3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
That's probably the smartest thing to do.
No sense throwing good money after bad, but then again sense has a way of not prevailing when it comes to government and their corporate buddies.
No sense throwing good money after bad, but then again sense has a way of not prevailing when it comes to government and their corporate buddies.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 36,370
- 10,681
- 136
You're telling that to those who pay the bills? Good luck with that one.
You see, this is EXACTLY why government intervention is the problem. Companies are now owned by political agendas, which have nothing to do with the market. Ergo, you've introduced chaos into what was a very natural and stable environment. This political whim will remove private investment, in other words: sink the stock market, and sink the economy. SINGLE HANDEDLY.
You don?t need anything else to destroy the economy than socialism. That wealth you?re telling to fuck off was paying your bills. It was your wealth too, but you got greedy. Now you will pay the price, you will guarantee a collapse of this economy.
Please this is pathetic.....
The companies shouldn't have gotten bailouts in the first place, yet they did...and now it seems those who are trying to fix the mess are the ones getting punished...
If it was in their contracts (the bonuses) then they should recieve them...the govt should have done a better job of drafting their bailouts in the first place.
And the best of the best won't really care as they can and will be hired at whatever they are asking for....only those who arent that great will have to settle for reduced pay.
That is just hilarious.
You think AIG can right itself without massive intervention?
They obviously failed miserably to self-regulate.
The bonuses are a joke. End of story.
AIG failling would instantly destroy 50T of wealth worldwide.
They have a stranglehold on the market.
Maybe it is because when someone fulfill the contract, you pay them according to agreement, not months or years afterwarf unless it is stated by the contract.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
This whole thing is stupid. In principle, poor performers shouldn't be getting bonuses. However, the people that caused AIG's losses are already fired. The CEO that was in charge jumped ship like a rat before anyone on the outside knew what was up. The politicians have made this into a political football. It's disgusting how these politicians know no shame. They hardly did anything when the ceo at Merill Lynch left and paid out humungous bonuses in the billions to execs that were failures by any measure of the word but now they are making a huge ruckus over a relatively paltry 160mil that is going to aig staff members that didn't cause the problem.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
LOL, who's going to pay extra for AIG"s "strategy book"?
I can't believe how many people drink the "bonus" kool-aid. It's one thing for a successful company to give bonuses, it's a whole different animal when a company that is only surviving off the taxpayers teat is giving them out.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,855
- 6,393
- 126
I understand that, but given the circumstanes, especially that Bailout money is what makes the payments possible, it just makes sense to not Pay Out at this time. Add in the Public backlash and it seems a no-brainer to me. Although, perhaps they already mad the payout before the backlash occurred so it was too late to postpone it.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
At the rate things are going, "hundreds of billions" should soon be the cost of a cup of coffee.
You can see by the replies to Fern's post that many people don't understand the tax bill about to be passed or Fern's post,...
This is not about AIG,... it is about dozens of companies that are not AIG, that will be effected wrongfully because of congress and Obama, who wrote the bill and signed the bill respectively to allow for bonuses to be paid, these contracts if not paid would have ended up as lawsuits and AIG would have then had to pay anyways, Congress and Obama are now writing and going to sign a bill that goes after AIG, but also other companies retroactively and in my opinion wrongfully, not to say it is scary and almost an abuse of powers that the founding fathers would be fuming over and probably would be getting ready for a revolution,... yet we are going to let it happen.
This is very much an example:
Let's say a company (not AIG) took 5 billion in funds just to ensure they would be solid throughout the downturn and pressure on finanicial institutions,... but would have been ok most likely otherwise,... has employees whose income is pretty much all bonus based,... those employees who did nothing wrong working for a company that did nothing wrong are now subject to a ridiculous tax by congress stripping them of most of their income
Sorry but I think what Congress is doing (not to mention what they have already done) is the most outrageous of any group.
This is not about AIG,... it is about dozens of companies that are not AIG, that will be effected wrongfully because of congress and Obama, who wrote the bill and signed the bill respectively to allow for bonuses to be paid, these contracts if not paid would have ended up as lawsuits and AIG would have then had to pay anyways, Congress and Obama are now writing and going to sign a bill that goes after AIG, but also other companies retroactively and in my opinion wrongfully, not to say it is scary and almost an abuse of powers that the founding fathers would be fuming over and probably would be getting ready for a revolution,... yet we are going to let it happen.
This is very much an example:
Let's say a company (not AIG) took 5 billion in funds just to ensure they would be solid throughout the downturn and pressure on finanicial institutions,... but would have been ok most likely otherwise,... has employees whose income is pretty much all bonus based,... those employees who did nothing wrong working for a company that did nothing wrong are now subject to a ridiculous tax by congress stripping them of most of their income
Sorry but I think what Congress is doing (not to mention what they have already done) is the most outrageous of any group.
And to beat it all, it was the Obama who sign the contract that allow the bonus. To made the matter worse, if Obama have clear up the public misunderstanding of the bonus, it would have been fine . However, Obama decide to condemn the bonus, the very bonus he allowed and now try to tax it away. If this bill is allow to pass, the government would have lost all form of creditability to people who sign contract with them knowing it can be null at anytime.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
So when the cardboard demands weaken we can just use the excess paper to print money? Then everyone who deserves a "boner" can get one.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
Better question to bolded first . Should read .How many talented financial service types are out there ? Working Or NOT. ANS. Looks around. NONE.
Seconded Bolded . White collar is going to have to take it FErn . You guys are coming down to our pay scale. Its a fact. Or ya won't work . Any retard can do as well as whats been done.
What are you going to do about it? Same as movie stars and sports stars . Your taking hugh cuts. We really don't need either any more they can be animated easy enough.
Its a new world fern . Upper america found out upper isn't as rich as they precieved.
Dems are going to do alot of 90% taxing this is just the start. The bad news for you is . The majority will back them . Hell they will push for it. If we can't rise up to your standards we will bring you down yo ours . You voted na your going to get more of whats actually fair than you want. FACT. 1 90% tax already passing many more to come.
Fern did you see the article about the German bank that said "hey guys-- come to us, we won't do this stuff to you"?
Of course that was just one, maybe they're crazy. Personally I wouldn't want the heads of AIG running my bank.
What do you think about the future impacts of this bill? I think it'll send the message that CEOs had better make sure their financials are rock solid, or they personally will be facing the consequences if they aren't. This should provide some counterweight to the shareholder pressure to leverage to infinity. It's no surprise consequences are effective incentives. When the times are good, the talent is still going to find the most money to be made over here. I don't think they're going to forsake that (considering how much more you can make here than anywhere else) for wealth security.
Of course that was just one, maybe they're crazy. Personally I wouldn't want the heads of AIG running my bank.
What do you think about the future impacts of this bill? I think it'll send the message that CEOs had better make sure their financials are rock solid, or they personally will be facing the consequences if they aren't. This should provide some counterweight to the shareholder pressure to leverage to infinity. It's no surprise consequences are effective incentives. When the times are good, the talent is still going to find the most money to be made over here. I don't think they're going to forsake that (considering how much more you can make here than anywhere else) for wealth security.
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Re: Bolded part above. Link me up please. Are they trying to lure 'our' talent because they aren't a 'TARP company' and therefor they can pay bonuses?
Yes, this may affect CEO's. But bonuese aren't a big part of their compensation. They get stock options, if they raise the stock price, they win big. Those aren't covered under this law as far as I can tell, so they're not affected anyway.
IMO, the core of this problem is Congress lack of understanding on the compensation structure utilized in this industry for financial services employees. These people aren't executives, they're analysts and traders etc.
The low salary/high bonus staretgy works to the benefit of the company, and the good performers. It's a 'win-wing' thing
If another compensation structure was superior, it would have been employed by now.
So, we're either going to see (1) lawyers trying to 're-name' these payments as something other than bonuses, or (2) companies will be forced to abandon the current compensation structure for an inferior one.
Fern
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Yes, surely the founding fathers would be against taxing the bonuses of corporations who are only in business because of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS IN TAXES.
If you can get past the unconstitutionality of the theft of that kind of money to give to private enterprise, I'm sure you'll get over this 90% tax.
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
They were lured to a TARP firm.
These companies are 'shaky', so to attract good people with a long and proven track record they have to offer 'sign-up' bonuses.
If you go to work for a shaky company hoping to get your bonus later, well what happens if they go bankrupt in the meantime - before your bonus was paid? That's right, you're screwed. Therefor, these people will stay right where they are and the TARP companies won't be able to recruit good people. Given how much of our money is invested in them, IMO the last thing we need in TARP companies is inexperienced 'wanna be's' trying to land a job and get some 'on the job training'.
Edit: BTW, I think it's a strong likelyhood that the 'sign-up' bonus is meant a pre-payment on the end-of-year performance bonus and will be subtracted from that.
If we're gonna put billions of our taxpayer dollars into these things we oughtta be willing to put up some millions to get top talent. Otherwise, don't fvcking bother (which was basically my chioce to begin with).
At the outset many here understood the hugely negative consequence for our economy if these firms failed. But we were also concerned that pouring bailout funds into them was 'throwing good money after bad'. Congress seems hell-bent on insuring that's exactly what will happen.
I feel like I'm watching a slow motion train wreck of enormous proportions. I hope I'm wrong.
Fern
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Re: Bolded part - you really do not understand the business (And Bobberfett, this applies to you as well. For someone like yourself who is such a libertarian type, I am very surprised to see you cheering on this government's confiscatory actions against 'innocent people')
Nor do you understand the core of the issue. These people are NOT executives. These people did NOT cause the problems (at least none I've yet heard of). In this particular case, the person is NOT employed in any toxic asset area (never has been).
The CDO's, MBS's etc (whichever name you prefer) are fairly new, and were a small part of these firms business. Small in the sense they were only a fraction of financial service product offerings. However, these small divisions were allowed to handle huge amounts of money (and risk), they caused the problems. Not the many many other divisions in these firms.
You are painting all people with the same brush as these CDO traders. It's wrong.
Here's an example some of you may remember:
One person brought this bank down. Similarly, (mostly) one division brought down these TARP firms. This 90% tax is hitting people who had nothing to do with this crap.
You people who insist on saying anybody off the street can do these jobs need to go read up on Nick Leeson. An inexperienced person who wasn't supervised closely enough. We don't need that crap in our (TARP) companies.
Fern
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter