Bankers and Politics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 6:48:40 AM)

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bonuses paid to executives at nine banks that received U.S. government bailout money in 2008 were greater than net income at some of the banks, the office of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said on Thursday

http://www.reuters.com/article/gc06/idUSTRE56T4MI20090730

The actual report

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/july/pdfs/Bonus%20Report%20Final%207.30.09.pdf

An analysis of the 2008 bonuses and earnings at the original nine TARP recipients illustrates the point. Two firms, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch suffered massive losses of more than $27 billion ateach firm. Nevertheless, Citigroup paid out $5.33 billion in bonuses and Merrill paid $3.6 billion in bonuses. Together, they lost $54 billion, paid out nearly $9 billion in bonuses and then received TA~ bailouts totaling $55 billion.

For three other firms -Goldman 8achs, Morgan Stanley, and JP. Morgan Chase -2008 bonus payments were s'ubstantially greater than the banks' net income. Goldman earned $2.3 biHion, paid out $4.8 billion in bonuses, and received $10 billion in TARP funding. Morgan Stanley earned $1.7 billion, paid $4.475 billion in bonuses, and received $10 billion in TARP funding. JP. Morgan Chase earned $5.6 billion, paid $8.69 bil1ion in bonuses, and received $25 billion in TARP funding. Combined, these three firms earned $9.6 billion, paid bonuses of nearly $18 billion, and received TARP taxpayer funds worth $45 bil1ion. Appendices A and B, attached hereto, provide further information on the 2008 earnings, bonus pools, and TARP funding for the nine original TARP recipients. We note that some ofthe nine recipients maintain that they did not request or desire TARP funding.




awmslave -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 2:25:05 PM)

US bankers are really smart people. One example: Goldman Sachs paid 14 million in taxes 2008 (sounds a lot?) ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=a6bQVsZS2_18 )




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 3:13:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bonuses paid to executives at nine banks that received U.S. government bailout money in 2008 were greater than net income at some of the banks, the office of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said on Thursday

http://www.reuters.com/article/gc06/idUSTRE56T4MI20090730

The actual report

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/july/pdfs/Bonus%20Report%20Final%207.30.09.pdf

An analysis of the 2008 bonuses and earnings at the original nine TARP recipients illustrates the point. Two firms, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch suffered massive losses of more than $27 billion ateach firm. Nevertheless, Citigroup paid out $5.33 billion in bonuses and Merrill paid $3.6 billion in bonuses. Together, they lost $54 billion, paid out nearly $9 billion in bonuses and then received TA~ bailouts totaling $55 billion.

For three other firms -Goldman 8achs, Morgan Stanley, and JP. Morgan Chase -2008 bonus payments were s'ubstantially greater than the banks' net income. Goldman earned $2.3 biHion, paid out $4.8 billion in bonuses, and received $10 billion in TARP funding. Morgan Stanley earned $1.7 billion, paid $4.475 billion in bonuses, and received $10 billion in TARP funding. JP. Morgan Chase earned $5.6 billion, paid $8.69 bil1ion in bonuses, and received $25 billion in TARP funding. Combined, these three firms earned $9.6 billion, paid bonuses of nearly $18 billion, and received TARP taxpayer funds worth $45 bil1ion. Appendices A and B, attached hereto, provide further information on the 2008 earnings, bonus pools, and TARP funding for the nine original TARP recipients. We note that some ofthe nine recipients maintain that they did not request or desire TARP funding.



Whats the point? Every business that loses money pays salaries. There is no essential difference between the economics of a bonus and base salary to a companies' bottom line. Bonuses are no more than contractual obligations to DEFER salary to a later point in time, to be paid on certain criteria which may be as simple as to accomodate corporate cash flow, or as complex as perfomance based compensation structures.

If bonuses were paid out that were in conflict with the terms of an employment contract, then there is an issue. The article doesnt claim that any were.

Just another bs story by people who don't understand business and compensation structures. but love to create outrage and incite class warfare.




tazzygirl -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 3:16:37 PM)

These bonuses were said to be performance based. If a company is losing money, its not performing.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 3:21:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

These bonuses were said to be performance based. If a company is losing money, its not performing.



Wrong. Some individuals can still meet their own performance goals, while others don't, and while the business as a whole doesn't. The packages may have been poorly designed, or, otoh, if the individuals who did meet their performance goals had gone elsewhere because their compensation would have been better, then their company might have lost even more than it did.

You've changed quite a bit since you first got involved here. You used to represent yourself as objective and thorough in your understanding of something before you posted. This kind of post is quite the opposite.




tazzygirl -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 3:25:38 PM)

And the reports that even the losing departments received bonuses? and i still do represent myself. i happen to have a business degree. so i do know a little bit. Businesses thrive... and some dont. its not good business practice to give out major bonuses as the company is losing money... at least not that i can recall. perhaps you know of a different business model and can point me in that direction.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 3:28:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And the reposts that even the losing departments received bonuses?


Repeat my prior post at a lower level. Individuals within a department may have met their performance goals while other indivduals and the department overall didnt. It may have been a poorly designed.....otoh......




awmslave -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 3:39:01 PM)

quote:

Just another bs story by people who don't understand business and compensation structures. but love to create outrage and incite class warfare.


Are you asleep? It is no business. The bankers just steal tons of money for personal use. Some have noticed, it has turned into a serious problem.




Politesub53 -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 4:24:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

These bonuses were said to be performance based. If a company is losing money, its not performing.


Oh yes they are tazzy, the`re just performing badly [:D]




stella41b -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 4:40:45 PM)

I'm with tazzy on this one. If my business was failing and I borrowed a lot of money from someone I wouldn't then go off for a luxury holiday because of my performance.

Lenin and Trostky had the right ideas. Let's disabuse these parasites of their cushy numbers and send them out to do a spot of decent work in the fields. A lot of them are a bunch of crooks anyway.

It's about time we have a revival of Bolsheviks. Nothing is going to change until the people have the power back and the workers have the means of their own production.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 4:44:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b



Lenin and Trostky had the right ideas.


And Im quite sure Obama read the same books.




stella41b -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 5:55:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b



Lenin and Trostky had the right ideas.


And Im quite sure Obama read the same books.



And it's quite obvious to me that instead of reading books the banks have been cooking them.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 6:08:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b



Lenin and Trostky had the right ideas.


And Im quite sure Obama read the same books.



And it's quite obvious to me that instead of reading books the banks have been cooking them.



Good thats so obvious to you. Why don't you come over and reveal your inside information so they can be prosecuted.




tazzygirl -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 6:15:42 PM)

Maybe thats what is in the works, willbe. Time will tell.




Brain -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 7:52:37 PM)

Wall Street profits from trades with Fed
By Henny Sender in New York
Published: August 2 2009 23:04 | Last updated: August 2 2009 23:04

Wall Street banks are reaping outsized profits by trading with the Federal Reserve, raising questions about whether the central bank is driving hard enough bargains in its dealings with private sector counterparties, officials and industry executives say.

The Fed has emerged as one of Wall Street’s biggest customers during the financial crisis, buying massive amounts of securities to help stabilise the markets. In some cases, such as
the market for mortgage-backed securities, the Fed buys more bonds than any other party.

However, the Fed is not a typical market player. In the interests of transparency, it often announces its intention to buy particular securities in advance. A former Fed official said this strategy enables banks to sell these securities to the Fed at an inflated price.

The resulting profits represent a relatively hidden form of support for banks, and Wall Street has geared up to take advantage. Barclays, for example, e-mails clients with news on the Fed’s balance sheet, detailing the share of the market in particular securities held by the Fed.

“You can make big money trading with the government,” said an executive at one leading investment management firm. “The government is a huge buyer and seller and Wall Street has all the pricing power.”

A former official of the US Treasury and the Fed said the situation had reached the point that “everyone games them. Their transparency hurts them. Everyone picks their pocket.”

The central bank’s approach to securities purchases was defended by William Dudley, president of the New York Fed, which is responsible for market operations. “We believe that opting for transparency is a greater good,” he said. “If we didn’t have transparency, we’d be criticised on other grounds.”

However, another official familiar with the matter said the central bank “has heard that dealers load up on securities to sell to the Fed. There is concern, but policy goals override other considerations.”

Barney Frank, chairman of the House financial services committee, said the potential profiteering may be part of the price for stabilising the financial system.

“You can’t rescue the credit system without benefiting some of the people in it.” Still, Mr Frank said Congress would be watching. “We don’t want the Fed to drive the hardest possible bargain, but we don’t want them to get ripped off.”


The growing Fed activity has coincided with a general widening of market spreads – the difference between bid and offer prices – as the number of market participants declines.

Wider spreads enable banks, in their capacity as market-makers, to make more profit.

Larry Fink, chief executive of money manager BlackRock, has described Wall Street’s trading profits as “luxurious”, reflecting the banks’ ability to take advantage of diminished competition.

“Bid-offer spreads have remained unusually wide, notwithstanding the normalisation of financial markets,” said Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive of fund manager Pimco in Newport Beach, California.

Spreads narrowed dramatically during the years of the credit bubble.

Brad Hintz, an analyst at AllianceBernstein, said he doubted that spreads would ever return to those levels, a development that could be pleasing to the Fed.

“They want to help Wall Street make money,” he said.

Additional reporting by Brooke Masters in Washington

Copyright The Financial Times Limited

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e84383dc-7f8c-11de-85dc-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss&nclick_check=1




popeye1250 -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 9:53:49 PM)

And these people who make millions and get "bonuses" on top of that think that working people who make $70 or $80 K are,..."overpaid."




stella41b -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 10:28:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b



Lenin and Trostky had the right ideas.


And Im quite sure Obama read the same books.



And it's quite obvious to me that instead of reading books the banks have been cooking them.



Good thats so obvious to you. Why don't you come over and reveal your inside information so they can be prosecuted.


Please don't ever patronize me unless you seriously want me to start taking the piss out of you personally, okay? Got that?

I was stating an opinion based on my own personal experience. I'm in the process of having my credit rating blown apart because a bank (or rather a building society) is seeking almost three hundred pounds in bank charges for transactions which didn't take place and in so doing so appear to have decided not to wait for the decision of the Financial Ombudsman.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one this is happening to but one of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.

As for prosecuting a bank, fat chance. A considerable number of politicians themselves are up to their elbows in the till and the justice system operates on the basis of protecting the property of the privileged as a priority.

The 'free' in the free market economy politic only ever applied to the wealthy people at the top.

Edited for typos.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/3/2009 11:17:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b


Please don't ever patronize me unless you seriously want me to start taking the piss out of you personally, okay? Got that? rofl. bring it on







subfever -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/4/2009 7:40:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

And these people who make millions and get "bonuses" on top of that think that working people who make $70 or $80 K are,..."overpaid."


Class warfare from the other side of the equation... [;)]




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Bankers and Politics (8/4/2009 8:07:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

And these people who make millions and get "bonuses" on top of that think that working people who make $70 or $80 K are,..."overpaid."


Class warfare from the other side of the equation... [;)]


Its a misstatement of fact to start with. Those who make millions and get bonuses on top of that cannot do it without those $70 or $80 k people and they know it, or they wouldnt pay it. Popeye is all about class warfare waged by slinging manure.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875