I am not directing this as an attack. I think your post was most educational, and I'm hoping you will educate me some more.

Be well.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Yeah Obama sure you're outraged... NOT.

You want to inject between 1 and 2 trillions $ more in the banking system according to the WSJ. So please, your friends in the banking industry know you're not serious.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Wow I dont care about contracts and who is relying on bonus money the fact is YOUR COMPANY SHOULD NOT EVEN BE IN BUSINESS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! You should be lucky your getting the base salary as it is. Others who werent so lucky to get a bailout are now unemployed. This is disgraceful the the fullest extent. If you didnt get government welfare that is a different story but as long as you continue to get it to stay in business you need to just be happy you are getting a salary because 3 million people so far are not so lucky.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
What is really outrageous is the government giving the banks all of that tax payer money without putting conditions on how they spend it. I hope Obama made sure that the newest bailout the senate just passed had conditions on what they can spend the money on before he signed it (I haven't looked at the final details of the latest bailout/stimulus yet). Otherwise it's like giving a drug addict money and hoping he will spend it on a meal or clothes rather then more drugs.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   


but Democrats like regulating the markets which is fantastic for the industry because the gents on the street are much more clever than the hacks in Washington and can engineer something to exploit the cracks in the regulations.
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


I agree with your post entirely. Good to hear it from an insider!

Barack is exciting his base by complaining about executive salaries. He can't do anything about it (and never will) but it sure keeps those Democrats behind him like he wants!

Good diversion while he robs the public with his multi hundred billion pork barrel governmental spending package which will put not only our children but our grand kids and great grand kids in debt!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
I agree with your post entirely. Good to hear it from an insider!

Barack is exciting his base by complaining about executive salaries. He can't do anything about it (and never will) but it sure keeps those Democrats behind him like he wants!

Good diversion while he robs the public with his multi hundred billion pork barrel governmental spending package which will put not only our children but our grand kids and great grand kids in debt!




When will you people learn there is no difference between the two parties? If Im not correct the Republicans voted for the first part of the tarp too. Not only that the Republicans have sat back while the FED has created $2 trillion dollars besides all this. They also are continuing to sit back while the FED sets aside over $8 trillion dollars because per the FEDs words they will spend whatever it takes. The Republicans doubled the national debt and yes the Republicans controlled congress from 2000-2006. Ohhh thats just great to know both the dictators in Washington and the banksters are will to spend all sorts of money....considering its not their money. So please quit drinking the Kool Aid. The Republicans non support is only to arouse their base too. People like you. Whenever you decide there is no difference that we really have a two party crime family let me know.

BTW there have been only two people in congress who have talked about really solving this problem one dem and one repub Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul who are the only ones submitting legislation to get rid of the FED.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Why can't they not the pay bonuses and let them sue?
These companies are bankrupt and can't pay anyway.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
The issue is that the amount in 2004 is the same given to bankers in 2008/09.

Most interesting is Obama saying "this won't happen again"'. ( translate..Whose your Daddy wallstreet?)

Is Obama beginning to tread where JFK began to tread?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Anyone get the irony in Obama's outrage?? $18 billion in bonuses were handed out to execs. Yeah that sucks. But in Obama's or should I say Pelosi's Stimulus Package, they think nothing of spending $400 Billion on global warming research. How is this controversial topic essential to our economy today??

The true outrage lies in your Pork Package Mr. President.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I would agree that this is no business of the govt... IF


and heres the clincher... IF they didnt use our money for this!


Being that they are using Taxpayer dollars... the govt and its people HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING... and these people should be getting NO BONUSES FOR SCREWING UP!


How any of you can justify this raping of our taxpayer money is utterly insane!

Like I said... IF they were NOT using our money this would be one thing..... but THEY ARE USING OUR MONEY!


to the guy who said that 5,000 isnt enough and he needs that 800,000 dollars bonus... tell that to the people living off of 500 a month with no 800,000 bonus who just had to pay for this with thier tax money!


This has been the biggest robbery in the history of the world and some people can actually say it needed to be done?!?!?!?!?!?! my god this world really does deserve all this crap if it is to behave with such a lack of intelligence and common sense!


The govt is also accessories to the crime and Obama is worried about people reading these kinds of headlines...NOT that ITS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.... but that we are reading about it?!?!?!?!


This whole thing stinks to high heaven!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


I starred your post! I found it well presented. I am hoping you will be kind enough to entertain my input because frankly, I hold a different position on some of what you said.


Base salaries at asset management firms are kept low on purpose to place more of the comp at risk, hence driving the individuals success and the firm's success in unison.


That's an understandable practice, although it's premise is the same as the less-than-minimum wage waitress or bus-boy - because of the assumed tips they are to receive. Perhaps the paradigm is broken now, maybe you all should contract for the salary you believe your worth and forget BONUSES because you are making your customers bear the burden of the risk. Unless of course, you tell all your clients that your bonus will be disbursed before their shares are revalued. I assume you do that. (Frankly, I wouldn't know)

If you are worth $500K a year, demand that, and don't play games with your salary on someone else's dime. If you lose money to the point of decimating your funds, do YOU pay the deficit..., because the tax-payers are being obliged to do so, against the threat of monetary collapse.


All bonuses over a certain amount are approved by the compensation committee of the board of directors, which is an independant body.


Independent of what? Outside the industry? Direct representation of the shareholders? Or does the charter protect them from accountability?


They also heavily rely on third party market data to assess appropriate compensation levels for given positions.


Having spent some time in the military I have had experience with "Third Party" and what it can really be. I won't argue that in your example such is the case, but "Third Party" is often another way of saying "Kissing Cousin."


That being said, I personally think some of the bonuses are too high, but that is a matter for the share holders, not the government to be concerned with.


But the shareholders have, by design, little to no control over the actions of the corporation. Some (most?) corporate charters are very..., slanted. Tell me, if you can, exactly how does the shareholder challenge the matter? They can't can they? It's up to the sacrosanct 'board.' But the board isn't exactly holding the same risk as the shareholders do they? They. like those we are discussing seem to be compensated well regardless of the 'market' performance.


The compensation of the top 10 employees of any public company are public. If you have a problem with Dick Fuld, CEO of Lehman Brothers getting a $42M bonus, then don't buy Lehman stock.


I am assuming that's in keeping with my previous proposition... but please correct me if I'm wrong.


I do think that is an outrageous amount of money. Not because it is too much to give to someone, but because it is too much money that should have been returned to shareholders. This is just more class warfare meat for the liberal gristmill.


I agree.


Bottom-line is that it is none of the government's business.


I disagree. It becomes the government's (the people's) business when the magnitude of the revenue leak is such a drain on the market that it imperils the public who never contracted to engage in your 'risk' venture.


They could, as many libertarians and conservatives suggested, lets these firms fail.


I happen to agree with that course of action, only because governments are too political to be allowed to manipulate the market directly.


The fact that the government decided to give them money does not give them any right to get involved in corporate governance.


I happen to feel that it is unlikely that the government's actions can be characterized as 'deciding to give them money.' The government abdicated that authority to the Treasury, currently manned and controlled by the Transnational Banking Cartel which is raping this (and every other) country. But that is not on topic at the moment, so forgive the digression, I will proceed.

The problem is EXACTLY corporate governance and the limitation of liability that has been since relatively recently granted to corporations, such as equal citizenship as a person. Risk with no liability is tantamount to an invitation for abuse; which is exactly what seems to have occurred through devious financial vehicles and practices.


Would you think it was OK if the bank who gave you a mortgage told you what color to paint your house?


If it was contractually stated at the time of purchase..., what choice would I have?


Ain't none of their business and its none of the government's business what these dudes make either.


It is equally none of their business what they lose - that's THEIR risk, oh but wait, they NEVER lose.... as if 'the fix' was 'in.'


Last I checked these firms were all public and the fact that the government loaned them money does not make them shareholders, it makes them creditors and thats all.


If you are correct, and this is an uncontested assertion, what say the government 'calls in' it's loan? What happens? What collateral was placed against this 'loan'? It seems that the industry wants desperately to ensure it's not considered a purchase of shares, up until the time for accounting takes place. Then they are simply 'creditors' lacking the authority to oversee the corporate governance.



Those of you who think these bonuses are too high, do a couple of things. Check out the public information about what two huge liberals, Robert Rubin and John Corizine got paid when they were CEO of Goldman Sachs. There are two gents who are worth over $500M telling you that your taxes are too low. Also check out where the Wall Street PAC money goes. It goes to Democrats, not Republicans. Republicans like the free market which is great for the industry, but Democrats like regulating the markets which is fantastic for the industry because the gents on the street are much more clever than the hacks in Washington and can engineer something to exploit the cracks in the regulations. Every major meltdown in the past 50 years has been through the exploitation of flaws in regulations. The Democrats who pound the table and complain about the market should just get out of it and let it work.


I don't wish to engage in a partisan discussion. Only because I think partisanship became a myth once the Fed's "Annuit Coeptus" was declared. However, I will say that the idea that PACs only contribute to one party cannot be true unless I completely misunderstand the notion of 'game theory' by which these wizards play. The major interests seem always to play both sides.

Well, thank you for entertaining my thoughts for a while. I hope you believe my assertion that I am not directing this as an attack. I think your post was most educational, and I'm hoping you will educate me some more.

Be well.





[edit on 1-30-2009 by worldwatcher]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
So Obama is "upset" to learn that the bailout money was used to give bonuses?

Where has he been?

Then of course he pushes for a bigger "stimulus package" than Bush has ever produced, $819,000,000,000!

Where is the logic in this "Let's see, big companies are being irresponsible with the money we gave them, I know, give them more!", seriously, let's quit giving people money, let the economy fail, let it go under, recreate a better economy, founded on real money.

-Lahara



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRandom1
 


Love your signature!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


A contract is a contract. If a company truly feels that one individual is worth that much then why should Obama butt in


because if he didn't, the company wouldn't have been able to pay the bonus at all. Maybe he shouldn't have stepped in and just let the greedy bastards get their just dues - poverty (or what to them would be poverty, but to the rest of us would be unbelievable wealth)!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join