Banker Bailout leads to BIG Bonuses Billions and Billions

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
I believe that GS was one of the financial companies that did not want/need the bailout and had it forced upon them. If they didn't need/want it but had to take it anyway, why would we expect them to act as if they were bailed out?

With that being said:

GS bonuses are historically extremely large though. Average (across the whole employee base, for the last few years) has been usually north of 50% of your salary.

Non-financial industry people don't really get it, but when you get bonuses like that year after year, and they are large industry-wide (for the most part they have been), you come to expect them. They actually become part of the "normal" pay for the job. People start negotiating pre-defined bonuses based on ability and performance metrics (just like you would do with salary/raises).

In finance, if you did a good job and got a crappy bonus, often times you can easily find another job across the street, doing the exact same thing you are good at, and negotiate a higher base salary and a higher bonus. Obviously this year is very different than normal, but companies still feel the need to give bonuses to their good employees (the ones in profitable departments, not responsible for the meltdown), in order to prevent said "good" employees from leaving and becoming their competiton.

In the finance industry, your products are only as good as the people you have running them, so there is a massive emphasis placed on retaining good people. The surest way to retain people is to fatten up their wallet.

You might think that this situation is immoral or that these employees are not loyal or whatever, and that's fine, that's your perogative. However this is real life, not a morality play, and its just the way it is. People are selfish and usually do what's right for themselves. And in the financial heart of Corporate America, it's all about the money.

The bold text above.....is that unique to the financial industry?

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
I believe that GS was one of the financial companies that did not want/need the bailout and had it forced upon them. If they didn't need/want it but had to take it anyway, why would we expect them to act as if they were bailed out?

With that being said:

GS bonuses are historically extremely large though. Average (across the whole employee base, for the last few years) has been usually north of 50% of your salary.

Non-financial industry people don't really get it, but when you get bonuses like that year after year, and they are large industry-wide (for the most part they have been), you come to expect them. They actually become part of the "normal" pay for the job. People start negotiating pre-defined bonuses based on ability and performance metrics (just like you would do with salary/raises).

In finance, if you did a good job and got a crappy bonus, often times you can easily find another job across the street, doing the exact same thing you are good at, and negotiate a higher base salary and a higher bonus. Obviously this year is very different than normal, but companies still feel the need to give bonuses to their good employees (the ones in profitable departments, not responsible for the meltdown), in order to prevent said "good" employees from leaving and becoming their competiton.

In the finance industry, your products are only as good as the people you have running them, so there is a massive emphasis placed on retaining good people. The surest way to retain people is to fatten up their wallet.

You might think that this situation is immoral or that these employees are not loyal or whatever, and that's fine, that's your perogative. However this is real life, not a morality play, and its just the way it is. People are selfish and usually do what's right for themselves. And in the financial heart of Corporate America, it's all about the money.

there is a difference between doing what is good for yourself and being insanely greedy
i agree, let them have their fucking money, but not when they are bringing the rest of us down, we are paying them to do this shit

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
yes the elite college educated finacial wizards are now too dumb to bail themselves out, and need ignorant blue collar unionized dumbshits to foot the bill.

They probably could (partially) bail themselves out, but would lose lots of money in the process. It's much easier and more profitable to convince the government to hand them lots of money.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: SigArms08

Originally posted by: ebaycj
I believe that GS was one of the financial companies that did not want/need the bailout and had it forced upon them. If they didn't need/want it but had to take it anyway, why would we expect them to act as if they were bailed out?

With that being said:

GS bonuses are historically extremely large though. Average (across the whole employee base, for the last few years) has been usually north of 50% of your salary.

Non-financial industry people don't really get it, but when you get bonuses like that year after year, and they are large industry-wide (for the most part they have been), you come to expect them. They actually become part of the "normal" pay for the job. People start negotiating pre-defined bonuses based on ability and performance metrics (just like you would do with salary/raises).

In finance, if you did a good job and got a crappy bonus, often times you can easily find another job across the street, doing the exact same thing you are good at, and negotiate a higher base salary and a higher bonus. Obviously this year is very different than normal, but companies still feel the need to give bonuses to their good employees (the ones in profitable departments, not responsible for the meltdown), in order to prevent said "good" employees from leaving and becoming their competiton.

In the finance industry, your products are only as good as the people you have running them, so there is a massive emphasis placed on retaining good people. The surest way to retain people is to fatten up their wallet.

You might think that this situation is immoral or that these employees are not loyal or whatever, and that's fine, that's your perogative. However this is real life, not a morality play, and its just the way it is. People are selfish and usually do what's right for themselves. And in the financial heart of Corporate America, it's all about the money.

The bold text above.....is that unique to the financial industry?

It's not unique to the financial industry, however it is more readily apparent.

For example, an engineering/manufacturing company can have one genius build one good design, and quit. They could then manufacture that design until a better competitor comes along. At which point they could hire a bunch of monkeys to make small changes to that one good design, and "stay current".

In finance, however, there is not really much motivation to investors to be 'loyal' to one bank / investment company. If they start to do poorly, you pull your money out and give it to someone else who is doing less poorly. The fact that it's fairly painless for your customers to go elsewhere also helps facilitate this phenomenon. So banks / investment companies really have to do very well on a consistent basis to retain their customers (and therefore their assets under management, and therefore their incoming cash flow.

Because of this need for consistently good performance, banks / investment companies need good people who know what they are doing to run their funds, as there is a different situation just about every single day in the markets. In order to "beat the odds" (which is what brings in customers), you need to have people who are able to consistently be ahead of the game, in all aspects of play, with a near flawless performance record, EVERY SINGLE DAY.

 

[sportage]

So you really thought Paulson and congress were "for" the average joe???
Is this a shocker or something?

Well get this...
They keep saying they want to allow the home owners in trouble to redo their load with the bank.
If you are one of those, and call your bank, the bank will tell you "sure"...
All it takes is $1000+ up front for the deal.

WHAT??? If they had $1000+, they could just catch up the payment.

So thats the so called "deal". Redo your loan, for a huge price.
Then comgress acts like these people are actually being helped... :roll:

 

[SagaLore]

The chief executive and six senior colleagues will not take a share, having agreed to give up the perk.

A spokesman rejected reports that the bonuses could amount to as much as £4.3bn - or £142,000 for each worker including the 5,000-plus employed in London.

The top people didn't get it. This number is across the board for all their employees.

What's the problem?

 

[little elvis]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

The chief executive and six senior colleagues will not take a share, having agreed to give up the perk.

A spokesman rejected reports that the bonuses could amount to as much as £4.3bn - or £142,000 for each worker including the 5,000-plus employed in London.

The top people didn't get it. This number is across the board for all their employees.

What's the problem?

The US-based firm, which switched from being an investment bank to a savings bank in September, lost £1.36bn in the final quarter of this year.

Do you really believe that when a company loses that much in a quarter that any employee deserves to receive a "performance" bonus?

It's funny to see individuals rag on the UAW and then turn around and try to defend this

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Chunkee
Pepto Bismal

Why did the OP not comment about this news article with this link? Was this overlooked by the MODs?

And BTW, regarding the 1 trillion dollar greedy, thieving bankster holdup, I mean bailout, I TOLD YOU SO.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
The top people didn't get it. This number is across the board for all their employees.

What's the problem?

QFT.

Originally posted by: little elvis
Do you really believe that when a company loses that much in a quarter that any employee deserves to receive a "performance" bonus?

GS still had a profitable year. A bad fourth quarter does not negate that fact, especially given the current economic conditions.

---

Listen kids, this is why the banking business is a VERY good business to get into. As long as you do not do anything unethical, there is a shit-ton of money to be made -- and rightfully so.

I learned very young that the best way to make money is by a) studying rich people, and 2) working with other peoples' money... unfortunately, I chose a different route and accepted my middle-class lifestyle as good enough for the long-haul. Maybe my children will go for the gold... who knows?

I have some very intelligent and ethical friends who have done very well in the financial sector. It would be ridiculous to blame them for the economic mess the entire world is facing right now.

I think it all comes down to jealousy and regret for the lot of you who believe being wealthy is a crime... my suggestion is that you get the fuck over it.

I also suggest that we all begin to loudly protest any further bailouts...

 

[little elvis]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: SagaLore
The top people didn't get it. This number is across the board for all their employees.

What's the problem?

QFT.

Originally posted by: little elvis
Do you really believe that when a company loses that much in a quarter that any employee deserves to receive a "performance" bonus?

GS still had a profitable year. A bad fourth quarter does not negate that fact, especially given the current economic conditions.

---

Listen kids, this is why the banking business is a VERY good business to get into. As long as you do not do anything unethical, there is a shit-ton of money to be made -- and rightfully so.

I learned very young that the best way to make money is by a) studying rich people, and 2) working with other peoples' money... unfortunately, I chose a different route and accepted my middle-class lifestyle as good enough for the long-haul. Maybe my children will go for the gold... who knows?

I have some very intelligent and ethical friends who have done very well in the financial sector. It would be ridiculous to blame them for the economic mess the entire world is facing right now.

I think it all comes down to jealousy and regret for the lot of you who believe being wealthy is a crime... my suggestion is that you get the fuck over it.

I also suggest that we all begin to loudly protest any further bailouts...

In 2007 Goldman reported earning of 46.0 billion and a revenue of $11.6 billion. In 2008 Goldmon reported earning of 22 billion and a revenue of 2.2 billion. A year over year decrease of greater than 50%. Please explain how this type of performance entitles anybody to a bonus?

 

[RU482]

is anyone else getting stressed enough reading this news that they are about ready to grab the torch and pitchfork?

Seriously, we can all sit here and bitch about the flogging we are receiving, or we can go out and do something about it. Anyone with me?