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: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

the govt and its people HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING...


We had this right before all this started and it was called Congressional and government oversight. Of course, we all know how that worked out.




posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Banks behaviour - unacceptable.
Presidents reaction - weak at best.

But, this isn't down to Obama.
Under what kind of leadership does a government give out billions of $ without conditions in place to respect the people of that country?

When this money was given, these banks should have been FORCED to pass it on through loans and support to small businesses and potential homeowners. They should also have been FORCED to cancel any expected bonuses from a set date.

This is what makes me think this was all a farce. There is more to this than any government is saying.

What Obama should have done, instead of making a weak statement suggesting that it isn't a very good thing to do, was to state on record, that as of a specific date any financial institution found to be giving bonuses or acting in a way not conducive with feeling appreciation for having money given to them from public finds, will never again receive any form of support or assistance from government!

There needs to be strict controls on what these banks are doing with the money they have been given. And if they fail to meet these controls, they should be seized by government, assets secured, their senior staff held on charges of corruption.

As soon as we gave them OUR money to bail THEM out of the mess THEY created, they became public property even just from a moral position. They need to be treated harshly and decisively by government and the people.

No more messing about with our money, do the job, or we'll come after you for every penny!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
You know one thing I've ever fully understood about this whole mess. Why are the people not taking any responsibility for whats going on. Now I know the banks are at fault for allowing people to get bad home loans. But you know some of the blame really needs to be held by the millions of people who took out these bad loans. I mean come on honestly. Your making on average of say 30 000 a year and the bank says here go get a 500 000 or 750 000 house. I mean how dumb can you be to not see that there is no way in hell a 30 000 income can support 500 000 house payments.

I'm not saying people are the only ones at fauly here but perhaps they should learn to take some of the blame for this. Yes the bank were retards for getting as greedy as they did and let people take these loans, and yes the goverment was equally as retarded for encouraging the banks to make these loans to people. but the people who actually took out the loans when they knew they couldn't pay them are just as to blame.

[edit on 1/30/0909 by Trayen11]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 



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)!


Have you ever seen any politician step in and stop them from getting a bonus?
They have been getting bonuses like this for years. If that was your contract, I am sure you would like the company to meet its obligation. Now if you have a problem with the bailout and the fact that they are hoarding or wasting the money, then you should take that up with Congress. After all, they are the one who wrote the inept bill.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Thanks for your comments and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

In the asset management and investment banking industry we do have contracts. the contract is a base salary and an opportunity to share in the profits of the firm. That is a contract that I knowingly entered. In the industry, high base salaries that are too high don't work. they over compensate folks when performance is poor and under compensation when performance is good

The industry is an objective one. you perform better than the benchmarks and you make more money. Your performance sucks and you lose a lot of money.

these firms have nothing but assets. they can be gone in days if confidence is lost. Bear Sterns lost the confidence of the marketplace and disolved in days. You get paid a premium due to the tenuous nature of the business.

I don't get any long term benefits at all. no pension, no profit sharing, nothing. I'm 100 responsible for my future as are others in the industry and it through the investment of bonus dollars that that planning occurs. It is not like the UAW where they have rich retirement benefits in the form of defined benefit plans and great health insurance for the balance of their lives. We don't get that. When you have no security you should get paid more. Again, that is the model that I have choosen - I like the risk and reward elements of it.

You raise a number of concerns about shareholder rights, third partys, etc.. I agree with you 100% and would lump the lot into the category of transparency. Investors have the ultimate weapon. Don't invest their money in firms that lack transparency. There are many firms who have terrific transparency and clearly articulate how executives are compensated, what it is linked to, who sits on the compensation committee, the terms of their long-term stock compensation, etc. These fims are proud of their governance and readily acknowledge it. It may take a bit of work to find them, but they're out there and that is where you should invest if you are concerned about transparency.

This is a very complex topic and I'm having a bit of trouble with the space limitations, so I'll end with a two other comments.

For every dude that is making a tremendous amount of money there are thousands of "regular" folks. The margin clerk who gets up at 5:00 to slog it in on the train to Wall Street to work in a very intense environment, back home 2 hours from work and over again. This is a $60K/year guy with a family and the vast majority of the folks losing their jobs in this business are like that, not the dude who gets an 8 figure bonus.

I'm not a government guy, but there are legitimate roles for government here. Mandated levels of transparency, standard methodologies for rating agencys, etc. How could these debt securities get aaa ratings when 2/3 of the assets were crap? I think there is a role for the government in that aspect of the business.

At a personal level, at the firm I work at, 18 of the top 30 executives were canned or left in '08. 1/3 of the firm has been laid off and what folks had in firm assets went to $0 overnight. There is some "justice" in this model. Again the risk and reward deal at play, but far more accountability than for example than the auto industry where the dudes are making the same amount of money and have been producing terrible products and losing market share for 20 years.

I hope I answered at least some of your questions, or at least provided more clarity than I was originally able to



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Trayen11
 


I agree absolutely!

We've reached a point in our evolution where monetary gain and ownership of pointless things has taken over.
It's shameful.

But it's a part of modern society.

Our attitudes need to change. We need to work out our priorities and learn to live within our means.
People need to learn to be happy with what they have, rather than strive to compete with others.

But, the blame (as in, intention) lies squarely with those who were giving out money to people they knew couldn't afford it. A doctor doesn't give potentially life-threatening drugs to a person who doesn't need it based on what they want.

These are professional institutions who gave bad advice, made bad decisions and let people decide their limits themselves, and all for their own greed.

While I don't think people are sensible for wanting a £500.000 house when they have an annual income of £40.000, it is ultimately the responsibility of the person lending that money to say that this is not practical or even possible, from a repayment perspective.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
The way that Obama addressed this is interesting to me.


"We're not going to be able to do what is needed to be done to stabilize our financial situation if the American people read about this type of outrageous behavior,"


So the best thing would be not to report it right?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


I do agree that the banks and government hold a large degree of blamefor this but if someone making 30 000 a year can't do simple math to see they could never afford thier payments, then perhaps they are to stupid to be even attempting a house loan in the first place. It does not take a intelligentperson or a accoun ting degree to know where your means lie. when your house payment takes 3/4 of the money you bring in, you probably should not takt it.

So, even though alot of blame lies on the people giving the loans a fair amount is due to the idiots taking them out. they take out these oans and now cry wolf about being kicked out of the houses they never should have bought in he first place.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars

Originally posted by wolf241e
...

There is something that caught me as funny in this article. It's the paragraph that starts with Mr. Obama saying "Were not going to be able......"
Does the wording of that strike anyone else as a bit funny??


Actually that wording caught my eye as well.

One could simply suppose that he was using the 'we' in the royal sense (as in the state), but the phrase does not 'feel' like that to me. Strictly subjective, it's like there was another 'plan' in place that requires the docile acquiescence of the American people to function. I guess maybe we are going to be lined up for a bit of 'shock and awe' - although I hope not.


"We're not going to be able to do what is needed to be done to stabilize our financial situation if the American people read about this type of outrageous behavior"


take it like this

we (the connected/privelaged classes are not going to be able to succesfully wage our class warfare (to maintain "our" standard of living) VIA PRIVATIZING the profits from the bailout funds.....and socialize the losses....(which is the only way to sustain the ponzi financial system we have left) if we don't ACT like this is pissing us off........as well as keep this info private....(otherwise the people may realize that our values are merely an extension of the wall street fraud cyndicate) ..we gotta be very careful as we focus on cooking the frogs at this point in the prepartion phase....we gotta "razzle dazzle" them...we have to via words.. SEPERATE our values/intentions from wallstreets... even if we have wall street people throughout this administration as well as lobbyist pigs..it doesn't matter that we both make up the establishment party ....this is serious! if were gonna continue our "financial fraud system".... it is imperative to Seperate our perceived intentions from those of wall steet's.." at least that is my take

mr. obama actions speak much louder than words

there trying to use our (hope for change) emotions to pull us back into the matrix belief system....which when they have us there.....we are blind to the collusion between gov't and wall street and the robbery can continue



[edit on 30-1-2009 by cpdaman]




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join