Fed wants to limit ALL banks compensation practices

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

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.

We could have let them die, and we could have faced a sharper downturn of the economy because of it. As far as I understand it, if we let all these big banks collapse, the money supply would shrink and it would hurt everyone.

Oh fucking well. Then we hurt everyone shit sucks we move along. Ever put your hand on something hot? Fucking burns right? Hurts huh? You don't want to do it again do you? Yeah, that's what we should of done.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

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.

We could have let them die, and we could have faced a sharper downturn of the economy because of it. As far as I understand it, if we let all these big banks collapse, the money supply would shrink and it would hurt everyone.

Oh fucking well. Then we hurt everyone shit sucks we move along. Ever put your hand on something hot? Fucking burns right? Hurts huh? You don't want to do it again do you? Yeah, that's what we should of done.

I seem to remember plenty of times (not necessarily in my lifetime) where we as a country went through large boom and bust cycles. Boom and bust cycles are not good for growth. It is best to have slow, steady growth. Economics is a little bit more complicated than simple extrapolation of autonomic nervous system reactions and conditioning to the greater economic mechanisms.

 

[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:

 

[Vic]

FFS, didn't anyone RTFA?

The Fed, acting under its existing powers as a bank regulator, aims to curtail pay practices that can encourage bank employees to take the kinds of irresponsible risks that may have led to the financial crisis. It is not seeking to set caps on the amount any individual employee can be paid, said sources familiar with the plans.

Fed officials and many private analysts have concluded that pay practices emphasizing short-term performance contributed to the near-collapse of the financial system last year.

For example, a trader who receives bonuses based solely on one year's performance might make bets that pay off in the short run but cause vast losses in the long run. A loan officer paid only based on the volume of loans issued might not pay enough attention to the quality of those loans. Under the approach envisioned by the Fed, the two dozen or so largest banks would have to explain these pay practices to their regulator, and adjust them if examiners think they endanger the safety and soundness of the bank, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the policy is not yet final.

It would apply to all the nation's banks, not just those that received bailout money. And it would apply to a wide range of employees beyond executives, including anyone whose actions could threaten the financial stability of a bank.

Still, it was unclear Friday whether the Fed's proposal would result in any major changes in how compensation works in the financial sector. Many banks have already reworked their pay practices to try to prevent the excesses of recent years from recurring. A source familiar with the Fed's plans said that officials are not yet in a position to judge whether the regulations will require major changes.

On Friday, a number of banks said the Fed's plan was consistent with signals they had been receiving from Washington regulators and the Obama administration for much of the year, and none expressed outright opposition -- only reservations about the execution of the policy.

"Our view is that it's entirely appropriate to have compensation policies that actively discourage inappropriate risk-taking," said Lucas Van Praag, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs.

 

[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.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Vic
FFS, didn't anyone RTFA?

he Fed, acting under its existing powers as a bank regulator, aims to curtail pay practices that can encourage bank employees to take the kinds of irresponsible risks that may have led to the financial crisis. It is not seeking to set caps on the amount any individual employee can be paid, said sources familiar with the plans.

Fed officials and many private analysts have concluded that pay practices emphasizing short-term performance contributed to the near-collapse of the financial system last year.

For example, a trader who receives bonuses based solely on one year's performance might make bets that pay off in the short run but cause vast losses in the long run. A loan officer paid only based on the volume of loans issued might not pay enough attention to the quality of those loans. Under the approach envisioned by the Fed, the two dozen or so largest banks would have to explain these pay practices to their regulator, and adjust them if examiners think they endanger the safety and soundness of the bank, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the policy is not yet final.

It would apply to all the nation's banks, not just those that received bailout money. And it would apply to a wide range of employees beyond executives, including anyone whose actions could threaten the financial stability of a bank.

Still, it was unclear Friday whether the Fed's proposal would result in any major changes in how compensation works in the financial sector. Many banks have already reworked their pay practices to try to prevent the excesses of recent years from recurring. A source familiar with the Fed's plans said that officials are not yet in a position to judge whether the regulations will require major changes.

On Friday, a number of banks said the Fed's plan was consistent with signals they had been receiving from Washington regulators and the Obama administration for much of the year, and none expressed outright opposition -- only reservations about the execution of the policy.

"Our view is that it's entirely appropriate to have compensation policies that actively discourage inappropriate risk-taking," said Lucas Van Praag, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs.

TL;DR

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[sandorski]

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.

I know. That's why the idea is loony.

 

[Nebor]

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.

So what? This nation took the easy wrong instead of the hard right. If we had let those who failed fail, things would have been hard for a time, certainly. But things would eventually be righted. Our course holds no hope for things ever being righted. We're just getting more and more wrong.

 

[bfdd]

sandorski, I would of been an innocent bystander. I don't hold much debt except a car loan I'm paying off to increase my credit score, I'm generally responsible with my money, and I don't care if it would of had an adverse affect on me. That's what I don't care about.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bfdd
sandorski, I would of been an innocent bystander. I don't hold much debt except a car loan I'm paying off to increase my credit score, I'm generally responsible with my money, and I don't care if it would of had an adverse affect on me. That's what I don't care about.

Innocent Bystander, lol. Great.

You have a fucked view of Reality. Nature vs Humans = Fuck Nature. Humans vs Markets = Fuck Humans. The Real World(Nature) matters least to you, the Ideological Construct(Markets) means most to you. Very Cult like, right down to willing to take the Kool Aid.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: bctbct
When the tax payers have to bail out a free market because they are greedy pigs, they need rules.

+++

Fuck them, and fuck anyone who defends them.

An embarrassment to civilization that these people are still free and not behind bars

Why should they? They didn't do anything illegal - they played within the rules. They simply were very stupid and short-sighted. And the punishment for that should've been failure and strong taking over the weak. But instead we chose to bail them out.

 

[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.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Vic
The OP didn't read his own article.

The Fed, acting under its existing powers as a bank regulator, aims to curtail pay practices that can encourage bank employees to take the kinds of irresponsible risks that may have led to the financial crisis. It is not seeking to set caps on the amount any individual employee can be paid, said sources familiar with the plans.

Fed officials and many private analysts have concluded that pay practices emphasizing short-term performance contributed to the near-collapse of the financial system last year.

For example, a trader who receives bonuses based solely on one year's performance might make bets that pay off in the short run but cause vast losses in the long run. A loan officer paid only based on the volume of loans issued might not pay enough attention to the quality of those loans. Under the approach envisioned by the Fed, the two dozen or so largest banks would have to explain these pay practices to their regulator, and adjust them if examiners think they endanger the safety and soundness of the bank, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the policy is not yet final.

No - just setting how compensation is calculated. Nice try though.

"limit" = to control. As a loan officer you are affected by this Vic. Hope the government dick in your ass doesn't hurt too much, best of luck mate.

Obama doesn't control the fed, genius.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bfdd
sandorski, I would of been an innocent bystander. I don't hold much debt except a car loan I'm paying off to increase my credit score, I'm generally responsible with my money, and I don't care if it would of had an adverse affect on me. That's what I don't care about.

Innocent Bystander, lol. Great.

You have a fucked view of Reality. Nature vs Humans = Fuck Nature. Humans vs Markets = Fuck Humans. The Real World(Nature) matters least to you, the Ideological Construct(Markets) means most to you. Very Cult like, right down to willing to take the Kool Aid.

Market is created by humans, it's our child. Nature isn't our child. Also, obviously the market doesn't matter most to me because I wanted it to die. Did I say "I want humans to die!" No I said I wanted the ideological construct(markets), as you put it, to die so we learn from it.

 

[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".

 

[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.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: spidey07
So what say P&N?

Try reading the god damn article instead of spewing nonsensical bullshit you read over at "Wingnuts are us"

 

[heyheybooboo]

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.

Talk about full of manure. You are the poster child. You ignore a direct quote from the article you link because it strikes directly at the heart of your argument. Once again, the quote:

It is not seeking to set caps on the amount any individual employee can be paid, said sources familiar with the plans.

You never cease to amaze with your colorectal view ... Congrats!

 

[bctbct]

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.

Then you probably think we should abolish the FDIC?

 

[LegendKiller]

Please post "Yay" or "Nay" if this will actually affect you.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: bfdd
sandorski, I would of been an innocent bystander. I don't hold much debt except a car loan I'm paying off to increase my credit score, I'm generally responsible with my money, and I don't care if it would of had an adverse affect on me. That's what I don't care about.

Innocent Bystander, lol. Great.

You have a fucked view of Reality. Nature vs Humans = Fuck Nature. Humans vs Markets = Fuck Humans. The Real World(Nature) matters least to you, the Ideological Construct(Markets) means most to you. Very Cult like, right down to willing to take the Kool Aid.

Market is created by humans, it's our child. Nature isn't our child. Also, obviously the market doesn't matter most to me because I wanted it to die. Did I say "I want humans to die!" No I said I wanted the ideological construct(markets), as you put it, to die so we learn from it.

Yeah, "been over it by now". Are you kidding me?

If there had been no market bailout we'd have 30+% unemployment.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Yeah, "been over it by now". Are you kidding me?

If there had been no market bailout we'd have 30+% unemployment.

What we did not get, but should have, was 0.0001% unemployment as a result of firing irresponsible executives at many financial institutions.

I'm not totally clear on just what this particular new control would accomplish, but I think if an industry is important enough that it 'can't be allowed to die' there's a place for preventing pure personal greed from influencing decision-making.

I'd rather see executives honestly pay themselves 7 and 8 figure salaries, rather than 'bonus' themselves for ambiguous, contrived results (and within the bounds of the 'short-term' accounting is always ambiguous).

 

[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.