AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs

[Paraguay11]

A majority of corporations do not end on November 30. Very few actually do, the investment banks were basically the only industry that did it repeatedly. They will end on December 31st as well starting next year as they are bank holding companies.

All this money has to be paid back, you reward the people that do well. I hope they make these corporations profitable even if they have to pay out bonuses. My hope as a tax payer is to get paid back and to do that you need to retain your key employees. Goldman-Sachs also paid out more bonuses by itself last year than this entire 1.6B. It also says salaries. Would you work for nothing?

If someone is in charge of a division that makes 30-40MM net of net, I see no problem giving them a bonus to retain them, otherwise they will jump ship, and on wall street if you jump ship your book comes with you.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Bush's going away gift to his pals sure has gotten the economy back on track, just like how Halliburton and Blackwater is winning the war for us in Iraq. Bush just keeps on giving and giving. Too bad he's doing it at the taxpayer's expense.

He must've finally figured out a way to keep the bailout money for the auto industry in the wallets of his executive buddies there and away from the workers on the factory floors too.

It's barely a month old and already the revisionists are trying to blame this on Bush.

Do you remember which party rushed the bailout through congress?

Democrats you fucking tool.

Oh boy... This is rich!

Do you remember it didn't pass and WHO pushed it the second time?

Who did the signing to make it happen and push it the first go around?

Wow.

It didn't pass because Republicans voted against it, nimrod. The Democrats all voted for it the first time. Step out of the revisionist bubble, asshole.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Paraguay11
A majority of corporations do not end on November 30. Very few actually do, the investment banks were basically the only industry that did it repeatedly. They will end on December 31st as well starting next year as they are bank holding companies.

All this money has to be paid back, you reward the people that do well. I hope they make these corporations profitable even if they have to pay out bonuses. My hope as a tax payer is to get paid back and to do that you need to retain your key employees. Goldman-Sachs also paid out more bonuses by itself last year than this entire 1.6B. It also says salaries. Would you work for nothing?

If someone is in charge of a division that makes 30-40MM net of net, I see no problem giving them a bonus to retain them, otherwise they will jump ship, and on wall street if you jump ship your book comes with you.

The money has to be paid back? Are you defining that the same way that the companies that took the money under the "None of this will go to executive bonuses" agreement are redefining that?

In the example that I provided (first one that I searched...not cherry-picked for effect), the person in charge (the CEO) oversaw a drop in EPS of > 81% and he was given a compensation package of $54M compared to $64M the year before. Why should the shareholders lose 80% but the CEO who was running the ship only lose 15%?

What about the others mentioned in the article? Here is a quote from it so you don't have to flip back to it:

Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company's top five executives received a total of $242 million.

Here was the year prior wrapped in the same hot air that was blown up the shareholders' arses:

Here?s a number to ponder: $322 million.

That is the total amount that the five ?named executive officers? at Goldman Sachs were paid last year, when they helped steer the giant securities firm through one of the most treacherous markets in years. The figures, which include stock, options, cash bonuses and other perks, were disclosed Friday as part of Goldman?s annual proxy statement. They were filed just a few hours before lawmakers in Washington were scheduled to hear testimony from one current chief executive and two former chiefs at three other firms about their sizable pay packages.

Update: It was brought to DealBook?s attention that the $322 million figure referenced above includes expenses that Goldman booked last year for stock grants in previous years. This is the accounting method required by the Securities and Exchange Commission ? but not exactly an intuitive measure of the board-approved pay that each executive received.

We?ve added a second table below, also from Goldman?s proxy statement, that excludes compensation related to previous years? stock grants and a few other items. By that measure, the total for the five executives was a slightly smaller ? but still huge ? $305 million.

Unlike Countrywide Financial, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch ? the three firms whose pay practices are under scrutiny on Capitol Hill ? Goldman largely avoided the mortgage-related pain that hammered lenders and left many investment banks weakly capitalized.

Goldman?s stock rose 8.6 percent, after adjusting for dividends, during 2007. But so far this year, it has fallen nearly 25 percent, amid fears among some investors that it might be vulnerable after all.

WOW...unlike those other companies...the "leadership" of these 5 helped GS stay afloat while a lot of others sank.....if you consider an 81% drop in EPS staying afloat. And once again, the group as a whole only takes a 20% hit while the shareholders get reamed.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Bush's going away gift to his pals sure has gotten the economy back on track, just like how Halliburton and Blackwater is winning the war for us in Iraq. Bush just keeps on giving and giving. Too bad he's doing it at the taxpayer's expense.

He must've finally figured out a way to keep the bailout money for the auto industry in the wallets of his executive buddies there and away from the workers on the factory floors too.

It's barely a month old and already the revisionists are trying to blame this on Bush.

Do you remember which party rushed the bailout through congress?

Democrats you fucking tool.

Oh boy... This is rich!

Do you remember it didn't pass and WHO pushed it the second time?

Who did the signing to make it happen and push it the first go around?

Wow.

It didn't pass because Republicans voted against it, nimrod. The Democrats all voted for it the first time. Step out of the revisionist bubble, asshole.

Bahahahaha look who's calling a liberal a Revisionist, the ultimate Revisionist. :roll:

By the way, Bush is still the President.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: tweaker2
Bush's going away gift to his pals sure has gotten the economy back on track, just like how Halliburton and Blackwater is winning the war for us in Iraq. Bush just keeps on giving and giving. Too bad he's doing it at the taxpayer's expense.

He must've finally figured out a way to keep the bailout money for the auto industry in the wallets of his executive buddies there and away from the workers on the factory floors too.

It's barely a month old and already the revisionists are trying to blame this on Bush.

Do you remember which party rushed the bailout through congress?

Democrats you fucking tool.

Oh boy... This is rich!

Do you remember it didn't pass and WHO pushed it the second time?

Who did the signing to make it happen and push it the first go around?

Wow.

It didn't pass because Republicans voted against it, nimrod. The Democrats all voted for it the first time. Step out of the revisionist bubble, asshole.

Bahahahaha look who's calling a liberal a Revisionist, the ultimate Revisionist. :roll:

By the way, Bush is still the President.

And you voted him in.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Paraguay11Would you work for nothing?

Those guys are not working for nothing; they are probably very much overpaid and tens of thousands of unemployed or involuntarily-underemployed MBAs would happily take those jobs for far, far less than what those guys are getting. Of course not all of those MBAs on the market are worthwhile, but presumably a great many are.

If someone is in charge of a division that makes 30-40MM net of net, I see no problem giving them a bonus to retain them, otherwise they will jump ship, and on wall street if you jump ship your book comes with you.

That makes sense; but what percentage of the executives who received the bonuses actually earned a profit for their companies? I'm all for performance-based compensation or at for at least having that as a large component of compensation.