Originally posted by: senseamp
If these people were "good" and did "perform" then why did their banks need TARP money?
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?
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 plunge in bank stock prices also could be giving some Wall Street veterans reason to seek out new jobs.
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."
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
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
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.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Topic Title: The Brain Drain
Topic Summary: Bankers leaving TARP Banks
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?"
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
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
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?
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?"
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."
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
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
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