Bankers: Our bonuses aren't big enough

[Sinergy 3]

waaaaaa...someone needs to change their diapers

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Wonder if their sphincters will be big enough if they go to prison?

[msu17 0]

If you are a private company and want to give out bonuses, that is your perogative. When the US taxpayers bail your sorry butt out of either merging or closing, then no, you don't get bonuses. Would they rather we not give them $$ and they can just be out of work? I'd rather have 150K than nothing, but that's just me. Apparently I don't understand how wall street works

[pedroh 21]

aj stop defending the bankers, they are the ones who got us into this problem, u corporate fascist cheerleader

corporate america ftw!

no, corporate america=NWO, it's bad, we will not be controlled

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

aj stop defending the bankers, they are the ones who got us into this problem, u corporate fascist cheerleader

corporate america ftw!

no, corporate america=NWO, it's bad, we will not be controlled

they pwn you and you don't even know it!

[pedroh 21]

I own the NWO.. u and ur illuminati friends are no match for the revolution..

[mRx 16]

As much as I'm against bailouts and socializing losses, the purpose of the bailout is to "knock" the company back into productivity and efficiency.

When government decides to use regulation to reduce profits and bonuses; What it's really doing is reducing incentive for these corporations to become efficient and productive. Just as we saw with the New Deal, when maximum prices were set, this reduced incentive to be productive, remain in the field, and even enter the field. This is because these maximum prices were actually limiting the prospect of profit in these fields.

So again, as much as I was against the bailout, I am even more against the idea that the money used to bring these companies to life are littered with such incentive damaging conditions, that it's basically being flushed down the toilet, and we will see no return at all for our suffering.

[Brad and Vika 129]

As much as I'm against bailouts and socializing losses, the purpose of the bailout is to "knock" the company back into productivity and efficiency.

When government decides to use regulation to reduce profits and bonuses; What it's really doing is reducing incentive for these corporations to become efficient and productive. Just as we saw with the New Deal, when maximum prices were set, this reduced incentive to be productive, remain in the field, and even enter the field. This is because these maximum prices were actually limiting the prospect of profit in these fields.

So again, as much as I was against the bailout, I am even more against the idea that the money used to bring these companies to life are littered with such incentive damaging conditions, that it's basically being flushed down the toilet, and we will see no return at all for our suffering.

That is correct. The attack on bonuses generally accomplishes two things; 1) it creates a huge disincentive for the most productive to work hard, and 2) it allows corporations (like the bank I work for) to begin reducing all types of compensation for the average worker. We have mostly been kicked out of our stock incentive plan, for example. Executives have not, and will defend their compensation at the expense of ours. Our bank is VERY healthy, and this financial mess is being used to punish the rank and file. Historically, in times of poor market performance, simply shift executive compensation from cash to stock options any way, and that will happen here. For example, the price of our stock went from the mid-forties (per share) a little over a year ago, to the low twenties today. So they stop giving regular folks options, then take care of the execs. Instead of a $10 million bonus, they now get $10M in stock options exercisable in three years a $22. When the price returns to normal, the effective bonus is increased - in addition to the multi-million dollar salaries they enjoyed all along.

[Reba 2]

If they can't survive on $150k per year, there's something wrong there. Learn to live within their means, and then they wouldn't have to rely on the bonuses.

Bonuses should be in line with company performance. If the company tanked, and had to be bailed out, no bonus. Sorry. Deal with it. The whole reason we're in this mess is because of bankers and consumers living beyond their means and borrowing/lending money that can't be paid back.

I'd seriously like to see some Wall Street muckity muck try to live on my $200 per week, and see how far they get

eejits. I have no sympathy.

[Jasman0717 9]

Billions

[rebeccajo 14]

As much as I'm against bailouts and socializing losses, the purpose of the bailout is to "knock" the company back into productivity and efficiency.

When government decides to use regulation to reduce profits and bonuses; What it's really doing is reducing incentive for these corporations to become efficient and productive. Just as we saw with the New Deal, when maximum prices were set, this reduced incentive to be productive, remain in the field, and even enter the field. This is because these maximum prices were actually limiting the prospect of profit in these fields.

So again, as much as I was against the bailout, I am even more against the idea that the money used to bring these companies to life are littered with such incentive damaging conditions, that it's basically being flushed down the toilet, and we will see no return at all for our suffering.

That is correct. The attack on bonuses generally accomplishes two things; 1) it creates a huge disincentive for the most productive to work hard, and 2) it allows corporations (like the bank I work for) to begin reducing all types of compensation for the average worker. We have mostly been kicked out of our stock incentive plan, for example. Executives have not, and will defend their compensation at the expense of ours. Our bank is VERY healthy, and this financial mess is being used to punish the rank and file. Historically, in times of poor market performance, simply shift executive compensation from cash to stock options any way, and that will happen here. For example, the price of our stock went from the mid-forties (per share) a little over a year ago, to the low twenties today. So they stop giving regular folks options, then take care of the execs. Instead of a $10 million bonus, they now get $10M in stock options exercisable in three years a $22. When the price returns to normal, the effective bonus is increased - in addition to the multi-million dollar salaries they enjoyed all along.

That's fundamentally no different than any industry, Brad. When something goes afoul, it's always the rank and file that takes the hit first.

But this really takes the cake, you know. Bailout money being used to fund bonuses? That's just wrong.

[DairyFarmer 1]

It seems to me a lot of commentators in general and here seem to be focus' on $150k salaries. This is not what the rank and file are paid.

The key aspect to any business is its people. Compensation is a big motivator.

Bailing out a company means keeping it running, to keep it running it needs the people, if these people have been hired with the promise they will be compensated for performance, for this company to continue it needs to pay the bonus' these people were promised.

Having said that, obviously not everyone is performing and it is the CEO's, CFO's, COO's who should be held responsible and their bonus' are the ones who should not be paid. This also goes for the stock options.

Edited February 1, 2009 by DairyFarmer

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It seems to be a lot of commentators in general and here seem to be focus' on $150k salaries. This is not what the rank and file are paid.

The key aspect to any business is its people. Compensation is a big motivator.

Bailing out a company means keeping it running, to keep it running it needs the people, if these people have been hired with the promise they will be compensated for performance, for this company to continue it needs to pay the bonus' these people were promised.

Exactly, DF. Exactly!

[rebeccajo 14]

It seems to be a lot of commentators in general and here seem to be focus' on $150k salaries. This is not what the rank and file are paid.

The key aspect to any business is its people. Compensation is a big motivator.

Bailing out a company means keeping it running, to keep it running it needs the people, if these people have been hired with the promise they will be compensated for performance, for this company to continue it needs to pay the bonus' these people were promised.

Exactly, DF. Exactly!

If it's bonuses for the 'rank and file' then yes, the company should keep its promises.

Executives?

No

[mRx 16]

It seems to me a lot of commentators in general and here seem to be focus' on $150k salaries. This is not what the rank and file are paid.

The key aspect to any business is its people. Compensation is a big motivator.

Bailing out a company means keeping it running, to keep it running it needs the people, if these people have been hired with the promise they will be compensated for performance, for this company to continue it needs to pay the bonus' these people were promised.

Having said that, obviously not everyone is performing and it is the CEO's, CFO's, COO's who should be held responsible and their bonus' are the ones who should not be paid. This also goes for the stock options.

It takes more than just an army of laborers to run a company or business. It takes the ability to efficiently earn a profit over your costs. Which is why the bailouts were such a horrible idea to begin with, because these bailed-out enterprises, while failing, were proving that they could no longer cover their costs.

Injecting capital into a falling enterprise is analogous to using a crane to hold up a dying California Redwood; You may be able to create the appearance that this tree is still living and thriving, but it's not. What is not seen however is the detriment that this causes to the other trees and would-be trees, for when this tree eventually decays completely and falls, it will create the rich soil, and unshield the sunlight necessary for new trees to grow and thrive, and other trees to grow bigger. Same with the market, these enterprises allowed to unnaturally survive are prohibiting new, younger companies from using these assets to grow themselves, or other companies from acquiring these assets to grow larger.

These companies have proven that they cannot create a profit, and no matter how much capital is thrown at them, if they cannot efficiently manage it, which they can't, they will still die. So now, after the government has already socialized their failure onto the Americans, they are not so naive as to not see that these companies cannot create a profit and survive with their current business practices, so bureaucrats and advisors attempt to change the direction of these practices so they become profitable. The funny thing is this; Changing these businesses to become profitable is exactly what would be attempted if a company were to purchase these fire-sale assets with their own wealth. It could've been possible without our money, new trees could've grown all on their own. (Ok, I'm done talking about trees)

All this is hindsight, I know. Because now, these companies have already recieved our money, so it really makes no difference. I hope they spend that money the same way they have been. Lavish expense accounts, leer jets, six-figure salaries, vacations to Cabo, and other fruits of profitable labor, even though they cannot attain it. At least somebody will be getting some enjoyment from the money.