I am impressed.

#177
#177
allvol123 said:
Are you serious. It might be justified but it is not consistent. The government spends billions everyday on matters much more atrocious than this I am sure.
Click to expand...

Yes I am serious, and I completely agree with your second sentence. See post #89 for my thoughts on this. I'm not typing it again because you didn't read it the first time.
 
#178
#178
volinbham said:
Some aren't justified but it's not because they are called "bonuses". That's my point - a lot of the outrage is based on a misunderstanding of the real structure of the compensation.

I'm sure some folks at Freddie/Fannie (or insert your favorite TARP recipient) didn't "deserve" the pay they received in whatever form it came in. It's just the use of the word "bonus" creates heightened furor - I would say that Droski, BPV and myself are all suggesting that the word bonus is a red herring.
Click to expand...

See bolded. That is my point, and why all this outrage is justifiable. If they still wanted their government funded inflated paychecks without the outrage then they should have called it something else. It doesn't takeaway from the fact that a good portion of these payouts were completely undeserved.

I understand the red herring argument and see your point. Common sense says if they are going to call them bonuses they should defer them until the company is out of the hole. The fundamental problem here is there seems to be no incentive for some of these people and they think they are entitled to this money (much the same way congress is). Pay an above market salary and promise a huge accumulated bonus when the company is out of the hole. I don't see how this can't get real talent in to work if they really believe what they think they are capable of and deserve yearly bonuses.
 
#179
#179
rjd970 said:
See bolded. That is my point, and why all this outrage is justifiable. If they still wanted their government funded inflated paychecks without the outrage then they should have called it something else. It doesn't takeaway from the fact that a good portion of these payouts were completely undeserved.

I understand the red herring argument and see your point. Common sense says if they are going to call them bonuses they should defer them until the company is out of the hole. The fundamental problem here is there seems to be no incentive for some of these people and they think they are entitled to this money (much the same way congress is). Pay an above market salary and promise a huge accumulated bonus when the company is out of the hole. I don't see how this can't get real talent in to work if they really believe what they think they are capable of and deserve yearly bonuses.
Click to expand...

Why defer them until profitable when those folks won't be around to makevthe place profitable. It's not a catch 22. Pay them or lose them and that's the problem. You want to take a backward looking view when this money was paid out for next year. It based on last years results for those individuals, but paid purely for next year's returns.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#180
#180
droski said:
they'd have to take that bonus from my dead hand if that was me.
Click to expand...
If you'd been investing my money by manipulating facts, basically not be honest with me, I'd have no trouble taking back what was mine from your cold hand, just to be frank about it.
 
#181
#181
utfantilidie said:
If you'd been investing my money by manipulating facts, basically not be honest with me, I'd have no trouble taking back what was mine from your cold hand, just to be frank about it.
Click to expand...

in what way was AIG not honest with anyone? stupid perhaps
 
#182
#182
utfantilidie said:
If you'd been investing my money by manipulating facts, basically not be honest with me, I'd have no trouble taking back what was mine from your cold hand, just to be frank about it.
Click to expand...
who manipulated facts? They were simply providing insurance off their balance sheet because the unregulated credit default swap market let them do so.

This entire problem is from them insuring pools of mortgages without any regulatory capital behind the swaps. Now that the swaps are coming home to roost, the capital is coming from their arses rather than a capital pile set aside to absorb it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top