Fed wants to limit ALL banks compensation practices

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Please post "Yay" or "Nay" if this will actually affect you.

Actually, this already affected me months ago when the bank I work for instituted this kind of policy on its own. Performance incentives are no longer tied solely to production volume, but also to the quality of what is being produced. As I was never one to make shit deals, it really didn't affect me. In fact, I've made the top tier bonus the past few months in a row.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Vic

Actually, I'm a loss mitigation manager for a major mortgage servicer at this time.

And once again, this is being proposed by the Fed.

Your bull is getting gored and yet you continue to cheer it on. Amazing.

"My bull" gored itself. And I predicted it would years ago when guys like you would proclaim such 'doomsday' talk was tantamount to treason. Then, as now, you don't have a fscking clue what you're talking about, but you sure do know how to kneejerk.

So in your wisdom, what industry is next to control compensation by law?

Hopefully yours

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Please post "Yay" or "Nay" if this will actually affect you.

Actually, this already affected me months ago when the bank I work for instituted this kind of policy on its own. Performance incentives are no longer tied solely to production volume, but also to the quality of what is being produced. As I was never one to make shit deals, it really didn't affect me. In fact, I've made the top tier bonus the past few months in a row.

Nothing wrong with that. I'd suspect there may be about 2 people in this thread that this effects. You and me.

What's funny is that the rest of the Repubtards are frothing over this, like they have some vested interest.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Please post "Yay" or "Nay" if this will actually affect you.

Actually, this already affected me months ago when the bank I work for instituted this kind of policy on its own. Performance incentives are no longer tied solely to production volume, but also to the quality of what is being produced. As I was never one to make shit deals, it really didn't affect me. In fact, I've made the top tier bonus the past few months in a row.

I'd suspect there may be about 2 people in this thread that this effects. You and me.

Awesome :thumbsup:

Obama is truly a hero already :beer:

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Please post "Yay" or "Nay" if this will actually affect you.

Actually, this already affected me months ago when the bank I work for instituted this kind of policy on its own. Performance incentives are no longer tied solely to production volume, but also to the quality of what is being produced. As I was never one to make shit deals, it really didn't affect me. In fact, I've made the top tier bonus the past few months in a row.

I'd suspect there may be about 2 people in this thread that this effects. You and me.

Awesome :thumbsup:

Obama is truly a hero already :beer:

How's your lawsuit going anyway you fucking baby. Did you get laughed at by any self respecting lawyer?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Please post "Yay" or "Nay" if this will actually affect you.

Actually, this already affected me months ago when the bank I work for instituted this kind of policy on its own. Performance incentives are no longer tied solely to production volume, but also to the quality of what is being produced. As I was never one to make shit deals, it really didn't affect me. In fact, I've made the top tier bonus the past few months in a row.

I'd suspect there may be about 2 people in this thread that this effects. You and me.

Awesome :thumbsup:

Obama is truly a hero already :beer:

How's your lawsuit going anyway you fucking baby. Did you get laughed at by any self respecting lawyer?

A self respecting lawyer? When you start seeing things like that and pink elephants, stop drinking.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Not necessarily. Certainly there's a risk of what you 2 are saying, but it this current example was not the first time Bailouts have been used in Financial Markets. If it was just one or two Corps at risk, they would have been left to die, no problem, but it was the whole System at risk. That was indeed, "Too big to fail". That level of failure has consequences far beyond Markets and isn't simply the closing of some Corporate Offices and everyone goes out looking for Work. No, that's the kind of failure that crushes an Economy, causes Civic and Social breakdowns, starts Wars, and all sorts of other potential chaos.

Once stability is achieved(pretty much there now), then Regulation can/should be used to remove the future threat of similar circumstances from happening again. Including the breaking up of Institutions that are too big to fail without dragging everyone else down with them.

I think then our main disagreement is on whether majority of the banks would've failed or would've survived. I personally think large amount of banks would've survived, even without the bailout.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: sandorski

Your suggestion = 20%+ Unemployment, 20%+ loss of GDP, continued GDP Loss, increasing Government Deficits despite no Stimulus being spent, Civil Unrest, and no light at the end of the tunnel. The idea that everything would be corrected already is false, it would take years of serious hardship before such a sudden change could be overcome, if what you propose were actually what was done.

As it is, it will still take years to get past this downturn, but the worst of the Pain has been avoided, to everyones benefit.

And now those people (or people like them) are free to look for another loophole, knowing full well they'll be bailed out again. Admit it - it's impossible to close every loophole. Hardships are unavoidable - at some point bad companies need to be allowed to fail.

And btw, I believe that most of the banks would've survived. And gotten stronger by taking over the weak.

The problem now is that the banks know they can get away with excessive risk taking and have the government to fall back on if they lose too much money. Also with all the bank failures and acquisitions that have occurred over the past couple years, aren't the remaining ones even bigger and a greater systemic risk than before? I thought the goal was to split up these institutions so that they are no longer "too big to fail".

Not necessarily. Certainly there's a risk of what you 2 are saying, but it this current example was not the first time Bailouts have been used in Financial Markets. If it was just one or two Corps at risk, they would have been left to die, no problem, but it was the whole System at risk. That was indeed, "Too big to fail". That level of failure has consequences far beyond Markets and isn't simply the closing of some Corporate Offices and everyone goes out looking for Work. No, that's the kind of failure that crushes an Economy, causes Civic and Social breakdowns, starts Wars, and all sorts of other potential chaos.

Once stability is achieved(pretty much there now), then Regulation can/should be used to remove the future threat of similar circumstances from happening again. Including the breaking up of Institutions that are too big to fail without dragging everyone else down with them.

I don't think you're really addressing my post. I'm not denying that letting all those banks fail would have likely been very bad for the economy as a whole. What I'm saying is that now that they have already been bailed out, what will be done going forward to prevent this from happening again, especially given the fact that many of the remaining banks are now even larger than they were before due to acquisitions? The banks now know they can get away with excessive risk taking because they have been declared "too big to fail", and I see no plans for breaking up these large banks.

Regulation.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: sandorski

Not necessarily. Certainly there's a risk of what you 2 are saying, but it this current example was not the first time Bailouts have been used in Financial Markets. If it was just one or two Corps at risk, they would have been left to die, no problem, but it was the whole System at risk. That was indeed, "Too big to fail". That level of failure has consequences far beyond Markets and isn't simply the closing of some Corporate Offices and everyone goes out looking for Work. No, that's the kind of failure that crushes an Economy, causes Civic and Social breakdowns, starts Wars, and all sorts of other potential chaos.

Once stability is achieved(pretty much there now), then Regulation can/should be used to remove the future threat of similar circumstances from happening again. Including the breaking up of Institutions that are too big to fail without dragging everyone else down with them.

I think then our main disagreement is on whether majority of the banks would've failed or would've survived. I personally think large amount of banks would've survived, even without the bailout.

"Large amount", sure. It wasn't so much the number of Banks at risk, but the amount of Economic activity and shear $ numbers at risk. There are thousands of small Banks that were not at risk themselves, but the large Banks, though small in number, had/have so much more $ and economic activity that their failure would undermine even those thousands of small Banks. Keep in mind that the US wasn't the only Economy affected, but Financial Institutions around the World were affected just as much by these failures. The problem was much larger than you are thinking it was.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bfdd
What is with you idiots in this thread "we had to bail them out!" No we didn't, we could of let them die. We the tax payers didn't have to do shit. We would of moved along and been over this by now, but instead this is like a dog chasing it's tail. Every single cent we gave to any company in the form of a subsidiary or "bail out" is stupid and anyone who backs it you should be ashamed.

hehe, ok, you don't post things you believe, but just random crazy shit for fun. I'm on to you now. :thumbsup:

While I'm pretty much doing that all the time, I do think the bail outs were absolutely retarded and I'd rather see those companies die out and everyone face the consequences even those of us who had no hand in it.

Your suggestion = 20%+ Unemployment, 20%+ loss of GDP, continued GDP Loss, increasing Government Deficits despite no Stimulus being spent, Civil Unrest, and no light at the end of the tunnel. The idea that everything would be corrected already is false, it would take years of serious hardship before such a sudden change could be overcome, if what you propose were actually what was done.

As it is, it will still take years to get past this downturn, but the worst of the Pain has been avoided, to everyones benefit.

You think I don't know this? The thing is I don't care. It should of happened, you coddle a child all their life and they become irresponsible adults. You let people feel the burn of their mistakes, even those that had no hand in it, people as a whole will wisen up and we might not have a similar problem in the future. You coddle people and promise to make everything all better and put a bandaid on the problem, nothing changes.

You're right; we could've let the reckless and the unsound financial institutions topple. The problem is that they bought insurance for their actions, and if said institutions went down either the insuring/lending institution (which was generally AIG) either had to PAY UP many times the losses that were expected....or renege on the insurance/signed agreements and trigger lawsuits for breach of contract.

Ok fine, you say, that's THEIR problem, not the average Joe's problem. The problem is though that financial institutions instantaneously crashing like bowling pins wrecks havoc on two things markets and financial systems rely on: confidence and money circulation. When banks restrict/stop lending money, business and market transactions suffer. Small businesses don't pay their workers since they can't get loans, retailers have trouble acquiring and keeping ahold of merchanise in lean times, car dealers are hampered in selling cars to customers on credit, etc.

Maybe you don't care that innocent victims would've paid dearly for the sins of reckless financial institutions/speculators but those in positions of authority are duty-bound not to restrict themselves to the myopic although seductive prism of laisse-faire free market capitalism.