Wall street ontrack to reward record pay

[Ausm]

DP

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
this is regulation, reform and change we can believe in.

Yeah, Yeah Obama eats babies, and produces H1N1 in a large KFC bucket in his secrect liar while eating watermelon and listening to old Hitler tapes:disgust: move along please

I voted for him

Why?

:roll:

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
So the reward is for getting bailed out of a disaster you created and then making profits with the low interest bailout loan money?

If you were a banker, what would you do differently? Would you turn over 100% of your profit to charity for X number of years? Would you pay the Government extra interest on their loans? What, exactly, are they supposed to do differently with their profits now that they were once bailed out by the Government?

It's issues like these imaginary obligations and expectations that made many of us object to the bailouts from day 1. We saw this coming.

If the Government failed to use the opportunity to also impose new regulations, then it's no fault of the banks themselves, or their employees, if most of the same old practices return along with profits.

Also, you can never expect a bank to compete in the global market if the compensation for its employees is in any way artificially capped. With the success and salvage of these banks being the very reason the bailout occurred in the first place, it's very strange to start deriding them for that success when it begins.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: spidey07

-edit-
And if you are a top performer and you're not getting compensated properly you WILL go someplace that does.

where? in what other industry are these guys getting $$$$$$$$$?

Same industry, different employer.

Also keep in mind that compensation should always be "record breaking" as revenue is supposed to always increase and you are supposed to be paid more each year.

The article also mentions that the average compensation is 146K. This is total compensation including retirment, insurance, other fringe benefits. Not just salary/bonuses. Not a lot really to warrant the outrageous jealousy shown.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
As a shareholder of several of these companies, this shit is ridiculous.

Are you basing that assessment on their actual performance, or lack thereof, in the last two quarters?

If so, can you please provide some examples of those companies that may not being doing well enough to justify such bonuses?

because i'm a stockholder and i don't approve of their pay? The fact that none of these people are essential, and don't deserve this sort of compensation? The fact that these cunts almost wiped my equity?

I'm a stockholder, thats all the justification i need. They aren't entitled to anything.

Question marks are most often used to denote an interrogative; or, more specifically, a question. Please go back through my post and find the question marks. In front of each of them, you will find a sentence that is a question.

Try answering those instead of whatever the hell you just wrote.

Then, when you're finished, try to answer these:

Stockholders very rarely, if ever, get to approve of individual employees' compensation packages. What did you use to determine that none of "these people" are essential?

Are you able to name those who received bonuses at the companies where you own stock? Do you even know their assigned divisions or job titles? Are you then able to draw a line between those "cunts" and the ones who were responsible for your losses last year? Are they one and the same?

Who is "they," and why are "they" not "entitled to anything"?

they are the employees of the company(s) that i am one of several million co-owners of. They, being the general employees of these companies almost wiped out my investment, and by any measure have done a terrible job in aggregate. If there is an industry were nearly wiping out your owners investment, nearly bringing down the world economy crashing down, and being complete asshats in public is worthy of massive bonuses, something is wrong with that industry.

so yes, i am basing this on their performance, and yes i did cite an example, AIG.

next time read before you well me that i didn't directly answer your (irrelevant) question


regards to spidey's edit to the last post of his i responded to:

they are welcome to leave, since they aren't doing a very good job anyways.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Also keep in mind that compensation should always be "record breaking" as revenue is supposed to always increase and you are supposed to be paid more each year.

Revenue does not always increase though.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
So the reward is for getting bailed out of a disaster you created and then making profits with the low interest bailout loan money?

If you were a banker, what would you do differently? Would you turn over 100% of your profit to charity for X number of years? Would you pay the Government extra interest on their loans? What, exactly, are they supposed to do differently with their profits now that they were once bailed out by the Government?

It's issues like these imaginary obligations and expectations that made many of us object to the bailouts from day 1. We saw this coming.

If the Government failed to use the opportunity to also impose new regulations, then it's no fault of the banks themselves, or their employees, if most of the same old practices return along with profits.

Also, you can never expect a bank to compete in the global market if the compensation for its employees is in any way artificially capped. With the success and salvage of these banks being the very reason the bailout occurred in the first place, it's very strange to start deriding them for that success when it begins.

give it to the shareholders.


these people are just employees, this is shareholder money.

btw you never responded to the thread you have linked in your sig, i'm still waiting for you to answer.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: spidey07

-edit-
And if you are a top performer and you're not getting compensated properly you WILL go someplace that does.

where? in what other industry are these guys getting $$$$$$$$$?

Non-U.S. or non-TARP banks. They won't change industries, but they'll most certainly change employers.

We already witnessed such a brain drain when the Feds tried to impose artificial compensation caps on these guys last year -- they simply went to work for foreign banks and other U.S. banks that did not receive a bailout where they could be compensated in accordance with the global market-driven standards for their profession.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
As a shareholder of several of these companies, this shit is ridiculous.

Are you basing that assessment on their actual performance, or lack thereof, in the last two quarters?

If so, can you please provide some examples of those companies that may not being doing well enough to justify such bonuses?

because i'm a stockholder and i don't approve of their pay? The fact that none of these people are essential, and don't deserve this sort of compensation? The fact that these cunts almost wiped my equity?

I'm a stockholder, thats all the justification i need. They aren't entitled to anything.

Question marks are most often used to denote an interrogative; or, more specifically, a question. Please go back through my post and find the question marks. In front of each of them, you will find a sentence that is a question.

Try answering those instead of whatever the hell you just wrote.

Then, when you're finished, try to answer these:

Stockholders very rarely, if ever, get to approve of individual employees' compensation packages. What did you use to determine that none of "these people" are essential?

Are you able to name those who received bonuses at the companies where you own stock? Do you even know their assigned divisions or job titles? Are you then able to draw a line between those "cunts" and the ones who were responsible for your losses last year? Are they one and the same?

Who is "they," and why are "they" not "entitled to anything"?

they are the employees of the company(s) that i am one of several million co-owners of. They, being the general employees of these companies almost wiped out my investment, and by any measure have done a terrible job in aggregate. If there is an industry were nearly wiping out your owners investment, nearly bringing down the world economy crashing down, and being complete asshats in public is worthy of massive bonuses, something is wrong with that industry.

so yes, i am basing this on their performance, and yes i did cite an example, AIG.

next time read before you well me that i didn't directly answer your (irrelevant) question


regards to spidey's edit to the last post of his i responded to:

they are welcome to leave, since they aren't doing a very good job anyways.

Don't be offended, he has a knack of busting everyone's balls before totally reading/comprehending posts.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Actually, it's you who needs to do so. Exactly what "reckless practices" are you accusing them of?

The their bonuses are the only "reckless practices" you are referring to, then you're going to be severely let down to learn that those will never change in the banking industry when said banks are doing well or turning a profit.

I will also tell you that said bonuses and other forms of compensation are NOT what brought the economy to its knees. But, you knew that already though, didn't you?

Are you accusing them of any real or economically dangerous "reckless practices"? if so, what are they?

Well if you don't consider the unregulated trade of exotic derivatives reckless then I guess I should bow down to your vast knowledge of the US banking system.

That's the first you've mentioned that. Did the Government impose improved regulations on said trading? No? Then whose fault is it that it might reoccur? Hint: it's not the banks.

oh I never fucking said ANYTHING about the bonuses bringing the economy to it's knees...that was your little fucking rightwing pee brain twisting my words like usual.

Listen here 10-Second-Tom, I don't want to have to remind you again: I am not a right-winger, I voted for Obama, and I've never belonged to a political party in my life.

That said, your second post in this thread ended with you accusing them of "reckless practices." Most people here would assume you were referring to the "record pay" and bonuses described in the OP. Instead, I asked you to list out the reckless practices you are accusing them of continuing. This is the first response in which you have done so (exotic derivatives)... are there any others?

Now that we finally know what you are angry about, we can get to the heart of the matter. That is, who do you blame for the lack of new and more stringent regulations on the trade of exotic derivatives? If you're blaming the banks for that, you're retarded.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Now that we finally know what you are angry about, we can get to the heart of the matter. That is, who do you blame for the lack of new and more stringent regulations on the trade of exotic derivatives? If you're blaming the banks for that, you're retarded.

i'm sure banks haven't been spending tens of millions on lobbyists

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Non-U.S. or non-TARP banks. They won't change industries, but they'll most certainly change employers.

We already witnessed such a brain drain when the Feds tried to impose artificial compensation caps on these guys last year -- they simply went to work for foreign banks and other U.S. banks that did not receive a bailout where they could be compensated in accordance with the global market-driven standards for their profession.

and if the banking industry as a whole is more tightly regulated to eliminate moral hazard, where are these guys going?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
So the reward is for getting bailed out of a disaster you created and then making profits with the low interest bailout loan money?

If you were a banker, what would you do differently? Would you turn over 100% of your profit to charity for X number of years? Would you pay the Government extra interest on their loans? What, exactly, are they supposed to do differently with their profits now that they were once bailed out by the Government?

It's issues like these imaginary obligations and expectations that made many of us object to the bailouts from day 1. We saw this coming.

If the Government failed to use the opportunity to also impose new regulations, then it's no fault of the banks themselves, or their employees, if most of the same old practices return along with profits.

Also, you can never expect a bank to compete in the global market if the compensation for its employees is in any way artificially capped. With the success and salvage of these banks being the very reason the bailout occurred in the first place, it's very strange to start deriding them for that success when it begins.

give it to the shareholders.

Have your stocks gone up since the crash, or have they continued to go down?

these people are just employees, this is shareholder money.

What money are you referring to? The profits? What is your ROI for the last twelve months?

btw you never responded to the thread you have linked in your sig, i'm still waiting for you to answer.

Like I said before, please hold your breath.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Non-U.S. or non-TARP banks. They won't change industries, but they'll most certainly change employers.

We already witnessed such a brain drain when the Feds tried to impose artificial compensation caps on these guys last year -- they simply went to work for foreign banks and other U.S. banks that did not receive a bailout where they could be compensated in accordance with the global market-driven standards for their profession.

and if the banking industry as a whole is more tightly regulated to eliminate moral hazard, where are these guys going?

Tight regulations isn't going to change compensation practices. Oh wait! We've got a pay czar, he can go get those evil employees making 146K in new york city, those evil rich people! Go get them!

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Non-U.S. or non-TARP banks. They won't change industries, but they'll most certainly change employers.

We already witnessed such a brain drain when the Feds tried to impose artificial compensation caps on these guys last year -- they simply went to work for foreign banks and other U.S. banks that did not receive a bailout where they could be compensated in accordance with the global market-driven standards for their profession.

and if the banking industry as a whole is more tightly regulated to eliminate moral hazard, where are these guys going?

If they are still allowed to make the globally determined standard wages and bonuses, they'll stay -- regardless of new regulations. If not, they'll leave. It's that simple.

Bankers/investors are very resilient. If new and more stringent regulations change the way they must do business, they'll adjust accordingly and find new and creative ways to make money again. But, if you try to cap their earnings, they'll simply move to where no such cap exists -- the smart ones would, at least.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Now that we finally know what you are angry about, we can get to the heart of the matter. That is, who do you blame for the lack of new and more stringent regulations on the trade of exotic derivatives? If you're blaming the banks for that, you're retarded.

i'm sure banks haven't been spending tens of millions on lobbyists

Stop shifting blame and answer the damn question. Who is supposed to write our Federal laws and regulations? Who is it that failed to do so over the last twelve months?

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Actually, it's you who needs to do so. Exactly what "reckless practices" are you accusing them of?

The their bonuses are the only "reckless practices" you are referring to, then you're going to be severely let down to learn that those will never change in the banking industry when said banks are doing well or turning a profit.

I will also tell you that said bonuses and other forms of compensation are NOT what brought the economy to its knees. But, you knew that already though, didn't you?

Are you accusing them of any real or economically dangerous "reckless practices"? if so, what are they?

Well if you don't consider the unregulated trade of exotic derivatives reckless then I guess I should bow down to your vast knowledge of the US banking system.

That's the first you've mentioned that. Did the Government impose improved regulations on said trading? No? Then whose fault is it that it might reoccur? Hint: it's not the banks.

oh I never fucking said ANYTHING about the bonuses bringing the economy to it's knees...that was your little fucking rightwing pee brain twisting my words like usual.

Listen here 10-Second-Tom, I don't want to have to remind you again: I am not a right-winger, I voted for Obama, and I've never belonged to a political party in my life.

That said, your second post in this thread ended with you accusing them of "reckless practices." Most people here would assume you were referring to the "record pay" and bonuses described in the OP. Instead, I asked you to list out the reckless practices you are accusing them of continuing. This is the first response in which you have done so (exotic derivatives)... are there any others?

Now that we finally know what you are angry about, we can get to the heart of the matter. That is, who do you blame for the lack of new and more stringent regulations on the trade of exotic derivatives? If you're blaming the banks for that, you're retarded.

OK ..I see a huge disconnect between your brain and a rational persons thought process. Here it is in simple English which I hope you can grasp....Since the trade of exotic derivatives was a huge reason why the stock market took a shit maybe it would be a good thing if the banks were not trading them for lucrative profits after getting bailed out by the tax payers?

I consider that continuing reckless practices...if you don't I could give a flying fuck... comprehend ???? my threads must look like a reagan blowup doll because you sure get off on humping them

Oh if you did vote for Obama , I don't give a fuck...A fucking brainless hack like yourself would do a disservice to the left anyway.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Actually, it's you who needs to do so. Exactly what "reckless practices" are you accusing them of?

The their bonuses are the only "reckless practices" you are referring to, then you're going to be severely let down to learn that those will never change in the banking industry when said banks are doing well or turning a profit.

I will also tell you that said bonuses and other forms of compensation are NOT what brought the economy to its knees. But, you knew that already though, didn't you?

Are you accusing them of any real or economically dangerous "reckless practices"? if so, what are they?

Well if you don't consider the unregulated trade of exotic derivatives reckless then I guess I should bow down to your vast knowledge of the US banking system.

That's the first you've mentioned that. Did the Government impose improved regulations on said trading? No? Then whose fault is it that it might reoccur? Hint: it's not the banks.

oh I never fucking said ANYTHING about the bonuses bringing the economy to it's knees...that was your little fucking rightwing pee brain twisting my words like usual.

Listen here 10-Second-Tom, I don't want to have to remind you again: I am not a right-winger, I voted for Obama, and I've never belonged to a political party in my life.

That said, your second post in this thread ended with you accusing them of "reckless practices." Most people here would assume you were referring to the "record pay" and bonuses described in the OP. Instead, I asked you to list out the reckless practices you are accusing them of continuing. This is the first response in which you have done so (exotic derivatives)... are there any others?

Now that we finally know what you are angry about, we can get to the heart of the matter. That is, who do you blame for the lack of new and more stringent regulations on the trade of exotic derivatives? If you're blaming the banks for that, you're retarded.

OK ..I see a huge disconnect between your brain and a rational persons thought process. Here it is in simple English which I hope you can grasp....Since the trade of exotic derivatives was a huge reason why the stock market took a shit maybe it would be a good thing if the banks were not trading them for lucrative profits after getting bailed out by the tax payers?

OK, but then again, wtf does that have to do with the OP and your first three posts in this thread? Was everyone here supposed to read your mind to figure out you're angry about continued derivatives trading?!

Whose fault is it that such trading is still unregulated?

I consider that continuing reckless practices...if you don't I could give a flying fuck... comprehend ????

I even agree with you that such trading is reckless, but at least I know who to blame for the lack of regulations -- and it ain't the investors and bankers themselves.

my threads must look like a reagan blowup doll because you sure get off on humping them

Oh if you did vote for Obama , I don't give a fuck...A fucking brainless hack like yourself would do a disservice to the left anyway.

Your macro is stuck on stupid again... go ahead and give it a good kick, or reboot.

I think you're afraid of my questions. I think you're afraid to admit where the real blame lies when it comes to a total lack of new banking regulations. I think that admitting as much would ruin the cuddle-time you have with your Pelosi doll every night.

That's what I think.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

That's what I think.

Do you really expect me to give a shit?

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
this is regulation, reform and change we can believe in.

I think when President Obama was running for president he didn't realize that Wall Street,Big Corporations, and Special interest groups are "one" with Washington.

That's because he didn't have enough experience in the Senate. See they kept telling you he didn't have enough experience!

 

[nycromes]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Now that we finally know what you are angry about, we can get to the heart of the matter. That is, who do you blame for the lack of new and more stringent regulations on the trade of exotic derivatives? If you're blaming the banks for that, you're retarded.

i'm sure banks haven't been spending tens of millions on lobbyists

All the same, who is at fault? The lack of regulation squarely rests on the legislative branch's shoulders. The lobbying is a normal part of Washington business/politics, but the elected officials have a moral obligation to their constituents to do what is in the best interest of the people/constituents.

As to the banks making risky investments, blame and responsibility rests squarely on the banks shoulders.

Both parties dropped the ball in the cases where this has occurred, everyone needs to stop defending one group or the other and start demanding action/accountability from both sides. Unfortunately, it would be very difficult to get any action out of either group as they do not seem concerned with any of this.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus
Problem is, when these assholes LOSE money, nobody's held accountable. The people who fucked up AIG were long gone before people started getting their pitchforks ready. Yet they still kept the millions they 'earned' by making stupid risky bets.

Heads i win, tails you lose. Capitalism at it's finest.

Capitalism? What do government bailouts have to do with capitalism?

Hell, what does our banking industry have to do with capitalism?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
As a shareholder of several of these companies, this shit is ridiculous.

Are you basing that assessment on their actual performance, or lack thereof, in the last two quarters?

If so, can you please provide some examples of those companies that may not being doing well enough to justify such bonuses?

because i'm a stockholder and i don't approve of their pay? The fact that none of these people are essential, and don't deserve this sort of compensation? The fact that these cunts almost wiped my equity?

I'm a stockholder, thats all the justification i need. They aren't entitled to anything.

So, stop being a stockholder?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Non-U.S. or non-TARP banks. They won't change industries, but they'll most certainly change employers.

We already witnessed such a brain drain when the Feds tried to impose artificial compensation caps on these guys last year -- they simply went to work for foreign banks and other U.S. banks that did not receive a bailout where they could be compensated in accordance with the global market-driven standards for their profession.

and if the banking industry as a whole is more tightly regulated to eliminate moral hazard, where are these guys going?

To DC, to make sure "the banking industry as a whole" isn't "more tightly regulated to eliminate moral hazard?"

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
As a shareholder of several of these companies, this shit is ridiculous.

Are you basing that assessment on their actual performance, or lack thereof, in the last two quarters?

If so, can you please provide some examples of those companies that may not being doing well enough to justify such bonuses?

because i'm a stockholder and i don't approve of their pay? The fact that none of these people are essential, and don't deserve this sort of compensation? The fact that these cunts almost wiped my equity?

I'm a stockholder, thats all the justification i need. They aren't entitled to anything.

So, stop being a stockholder?

I'm guessing he is not going to return any profits he made off these stocks in protest.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: nycromes
As to the banks making risky investments, blame and responsibility rests squarely on the banks shoulders.

Both parties dropped the ball in the cases where this has occurred, everyone needs to stop defending one group or the other and start demanding action/accountability from both sides. Unfortunately, it would be very difficult to get any action out of either group as they do not seem concerned with any of this.

While it's plain to see that Congress has not done jackshit to improve or update the regulations on their end, is there any hard evidence to suggest that the banks are still making overly risky investments such as those that brought the economy to its knees?