Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If Congress is going to start setting legal limits on salaries and bonuses in the U.S., it is going to drive talent out of Bank of America and these other banks and into institutions without such limits, perhaps abroad. The same goes for Attorney General Cuomo's implied threat of prosecutions.
A few quick facts about Wall Street bonuses. The pretext for the political outrage was the New York comptroller's report this week on the aggregate data for bonuses in 2008. That "irresponsible" bonus pool of $18 billion was for every worker in the New York financial industry, from top dogs to secretaries. This bonus pool fell 44% in 2008, the largest percentage decline in 30 years. The average bonus was $112,000; bonuses typically make up most of an employee's salary on Wall Street. The comptroller estimates that this decline will cost New York State $1 billion in lost tax revenue and New York City $275 million. Both city and state may have to announce layoffs.
Great piece in the WSJ
'Idiots' Indeed - WSJ.com
If Congress is going to start setting legal limits on salaries and bonuses in the U.S., it is going to drive talent out of Bank of America and these other banks and into institutions without such limits, perhaps abroad. The same goes for Attorney General Cuomo's implied threat of prosecutions.
A few quick facts about Wall Street bonuses. The pretext for the political outrage was the New York comptroller's report this week on the aggregate data for bonuses in 2008. That "irresponsible" bonus pool of $18 billion was for every worker in the New York financial industry, from top dogs to secretaries. This bonus pool fell 44% in 2008, the largest percentage decline in 30 years. The average bonus was $112,000; bonuses typically make up most of an employee's salary on Wall Street. The comptroller estimates that this decline will cost New York State $1 billion in lost tax revenue and New York City $275 million. Both city and state may have to announce layoffs.
Who do you think will make up for those lost tax revenues?
Now replace that talent with government stooges. Now understand?what talent? the talent that they used to get us in this mess?
Now replace that talent with government stooges. Now understand?what talent? the talent that they used to get us in this mess?
Another way to go with this:
That is an oversimplification of the issue. The CEOs are just as much victims of this implosion as asny of the workers, or any of the rest of us. We have just been taught not to feel compassion for people who have money.
do you really think that every person on Wall Street is responsible? Every single person who works in finance is responsible for this mess?
Of course not. there are many banks, many investment advisers etc who did not play the mortgage backed securities games.
And your outrage and indignation should be more with the Fed and the government offering to back mortgages with tax payer monies than with anyone else.
If the government did not promise to back mortgages, do you think banks would have been so cavalier in their lending policies?
do you really think that every person on Wall Street is responsible? Every single person who works in finance is responsible for this mess?
Of course not. there are many banks, many investment advisers etc who did not play the mortgage backed securities games.
And your outrage and indignation should be more with the Fed and the government offering to back mortgages with tax payer monies than with anyone else.
If the government did not promise to back mortgages, do you think banks would have been so cavalier in their lending policies?
more than 75% f subprime mortgages were issued by banks and financial institutions that KNEW THEY WOULD NOT BE BACKED by fannie/freddie.....
your premise falls flat...
And this is about huge corporations that were heavily in to this ponzi scheme that take tax payer's bailout money....no?
I think if we are going to give taxpayer money to a business to keep them from going belly up we can certainly object to them using it to pay over-the-top bonuses to their CEOs that haven't performed well lately.
It depends on your point of view. The average bonus was $112,000 which is a heck of a lot more than the average American worker makes...and since Wall Street is the main culprit in our financial meltdown it certainly makes them look like a bunch of greedy assholes.I think if we are going to give taxpayer money to a business to keep them from going belly up we can certainly object to them using it to pay over-the-top bonuses to their CEOs that haven't performed well lately.
Again the total bonuses reported in the news was for the entire contingent of employees in the financial sector and NOT just those that took TARP money.
The outrage and the reporting is a bit disingenuous don't you think?
do you really think that every person on Wall Street is responsible? Every single person who works in finance is responsible for this mess?
Now replace that talent with government stooges. Now understand?what talent? the talent that they used to get us in this mess?
Another way to go with this:
That is an oversimplification of the issue. The CEOs are just as much victims of this implosion as asny of the workers, or any of the rest of us. We have just been taught not to feel compassion for people who have money.
LONDON As losses pile up on balance sheets and stock prices drop, Europe is threatening to rein in U.S.-size compensation for its top corporate executives.
From Paris to Amsterdam to Berlin, finance ministers, politicians and government watchdogs are talking of curbing soaring executive pay, bonuses or golden parachutes for CEOs who depart with big severance packages.
It depends on your point of view. The average bonus was $112,000 which is a heck of a lot more than the average American worker makes...and since Wall Street is the main culprit in our financial meltdown it certainly makes them look like a bunch of greedy assholes.I think if we are going to give taxpayer money to a business to keep them from going belly up we can certainly object to them using it to pay over-the-top bonuses to their CEOs that haven't performed well lately.
Again the total bonuses reported in the news was for the entire contingent of employees in the financial sector and NOT just those that took TARP money.
The outrage and the reporting is a bit disingenuous don't you think?
No, they were worked by "experts" just as much as nybody else. People convinced them by quite frankly using equations that were almost impossible to understand, and presented themselves as the only ones who could understand the equations, and thatt they worked, and just told the CEOs to plug in whatever numbers they wanted, and it would work. CEOs just kept making money, so any questions that would have held qudience were held off.Now replace that talent with government stooges. Now understand?what talent? the talent that they used to get us in this mess?
Another way to go with this:
That is an oversimplification of the issue. The CEOs are just as much victims of this implosion as asny of the workers, or any of the rest of us. We have just been taught not to feel compassion for people who have money.
Fisty, I gotta say BULLCRUD to that one....
They were NOT VICTIMS, they knew exactly what was going on and what they were doing....if they didn't, then they did NOT DESERVE the multi million dollar salaries with bonuses in the first place.....
They were paid to be good fiduciaries of the stock owners money and to make wise business decisions.....they did NO SUCH THING fisty!
Care
Reported by The Bottom Line, Wells Fargo Execs,
Richard Kovacevich, 1998-2007: $73,980,824 in cash compensation (base salary, bonuses, other benefits and perks). In addition, Kovacevich made $189,883,327 in pre-tax profits from stock options.
John Stumpf, 2000-2007: $28,589,618 in cash compensation. Stumpf also exercised stock options, realizing $21,510,356 in pre-tax profits.
Predatorix Pick Of The Week, January 20th, 2009
I have updated the Pick-of-the-Week. Its a brief paper I wrote titled, "Can't Fool All the People All the Time". It is simply about that time Richard Kovacevich "pounded his fist on the table in frustration" when the government offered Wells Fargo a bailout. Back then I knew he was totally bluffing it, trying to portray his company as stable (yea right!) and himself as confident (overly!) and here is the proof, WFC sitting at $14/share with market cap fallen from over $100B to $47B in under 3 weeks.
See also the News Clip, "Who Got Screwed By The Bailout?".
-Cyrus
