Obama Cool With Goldman Sachs Bonuses

#1

lumberjack4

My Facts > Your Facts
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
2,726
Likes
4
#1
Obama Doesn't 'Begrudge' Bonuses for 'Savvy'? Blankfein, Dimon - Bloomberg.com

“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”

Apparently Barry thinks that 'savy' bankers (people that backed his presidency) should get bonuses, but not ones that receive contractual bonuses.

VIM go ahead and spin away.
 
#3
#3
Goldman Sachs has fully repaid the TARP money the taxpayers loaned them. I think he has a problem with exec bonuses that have outstanding TARP loans. If they paid back all the money we loaned them, then they can do whatever they want to.
 
#4
#4
I dunno, dude. Those two companies have paid back what they were loaned and the CEOs took their bonuses as stock and not cash. They were also profitable over the last year.

*shrug*
 
#5
#5
That doesn't change the fact that the AIG bonuses were contractually obligated. I don't see how getting your bonus in cash or stock makes a difference. It still costs the company money.
 
#6
#6
That doesn't change the fact that the AIG bonuses were contractually obligated. I don't see how getting your bonus in cash or stock makes a difference. It still costs the company money.

The stock doesn't cost the company money in most cases. Generally, it dilutes the shareholders.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#7
#7
That doesn't change the fact that the AIG bonuses were contractually obligated. I don't see how getting your bonus in cash or stock makes a difference. It still costs the company money.

cash is king...
in alot of cases, there are time limits around restricted stock awards...CEO gets 10,000 shares, but can't do anything for a year, maybe even 3...

Where as if you get a cash bonus, that's paid out immediately
 
#8
#8
The stock doesn't cost the company money in most cases. Generally, it dilutes the shareholders.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I would think it has to cost the company money somewhere. What's to stop a company from handing out shares willy-nilly?
 
#9
#9
I dunno, dude. Those two companies have paid back what they were loaned and the CEOs took their bonuses as stock and not cash. They were also profitable over the last year.

*shrug*

funny how he's going to try to control the size of the banks, but not his buddies at goldman. money talks i guess.
 
#10
#10
cash is king...
in alot of cases, there are time limits around restricted stock awards...CEO gets 10,000 shares, but can't do anything for a year, maybe even 3...

Where as if you get a cash bonus, that's paid out immediately

True, the article states that they can't sell the shares for 5 years, but its still a bonus. I'm just pointing out the double standard.
 
#11
#11
in wall street the cash bonuses are part of your salary. stock bonuses are used for "retention" purposes.
 
#12
#12
funny how he's going to try to control the size of the banks, but not his buddies at goldman. money talks i guess.

That's because he's a limp wristed, seekrit Muslin, dictatorial, socialist fereigner, amirite?
 
#13
#13
Goldman Sachs benefitted more from the bailout of AGI:

Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?

For the answer to this question, we need to go back to the very first decision to bail out AIG, made, we are told, by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last fall. Post-Lehman's collapse, they feared a systemic failure could be triggered by AIG's inability to pay the counterparties to all the sophisticated instruments AIG had sold. And who were AIG's trading partners? No shock here: Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and on it goes. So now we know for sure what we already surmised: The AIG bailout has been a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had received TARP money already.

It all appears, once again, to be the same insiders protecting themselves against sharing the pain and risk of their own bad adventure. The payments to AIG's counterparties are justified with an appeal to the sanctity of contract. If AIG's contracts turned out to be shaky, the theory goes, then the whole edifice of the financial system would collapse.
The real scandal at AIG is the not the bonuses. It's the payments to counterparties. - By Eliot Spitzer - Slate Magazine
 
#14
#14
That's because he's a limp wristed, seekrit Muslin, dictatorial, socialist fereigner, amirite?

actually it's quite capitalist of him to go to the highest bidder, but unfortunetly this is the only part of his politics that follows this formula.
 
#15
#15
Goldman Sachs has fully repaid the TARP money the taxpayers loaned them. I think he has a problem with exec bonuses that have outstanding TARP loans. If they paid back all the money we loaned them, then they can do whatever they want to.

You haven't been paying attention to the rhetoric coming out of DC then - repaying TARP has not protected anyone (except for these 2) from the demonization.
 
#16
#16
#17
#17
it's reported that GS and others we willing to take .50 on the dollar right before the gov't stepped in so it does look like a handout.
 
#18
#18
how many former Goldman-Sachs' executives are working in this administration?
 

VN Store



Back
Top