Absolutely outrageous !

#1
lawgator1

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
72,454
Likes
42,814
#1
This guy Thain is why the Democrats won. Call it class-warfare to point out what's wrong with this picture all you want, but handing out $4 billion dollars in bonuses (that's billion with a "b") as your company goes under such that a bank has to get billions in federal dollars is just freaking inconceivable.

But the average guy out there knows this kind of thing goes on and it is infuriating.

Former Merrill CEO Thain resigns from BofA - CNBC TV- msnbc.com

I am finally, btw, seeing some outrage on such things from the fiscal conservatives who might have to now admit that free markets (unregulated) do not always work in this country as the purists might wish to believe simply because the shennanigans are allowed to continue like this.
 
#2
#2
This is not Dems vs Repubs! Everyones hands got dirty on this issue.
 
#3
#3
lawgator1 said:
This guy Thain is why the Democrats won. Call it class-warfare to point out what's wrong with this picture all you want, but handing out $4 billion dollars in bonuses (that's billion with a "b") as your company goes under such that a bank has to get billions in federal dollars is just freaking inconceivable.

But the average guy out there knows this kind of thing goes on and it is infuriating.

Former Merrill CEO Thain resigns from BofA - CNBC TV- msnbc.com

I am finally, btw, seeing some outrage on such things from the fiscal conservatives who might have to now admit that free markets (unregulated) do not always work in this country as the purists might wish to believe simply because the shennanigans are allowed to continue like this.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how this boosts your argument against markets without government interference...???
 
#4
#4
lawgator1 said:
This guy Thain is why the Democrats won. Call it class-warfare to point out what's wrong with this picture all you want, but handing out $4 billion dollars in bonuses (that's billion with a "b") as your company goes under such that a bank has to get billions in federal dollars is just freaking inconceivable.

But the average guy out there knows this kind of thing goes on and it is infuriating.

Former Merrill CEO Thain resigns from BofA - CNBC TV- msnbc.com

I am finally, btw, seeing some outrage on such things from the fiscal conservatives who might have to now admit that free markets (unregulated) do not always work in this country as the purists might wish to believe simply because the shennanigans are allowed to continue like this.
Click to expand...

so you're saying government should control any bonuses given? maybe we should all get paid the exact same, no matter what experiance or what education level. let the socialism start now.

what is the difference with that and lawyers getting paid 400-500 an hour.

it's not about unregulatd markets, it's about no oversite. there is big difference.
 
#5
#5
cd12 said:
This is not Dems vs Repubs! Everyones hands got dirty on this issue.
Click to expand...


Yes, but my point is that while the Republicans oppose the bailout because of the notion of free market forces versus government interference, most Democrats are starting to wonder where is all this freaking money going, anyway?

Well, and granted this is a bit after the fact, but if you throw around $4 billion in intentionally early bonuses, to beat the wrath coming down for the firesale of your company, which is in turn enabled only by the government lending the buyer the dough to buy it, these bonuses in my mind were basically paid after the fact with tax dollars.
 
#6
#6
joevol320 said:
so you're saying government should control any bonuses given? maybe we should all get paid the exact same, no matter what experiance or what education level. let the socialism start now.

what is the difference with that and lawyers getting paid 400-500 an hour.

it's not about unregulatd markets, it's about no oversite. there is big difference.
Click to expand...


I was equating regulation with oversight in this instance.
 
#7
#7
lawgator1 said:
This guy Thain is why the Democrats won. Call it class-warfare to point out what's wrong with this picture all you want, but handing out $4 billion dollars in bonuses (that's billion with a "b") as your company goes under such that a bank has to get billions in federal dollars is just freaking inconceivable.

But the average guy out there knows this kind of thing goes on and it is infuriating.

Former Merrill CEO Thain resigns from BofA - CNBC TV- msnbc.com

I am finally, btw, seeing some outrage on such things from the fiscal conservatives who might have to now admit that free markets (unregulated) do not always work in this country as the purists might wish to believe simply because the shennanigans are allowed to continue like this.
Click to expand...
The enormous likelihood is that Thain is a liberal democrat, as are many who have finally made enough cash to stop worrying about tax bills.

Secondly, bonuses are the pay at places like Merrill. People aren't there for the salaries. The salaries are very high, but people are working for the February lick, period. You don't pay the analysts that drive sales or the corp. fin guys that bring in the high margin revenues, they go away.

You'd probably be shocked at the bonuses that Goldman paid this year, in an awful earnings year.
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
I was equating regulation with oversight in this instance.
Click to expand...
But the oversight that guys like you and Obama are referencing is pointed toward this overblown corporate "greed," which apparently caused all these problems.

The mortgage market was simply in the middle of enormous demand on both sides and came out with products that answered both sides. The lax underwriting that existed was failure on all sides. Borrowers overextending, underwriters thinking insurance could solve all ills and buyers taking trash combined caused this disaster.

I guarantee you that this is a long term lesson for mortgage buyers in this country.
 
#10
#10
BigPapaVol said:
The enormous likelihood is that Thain is a liberal democrat, as are many who have finally made enough cash to stop worrying about tax bills.

Secondly, bonuses are the pay at places like Merrill. People aren't there for the salaries. The salaries are very high, but people are working for the February lick, period. You don't pay the analysts that drive sales or the corp. fin guys that bring in the high margin revenues, they go away.

You'd probably be shocked at the bonuses that Goldman paid this year, in an awful earnings year.
Click to expand...


Well, how much are we talking about here? A salary of $200,000 with a bonus structure up to $50 million? And how is it that a bonus of eight figures can be justified in the context of a company going out of business like that? I mean, shouldn't the bonuses be tied at least in part to the ability to pay them without having to be bailed out with tax dollars?
 
#11
#11
lawgator1 said:
Well, how much are we talking about here? A salary of $200,000 with a bonus structure up to $50 million? And how is it that a bonus of eight figures can be justified in the context of a company going out of business like that? I mean, shouldn't the bonuses be tied at least in part to the ability to pay them without having to be bailed out with tax dollars?
Click to expand...
I suspect the bonuses are meted out within departments, depending upon department profitability.

Your typical NYC Managing Director in a decent corp. fin. shop knocks down $350-$500 in salary and several million in bonuses. Average Goldman MD bonus while I was around was roughly $5 million. Our shop was about the same. During the tech boom, hordes of them were knocking down $10 million in bonuses.
 
#12
#12
BigPapaVol said:
I suspect the bonuses are meted out within departments, depending upon department profitability.

Your typical NYC Managing Director in a decent corp. fin. shop knocks down $350-$500 in salary and several million in bonuses. Average Goldman MD bonus while I was around was roughly $5 million. Our shop was about the same. During the tech boom, hordes of them were knocking down $10 million in bonuses.
Click to expand...


Its arguably a bit greedy, but that's a moral judgment for others, not for me.

My complaint is that the bonuses were hurried along, in evident anticipation of the sale, which was ultimately bankrolled by you and me. So, whatever the buyer got was worth $4 billion less than it would have been had the bonuses been withheld and in the end that's money out of our pockets and into theirs.

Where am I going wrong on that?
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
Its arguably a bit greedy, but that's a moral judgment for others, not for me.

My complaint is that the bonuses were hurried along, in evident anticipation of the sale, which was ultimately bankrolled by you and me. So, whatever the buyer got was worth $4 billion less than it would have been had the bonuses been withheld and in the end that's money out of our pockets and into theirs.

Where am I going wrong on that?
Click to expand...
it was funded by you and I because there were no stipulations on use of funds. That was absolute failure on the committee's part.

If the bonuses had been withheld, the professionals would likely have moved on. Without those professionals, many of the departments in an Ibank simply don't exist.

I don't know about the greedy end. We worked in 3 and 4 person teams on 6-10 deals per year. Average fee was probably $10 million (I'm hedging low because I don't remember).
 
#14
#14
BigPapaVol said:
it was funded by you and I because there were no stipulations on use of funds. That was absolute failure on the committee's part.

If the bonuses had been withheld, the professionals would likely have moved on. Without those professionals, many of the departments in an Ibank simply don't exist.

I don't know about the greedy end. We worked in 3 and 4 person teams on 6-10 deals per year. Average fee was probably $10 million (I'm hedging low because I don't remember).
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that the deals did not generate large fees and commissions. I am arguing that the ultimate use of tax dollars to subsidize enormous bonuses for people who ran a bank as it failed and had to be bailed out is a wee bit bothersome to me.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
I'm not arguing that the deals did not generate large fees and commissions. I am arguing that the ultimate use of tax dollars to subsidize enormous bonuses for people who ran a bank as it failed and had to be bailed out is a wee bit bothersome to me.
Click to expand...
I would like to think the bonuses went to those executing deals and not those lobbying for the bonuses, who allocated the capital to the departments that lost all of the money.
 
#18
#18
A clue for the clueless;

Wall Street gave $35 million to the Obama campaign, seven times the amount that it donated to McCain.
 
#19
#19
BigPapaVol said:
I would like to think the bonuses went to those executing deals and not those lobbying for the bonuses, who allocated the capital to the departments that lost all of the money.
Click to expand...


You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?


gsvol said:
A clue for the clueless;

Wall Street gave $35 million to the Obama campaign, seven times the amount that it donated to McCain.
Click to expand...



You got a link for that, chief?
 
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?






You got a link for that, chief?
Click to expand...
That's why I said I'd like to think that. I absolutely would and I believe it's the case. I think those at the helm had to forgo due to public outcry.



I'm not finding a link, but Wall St. gave enormously more to Obama than it did McCain.
 
#24
#24
BigPapaVol said:
That's why I said I'd like to think that. I absolutely would and I believe it's the case. I think those at the helm had to forgo due to public outcry.



I'm not finding a link, but Wall St. gave enormously more to Obama than it did McCain.
Click to expand...


Was it the backing the winning horse mentality, or that they genuinely liked him more? I have to think it was the former.
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
Was it the backing the winning horse mentality, or that they genuinely liked him more? I have to think it was the former.
Click to expand...
Somewhat backing a winning horse, but moreso those at the top of those companies tend to be liberals and have big time Washington ties. Almost all of them who have ended up in politics have been strongly lefty. Hell, Citi took on Rubin and no decent outfit wanting financial leadership would have done so.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top