The Brain Drain

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
If these people were "good" and did "perform" then why did their banks need TARP money?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
Weren't they going to go to foreign banks anyways if the bank they worked at failed?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp
If these people were "good" and did "perform" then why did their banks need TARP money?

Did the people who can make money lose money?

Someone lost the money. And we heard leading up to the collapse the same reasoning that banks had to pay out huge bonuses to retain the best performers.

 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: senseamp
If these people were "good" and did "perform" then why did their banks need TARP money?

Did the people who can make money lose money?

Someone lost the money. And we heard leading up to the collapse the same reasoning that banks had to pay out huge bonuses to retain the best performers.

The ones that lost the money were fired or wouldn't get a bonus in the first place.

You do realize that in a bank there are different operating groups. A trading desk investing in CDOs isn't the same one who does FX trades, or equity analysis, or M&A.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
The plunge in bank stock prices also could be giving some Wall Street veterans reason to seek out new jobs.

How much is it due to these companies having a bleak outlook? How much is their pay tied to stock?

Retaining talent, even in boom times, has never been easy for top Wall Street firms. Over the years, would-be 'masters-of-the-universe' types have been quick to jump ship if the pay, opportunities or culture of another firm was attractive enough.

"There is pretty much zero loyalty in this industry" said Peter Cappelli, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and director of its Center for Human Resources. "This would be happening whether or not there were TARP."

This seems to be a problem. If it's so easy to jump ship, then taking excessive risk is a GOOD thing if you're one of those employees. You take all the risks, collect your huge bonus, jump ship, then when your risks screw over the company, what does it matter to you?
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I predicted this would begin to happen the second the USG stepped into the role of dictating free market pay. People who DO perform and DO deserve good compensation, because they perform, are not going to sit around accepting pittance. It just doesn't work like that.

Many said "where else are they going to go" with regards to AIG and TARP banks. Well, now you know. They are going to foreign banks, boutique firms, and private equity, all of whom will pay for performance. Now what did our taxpayer dollars buy? Soon to be empty husks of formerly competitive banks, all because you punished the unguilty.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/2...postversion=2009062311

Truly epic fail.
Yes, the people who lost a couple of hundred BILLION dollars are going to leave their banks?
HaHa.
Basically it sounds like they don't want to work under rules that keep them from losing another couple of hundred BILLION dollars while making tens of millions of "bonuses"
Could you post the names of these bankers and which banks they are going to? I want to get my money out quick.

Like I said this thread is:
/epic fail
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I predicted this would begin to happen the second the USG stepped into the role of dictating free market pay. People who DO perform and DO deserve good compensation, because they perform, are not going to sit around accepting pittance. It just doesn't work like that.

Many said "where else are they going to go" with regards to AIG and TARP banks. Well, now you know. They are going to foreign banks, boutique firms, and private equity, all of whom will pay for performance. Now what did our taxpayer dollars buy? Soon to be empty husks of formerly competitive banks, all because you punished the unguilty.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/2...postversion=2009062311

Truly epic fail.
Yes, the people who lost a couple of hundred BILLION dollars are going to leave their banks?
HaHa.
Basically it sounds like they don't want to work under rules that keep them from losing another couple of hundred BILLION dollars while making tens of millions of "bonuses"
Could you post the names of these bankers and which banks they are going to? I want to get my money out quick.

Like I said this thread is:
/epic fail



Let's say I work for Citibank analysis division. I produce tons of sell-side research that Citibank's brokerage uses to get clients to buy stocks through Citi's brokerage. Naturally, the better my research (more accurate), the more clients they bring in the door, the more brokerage fees they gain, the better off my bonus is. Clients would be investment funds, wealthy individuals, and mom and pops. All would pay for my research. I pull down $2m/yr for my stellar research since the bank pulls in $50mm in commissions from the brokerage.

Since nobody but the investors lose money off of my research and I have nothing to do with Subprime loans, I create no incremental risk for the bank. However, when the bank takes losses and eventually gets hit with TARP restrictions, my pay goes down to $200k.

Now, Deutsche bank comes around and offers me my $2mm back. Keep in mind, I never was involved in risk taking, nor did I lose my bank a penny. I am pure profit. I go to DB. There goes $50mm in business from Citi to DB.

This is the same story with M&A sides of a bank, advisory, pure investment banking, underwriting of IPOs, underwriting of bonds (all sold), underwriting of securitizations. All of it sold for underwriting fees, none of it held. All of it pure profit. Almost no risk.

What's sad is that your ignorance is Deutschebank's profit. If stupid people in this country would wise up the problem wouldn't exist. But I guess that's why we are in the position we are in.

People need to get it through their thick skulls that some divisions are hugely profitable. The few divisions that threw off risk and losses are already marginalized. The ones that currently exist, that did and will pull profits, are the ones that WILL leave. They didn't cause the problem but they are getting punished for it.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I predicted this would begin to happen the second the USG stepped into the role of dictating free market pay. People who DO perform and DO deserve good compensation, because they perform, are not going to sit around accepting pittance. It just doesn't work like that.

Many said "where else are they going to go" with regards to AIG and TARP banks. Well, now you know. They are going to foreign banks, boutique firms, and private equity, all of whom will pay for performance. Now what did our taxpayer dollars buy? Soon to be empty husks of formerly competitive banks, all because you punished the unguilty.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/2...postversion=2009062311

Truly epic fail.
Yes, the people who lost a couple of hundred BILLION dollars are going to leave their banks?
HaHa.
Basically it sounds like they don't want to work under rules that keep them from losing another couple of hundred BILLION dollars while making tens of millions of "bonuses"
Could you post the names of these bankers and which banks they are going to? I want to get my money out quick.

Like I said this thread is:
/epic fail



Let's say I work for Citibank analysis division. I produce tons of sell-side research that Citibank's brokerage uses to get clients to buy stocks through Citi's brokerage. Naturally, the better my research (more accurate), the more clients they bring in the door, the more brokerage fees they gain, the better off my bonus is. Clients would be investment funds, wealthy individuals, and mom and pops. All would pay for my research. I pull down $2m/yr for my stellar research since the bank pulls in $50mm in commissions from the brokerage.

Since nobody but the investors lose money off of my research and I have nothing to do with Subprime loans, I create no incremental risk for the bank. However, when the bank takes losses and eventually gets hit with TARP restrictions, my pay goes down to $200k.

Now, Deutsche bank comes around and offers me my $2mm back. Keep in mind, I never was involved in risk taking, nor did I lose my bank a penny. I am pure profit. I go to DB. There goes $50mm in business from Citi to DB.

This is the same story with M&A sides of a bank, advisory, pure investment banking, underwriting of IPOs, underwriting of bonds (all sold), underwriting of securitizations. All of it sold for underwriting fees, none of it held. All of it pure profit. Almost no risk.

What's sad is that your ignorance is Deutschebank's profit. If stupid people in this country would wise up the problem wouldn't exist. But I guess that's why we are in the position we are in.

People need to get it through their thick skulls that some divisions are hugely profitable. The few divisions that threw off risk and losses are already marginalized. The ones that currently exist, that did and will pull profits, are the ones that WILL leave. They didn't cause the problem but they are getting punished for it.

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Try this:

Truly epic fail.
Yes, the people who lost a couple of hundred BILLION dollars are going to leave their banks?
HaHa.
Basically it sounds like they don't want to work under rules that keep them from losing another couple of hundred BILLION dollars while making tens of millions of "bonuses"
Could you post the names of these bankers and which banks they are going to? I want to get my money out quick.

Like I said this thread is:
/epic fail

 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Topic Title: The Brain Drain
Topic Summary: Bankers leaving TARP Banks

These are the same turds who drove us into the mess we're in, sliding out with their gigabazillion dollar bonuses and golden parachutes. Good fucking riddance.

There are thousands of unemployed new grads and experienced MBA's looking for work. If those old "brains" aren't making enough to satisfy their greed, they should start practicing their new mantra...

"Will there be fries with that?" :p
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Topic Title: The Brain Drain
Topic Summary: Bankers leaving TARP Banks

These are the same turds who drove us into the mess we're in, sliding out with their gigabazillion dollar bonuses and golden parachutes. Good fucking riddance.

There are thousands of unemployed new grads and experienced MBA's looking for work. If those old "brains" aren't making enough to satisfy their greed, they should start practicing their new mantra...

"Will there be fries with that?" :p

Do you not quite understand that the ones getting picked are the profitable ones?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I predicted this would begin to happen the second the USG stepped into the role of dictating free market pay. People who DO perform and DO deserve good compensation, because they perform, are not going to sit around accepting pittance. It just doesn't work like that.

Many said "where else are they going to go" with regards to AIG and TARP banks. Well, now you know. They are going to foreign banks, boutique firms, and private equity, all of whom will pay for performance. Now what did our taxpayer dollars buy? Soon to be empty husks of formerly competitive banks, all because you punished the unguilty.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/2...postversion=2009062311

Truly epic fail.
Yes, the people who lost a couple of hundred BILLION dollars are going to leave their banks?
HaHa.
Basically it sounds like they don't want to work under rules that keep them from losing another couple of hundred BILLION dollars while making tens of millions of "bonuses"
Could you post the names of these bankers and which banks they are going to? I want to get my money out quick.

Like I said this thread is:
/epic fail



Let's say I work for Citibank analysis division. I produce tons of sell-side research that Citibank's brokerage uses to get clients to buy stocks through Citi's brokerage. Naturally, the better my research (more accurate), the more clients they bring in the door, the more brokerage fees they gain, the better off my bonus is. Clients would be investment funds, wealthy individuals, and mom and pops. All would pay for my research. I pull down $2m/yr for my stellar research since the bank pulls in $50mm in commissions from the brokerage.

Since nobody but the investors lose money off of my research and I have nothing to do with Subprime loans, I create no incremental risk for the bank. However, when the bank takes losses and eventually gets hit with TARP restrictions, my pay goes down to $200k.

Now, Deutsche bank comes around and offers me my $2mm back. Keep in mind, I never was involved in risk taking, nor did I lose my bank a penny. I am pure profit. I go to DB. There goes $50mm in business from Citi to DB.

This is the same story with M&A sides of a bank, advisory, pure investment banking, underwriting of IPOs, underwriting of bonds (all sold), underwriting of securitizations. All of it sold for underwriting fees, none of it held. All of it pure profit. Almost no risk.

What's sad is that your ignorance is Deutschebank's profit. If stupid people in this country would wise up the problem wouldn't exist. But I guess that's why we are in the position we are in.

People need to get it through their thick skulls that some divisions are hugely profitable. The few divisions that threw off risk and losses are already marginalized. The ones that currently exist, that did and will pull profits, are the ones that WILL leave. They didn't cause the problem but they are getting punished for it.

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Try this:

Truly epic fail.
Yes, the people who lost a couple of hundred BILLION dollars are going to leave their banks?
HaHa.
Basically it sounds like they don't want to work under rules that keep them from losing another couple of hundred BILLION dollars while making tens of millions of "bonuses"
Could you post the names of these bankers and which banks they are going to? I want to get my money out quick.

Like I said this thread is:
/epic fail

LOLLERSCATES! I CAN SAY EPIC FAIL AND WISH I WAS A WINNAR INSTANTLY!


Seriously, do YOU fail at the comprehension of the idea that the ones who lost the money are ALREADY GONE. The ones who were profitable during the whole thing AREN'T THE ONES WHO CAUSED THE PROBLEM. Thus, they are being picked off.
 

Beowulf

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2001
1,446
0
71
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I predicted this would begin to happen the second the USG stepped into the role of dictating free market pay. People who DO perform and DO deserve good compensation, because they perform, are not going to sit around accepting pittance. It just doesn't work like that.

Many said "where else are they going to go" with regards to AIG and TARP banks. Well, now you know. They are going to foreign banks, boutique firms, and private equity, all of whom will pay for performance. Now what did our taxpayer dollars buy? Soon to be empty husks of formerly competitive banks, all because you punished the unguilty.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/2...postversion=2009062311

Truly epic fail.
Yes, the people who lost a couple of hundred BILLION dollars are going to leave their banks?
HaHa.
Basically it sounds like they don't want to work under rules that keep them from losing another couple of hundred BILLION dollars while making tens of millions of "bonuses"
Could you post the names of these bankers and which banks they are going to? I want to get my money out quick.

Like I said this thread is:
/epic fail



Let's say I work for Citibank analysis division. I produce tons of sell-side research that Citibank's brokerage uses to get clients to buy stocks through Citi's brokerage. Naturally, the better my research (more accurate), the more clients they bring in the door, the more brokerage fees they gain, the better off my bonus is. Clients would be investment funds, wealthy individuals, and mom and pops. All would pay for my research. I pull down $2m/yr for my stellar research since the bank pulls in $50mm in commissions from the brokerage.

Since nobody but the investors lose money off of my research and I have nothing to do with Subprime loans, I create no incremental risk for the bank. However, when the bank takes losses and eventually gets hit with TARP restrictions, my pay goes down to $200k.

Now, Deutsche bank comes around and offers me my $2mm back. Keep in mind, I never was involved in risk taking, nor did I lose my bank a penny. I am pure profit. I go to DB. There goes $50mm in business from Citi to DB.

This is the same story with M&A sides of a bank, advisory, pure investment banking, underwriting of IPOs, underwriting of bonds (all sold), underwriting of securitizations. All of it sold for underwriting fees, none of it held. All of it pure profit. Almost no risk.

What's sad is that your ignorance is Deutschebank's profit. If stupid people in this country would wise up the problem wouldn't exist. But I guess that's why we are in the position we are in.

People need to get it through their thick skulls that some divisions are hugely profitable. The few divisions that threw off risk and losses are already marginalized. The ones that currently exist, that did and will pull profits, are the ones that WILL leave. They didn't cause the problem but they are getting punished for it.

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Try this:

Truly epic fail.
Yes, the people who lost a couple of hundred BILLION dollars are going to leave their banks?
HaHa.
Basically it sounds like they don't want to work under rules that keep them from losing another couple of hundred BILLION dollars while making tens of millions of "bonuses"
Could you post the names of these bankers and which banks they are going to? I want to get my money out quick.

Like I said this thread is:
/epic fail

You didn't understand what LegendKiller wrote at all. Basically people who made/make millions for these banks that are now struggling, are being picked off by the competition. When you make millions for a bank who failed on another front of the business and see your pay get affected, well that just sucks. Now when a big firm outside offers you, your old salary if not more, you decide its time to bail.

Leaving Citi and BoA who largely took taxpayer money to survive in a worse position for survival. Big banks who are trying to rebound are at a loss when top money making talent leaves.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Employees of these companies that would have gone under and would be looking for another job if not for a government bailout are looking for another job because of the bailout. Oh noes!!1
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Aren't some of these people the very same people who put the banks into the position they are in today? Is it possible that their leaving might actually be a case of addition by subtraction? Are they really as "brainy" as they are being made out to be? Some people's reaction might be: Good Riddance!

Given the large oversupply of talented, intelligent people in our nation who are currently unemployed or underemployed, surely it shouldn't be too difficult to replace these these overpaid whiners at lower salaries.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Aren't some of these people the very same people who put the banks into the position they are in today?

NO. That's the whole fucking point of this thread.
 

babylon5

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2000
1,363
1
0
From July issue of Wired magazine, p. 22, by Daniel Roth

Street Smarts
The crash could loosen the financial world's grip on bright young minds


"A new flowering of creativity on Wall Street would be a very bad thing. We tend to think of innovation as always and every­where desirable?it has brought us print­ing presses, artificial hearts, and shoes that mimic barefoot running. But Wall Street's creations too often devolve from enriching us all to enriching a select few (while sending the rest of us ducking for cover). Bundling mortgages into securi­ties made home ownership possible for many. Then bankers figured out how to go from "many" to "nearly everyone"; foreclosures exploded and the economy imploded. Credit default swaps initially made it easier for companies to finance growth?until they were leveraged, tweaked, and sold to excess, cratering the financial system. Not all Wall Street innovation is bad. But the worst of its labs are Three Mile Island-style dangerous.

Such inventions do produce fabulous paper wealth, however, attracting many of our sharpest math and science minds.

At MIT and other top schools, investment banks recruited hard and early, skimming the cream from each graduating class. Until the mid-1990s, college grads with bachelor's degrees could earn more in engineering than finance; that flipped in 2000, and it hasn't come close to par­ity since. A survey of Harvard alumni found that 5 percent of men graduat­ing in 1970 went to Wall Street; by 1990, the proportion was 15 percent. The same trend was also apparent among women. But the big paychecks came with what economists call opportunity costs. Instead of spending their days searching for exotic trades, some of these Wall Street wizards could've been creating drugs, imagining software, or solving energy problems. Cap­ital markets need geniuses, too, but it's hard to cheer such a massive money-chase.

Now's the chance for other sectors to get their hooks into the young and bril­liant, while Wall Street is distracted and busy rebuilding. This past spring, MIT held a job fair and saw a surge from com­panies that had never set foot on campus before?newborn startups, nonprofits, hospitals, and government agencies. A few years ago, these promising players didn't stand a chance against Lehman and Goldman Sachs. Today, their recruit­ing could mean that out of the financial industry's decay will bloom a thousand innovations far away from Wall Street."


Senior writer DANIEL roth (daniel_roth @wired.com) wrote about why Wall Street needs transparency in issue 17.03."
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Topic Title: The Brain Drain
Topic Summary: Bankers leaving TARP Banks

These are the same turds who drove us into the mess we're in, sliding out with their gigabazillion dollar bonuses and golden parachutes. Good fucking riddance.

There are thousands of unemployed new grads and experienced MBA's looking for work. If those old "brains" aren't making enough to satisfy their greed, they should start practicing their new mantra...

"Will there be fries with that?" :p

Harvey, this is just stupidity. Why would you take a fresh college grad over a 20-year proven multi-million-dollar money maker (who had NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING to do with the debt securitization problems that caused the crash)?

That just doesn't make any fucking sense.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
Originally posted by: babylon5
From July issue of Wired magazine, p. 22, by Daniel Roth

Street Smarts
The crash could loosen the financial world's grip on bright young minds


"A new flowering of creativity on Wall Street would be a very bad thing. We tend to think of innovation as always and every­where desirable?it has brought us print­ing presses, artificial hearts, and shoes that mimic barefoot running. But Wall Street's creations too often devolve from enriching us all to enriching a select few (while sending the rest of us ducking for cover). Bundling mortgages into securi­ties made home ownership possible for many. Then bankers figured out how to go from "many" to "nearly everyone"; foreclosures exploded and the economy imploded. Credit default swaps initially made it easier for companies to finance growth?until they were leveraged, tweaked, and sold to excess, cratering the financial system. Not all Wall Street innovation is bad. But the worst of its labs are Three Mile Island-style dangerous.

Such inventions do produce fabulous paper wealth, however, attracting many of our sharpest math and science minds.

At MIT and other top schools, investment banks recruited hard and early, skimming the cream from each graduating class. Until the mid-1990s, college grads with bachelor's degrees could earn more in engineering than finance; that flipped in 2000, and it hasn't come close to par­ity since. A survey of Harvard alumni found that 5 percent of men graduat­ing in 1970 went to Wall Street; by 1990, the proportion was 15 percent. The same trend was also apparent among women. But the big paychecks came with what economists call opportunity costs. Instead of spending their days searching for exotic trades, some of these Wall Street wizards could've been creating drugs, imagining software, or solving energy problems. Cap­ital markets need geniuses, too, but it's hard to cheer such a massive money-chase.

Now's the chance for other sectors to get their hooks into the young and bril­liant, while Wall Street is distracted and busy rebuilding. This past spring, MIT held a job fair and saw a surge from com­panies that had never set foot on campus before?newborn startups, nonprofits, hospitals, and government agencies. A few years ago, these promising players didn't stand a chance against Lehman and Goldman Sachs. Today, their recruit­ing could mean that out of the financial industry's decay will bloom a thousand innovations far away from Wall Street."


Senior writer DANIEL roth (daniel_roth @wired.com) wrote about why Wall Street needs transparency in issue 17.03."

:thumbsup:

And it sounds like Canada escaped a lot of this mess by not being so "creative" and having heavy regulations:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...28tedesco.html?_r=3&em


 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
The level of ignorance shown by some in this thread reflects the ignorance of the general population.

Ignorant people have the instant "hey, the same people that lost all that money are now leaving. Good riddance!" reaction. That's sheer stupidity of course, because there are many different parts to such a large organization, and within those parts there are some very talented people and some dolts. The vast majority (99%) of employees in these companies have absolutely nothing to do with the reason the companies were in need of TARP money.

Artificially restricting the salaries of some companies within the industry and not others will inevitably lead to massive brain drain. Sure, the brain drain does not happen as quickly as it normally would because the economy sucks, but make no mistake about it, the brain drain is inevitable as long as these companies can not pay their top talent at the same level as other companies.

To make this simpler to understand for those of you that don't get it, imagine citibank as a baseball team. The manager and GM sucked so bad that they ran the team into the ground. The pitching staff sucked, and the team lost 100 games last year. Now a new owner steps in, and in light of the crappy team performance decides to limit salaries for all players. Sure, the team as a whole stunk it up last year, but it might have a couple of really really good players (maybe a stud 3rd baseman) who are now free agents. Other teams are going to know who those one or two good players are, and they will make them a better offer. The one or two gems on the crappy team will leave, and that team will get even crappier. That's what we're seeing right now, and the taxpayers will be left holding the bag.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: LegendKiller


Let's say I work for Citibank analysis division. I produce tons of sell-side research that Citibank's brokerage uses to get clients to buy stocks through Citi's brokerage. Naturally, the better my research (more accurate), the more clients they bring in the door, the more brokerage fees they gain, the better off my bonus is. Clients would be investment funds, wealthy individuals, and mom and pops. All would pay for my research. I pull down $2m/yr for my stellar research since the bank pulls in $50mm in commissions from the brokerage.

Since nobody but the investors lose money off of my research and I have nothing to do with Subprime loans, I create no incremental risk for the bank. However, when the bank takes losses and eventually gets hit with TARP restrictions, my pay goes down to $200k.

Now, Deutsche bank comes around and offers me my $2mm back. Keep in mind, I never was involved in risk taking, nor did I lose my bank a penny. I am pure profit. I go to DB. There goes $50mm in business from Citi to DB.

This is the same story with M&A sides of a bank, advisory, pure investment banking, underwriting of IPOs, underwriting of bonds (all sold), underwriting of securitizations. All of it sold for underwriting fees, none of it held. All of it pure profit. Almost no risk.

What's sad is that your ignorance is Deutschebank's profit. If stupid people in this country would wise up the problem wouldn't exist. But I guess that's why we are in the position we are in.

People need to get it through their thick skulls that some divisions are hugely profitable. The few divisions that threw off risk and losses are already marginalized. The ones that currently exist, that did and will pull profits, are the ones that WILL leave. They didn't cause the problem but they are getting punished for it.

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Try this:

Truly epic fail.
Yes, the people who lost a couple of hundred BILLION dollars are going to leave their banks?
HaHa.
Basically it sounds like they don't want to work under rules that keep them from losing another couple of hundred BILLION dollars while making tens of millions of "bonuses"
Could you post the names of these bankers and which banks they are going to? I want to get my money out quick.

Like I said this thread is:
/epic fail

The people who are leaving (that the article talked about) are the ones who WERE IN PROFITABLE DIVISIONS OF THE BANK AND WERE MAKING A SHIT TON OF MONEY FOR THE BANK.

They WERE NOT involved with the divisions that caused all this mess, yet they saw their pay drop by massive amounts due to TARP regulations on said banks.

It'd be like if you worked in a manufacturing plant for a company, and the director of finance for that company had sex with his secretary, and she filed and won a 10 billion dollar lawsuit against the company, and for that reason, and that reason alone, your pay (as a manufacturing plant worker) was dropped from $60k per year to $18k per year. If the company with a manufacturing plant in the next town over offered you the same type job, making your old $60k plus a raise of $5k, you would take it, no questions asked. Do not lie and tell us otherwise.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I predicted this would begin to happen the second the USG stepped into the role of dictating free market pay. People who DO perform and DO deserve good compensation, because they perform, are not going to sit around accepting pittance. It just doesn't work like that.

Many said "where else are they going to go" with regards to AIG and TARP banks. Well, now you know. They are going to foreign banks, boutique firms, and private equity, all of whom will pay for performance. Now what did our taxpayer dollars buy? Soon to be empty husks of formerly competitive banks, all because you punished the unguilty.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/2...postversion=2009062311

High performers are not hard to come by in finance and banking, especially now. Besides, the only US bank that had truly top-shelf talent at the upper levels was Goldman, and they are still paying well.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
I must be confused. I thought LK was ok with the govt dictating terms to banks who took public money????

Either way this was something many of us who whined when they started doing this said would happen.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: babylon5
From July issue of Wired magazine, p. 22, by Daniel Roth

Street Smarts
The crash could loosen the financial world's grip on bright young minds


"A new flowering of creativity on Wall Street would be a very bad thing. We tend to think of innovation as always and every­where desirable?it has brought us print­ing presses, artificial hearts, and shoes that mimic barefoot running. But Wall Street's creations too often devolve from enriching us all to enriching a select few (while sending the rest of us ducking for cover). Bundling mortgages into securi­ties made home ownership possible for many. Then bankers figured out how to go from "many" to "nearly everyone"; foreclosures exploded and the economy imploded. Credit default swaps initially made it easier for companies to finance growth?until they were leveraged, tweaked, and sold to excess, cratering the financial system. Not all Wall Street innovation is bad. But the worst of its labs are Three Mile Island-style dangerous.

Such inventions do produce fabulous paper wealth, however, attracting many of our sharpest math and science minds.

At MIT and other top schools, investment banks recruited hard and early, skimming the cream from each graduating class. Until the mid-1990s, college grads with bachelor's degrees could earn more in engineering than finance; that flipped in 2000, and it hasn't come close to par­ity since. A survey of Harvard alumni found that 5 percent of men graduat­ing in 1970 went to Wall Street; by 1990, the proportion was 15 percent. The same trend was also apparent among women. But the big paychecks came with what economists call opportunity costs. Instead of spending their days searching for exotic trades, some of these Wall Street wizards could've been creating drugs, imagining software, or solving energy problems. Cap­ital markets need geniuses, too, but it's hard to cheer such a massive money-chase.

Now's the chance for other sectors to get their hooks into the young and bril­liant, while Wall Street is distracted and busy rebuilding. This past spring, MIT held a job fair and saw a surge from com­panies that had never set foot on campus before?newborn startups, nonprofits, hospitals, and government agencies. A few years ago, these promising players didn't stand a chance against Lehman and Goldman Sachs. Today, their recruit­ing could mean that out of the financial industry's decay will bloom a thousand innovations far away from Wall Street."


Senior writer DANIEL roth (daniel_roth @wired.com) wrote about why Wall Street needs transparency in issue 17.03."

:thumbsup:

And it sounds like Canada escaped a lot of this mess by not being so "creative" and having heavy regulations:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...28tedesco.html?_r=3&em

I 100% agree that left unregulated, the banking industry will fall to greed every time. We DO need more and better regulation on the financial markets, in this case on the OTC Derivatives markets (amongst others).