Wall street ontrack to reward record pay

[Special K]

Originally posted by: 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?

I'm not sure you would ever see any hard evidence until it was too late. Wasn't one of the major contributing factors to the so-called credit crisis the fact that nobody knew what assets banks were holding off the books, and/or how to value them?

It's not like people were worried about a housing bubble/recession during 2002-2005, even though that's when most of the risky investments were being created. That stuff didn't really make the news until it was too late.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: spidey07
They made the banks money. They deserve a cut of the revenue they brought in. Stop the jealousy and think logically.

Think logically??? When it was those assholes that almost brought down the western world with unparalleled greed? They screwed the tax payer out of billions on top of it without the courtesy of a reach around. The worst part of it is the resistance of Washington to incorporate any meaningful change because those assholes are right back doing the same reckless practices. :roll:

Yeah, none of this had to do with the borrowers. I forgot, the banks forced the borrowers to sign all sorts of loan docs.

Isn't it the banks job to put a price on risk and limit their (the banks) exposure to it? And for the most part, the homeowners that made dumb choices had to take their medicine (foreclosure/bankruptcy) while the taxpayer had to take the banks medicine. Sounds like a fucked up deal to me but what do I know.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: spidey07
They made the banks money. They deserve a cut of the revenue they brought in. Stop the jealousy and think logically.

Think logically??? When it was those assholes that almost brought down the western world with unparalleled greed? They screwed the tax payer out of billions on top of it without the courtesy of a reach around. The worst part of it is the resistance of Washington to incorporate any meaningful change because those assholes are right back doing the same reckless practices. :roll:

Yeah, none of this had to do with the borrowers. I forgot, the banks forced the borrowers to sign all sorts of loan docs.

I am not insinuating that the banks are the only people who got us in this mess but if you made a mistake at your job that cost people BILLIONS of dollars would you get a bonus let alone even have a fucking job?

I doubt it.

Are you kidding? Those people made a bunch of people trillions of dollars and when the shit hit the fan they got the taxpayers to cover the tab. To top it off, even though a lot of people committed fraud while making all that money, I haven't heard of a single indictment. The people that masterminded it are freakin geniuses if you ask me. They got the money and they got away with it.

The sad part is, we are being manipulated so that we don't demand people go to jail for breaking the law. Rampant fraud in the banking industry is going on right now but very few people are calling for investigations. Hardly anyone is calling their reps about it but I bet a bunch of people get all pissed off about this nonsense even though its pennies compared to the other. Manipulation... and we are dumb enough to fall for it.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: spidey07
They made the banks money. They deserve a cut of the revenue they brought in. Stop the jealousy and think logically.

Wow. Really?

They made the banks money...on the backs of the American taxpayer.

Which isn't to say that TARP wasn't necessary to keep the banking system from falling into an abyss. The fact that TARP benefited many of the banks, investment banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, trusts (that played a big role in getting us into the mess) a lot is just a necessary evil.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: spidey07
They made the banks money. They deserve a cut of the revenue they brought in. Stop the jealousy and think logically.

Think logically??? When it was those assholes that almost brought down the western world with unparalleled greed? They screwed the tax payer out of billions on top of it without the courtesy of a reach around. The worst part of it is the resistance of Washington to incorporate any meaningful change because those assholes are right back doing the same reckless practices. :roll:

Yeah, none of this had to do with the borrowers. I forgot, the banks forced the borrowers to sign all sorts of loan docs.

I am not insinuating that the banks are the only people who got us in this mess but if you made a mistake at your job that cost people BILLIONS of dollars would you get a bonus let alone even have a fucking job?

I doubt it.

Are you kidding? Those people made a bunch of people trillions of dollars and when the shit hit the fan they got the taxpayers to cover the tab. To top it off, even though a lot of people committed fraud while making all that money, I haven't heard of a single indictment. The people that masterminded it are freakin geniuses if you ask me. They got the money and they got away with it.

The sad part is, we are being manipulated so that we don't demand people go to jail for breaking the law. Rampant fraud in the banking industry is going on right now but very few people are calling for investigations. Hardly anyone is calling their reps about it but I bet a bunch of people get all pissed off about this nonsense even though its pennies compared to the other. Manipulation... and we are dumb enough to fall for it.

Umm and what does this have to do with my reply?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Yeah, none of this had to do with the borrowers. I forgot, the banks forced the borrowers to sign all sorts of loan docs.

Isn't it the banks job to put a price on risk and limit their (the banks) exposure to it? And for the most part, the homeowners that made dumb choices had to take their medicine (foreclosure/bankruptcy) while the taxpayer had to take the banks medicine. Sounds like a fucked up deal to me but what do I know.

Banks, probably not.

Now, the very under-regulated non-banks, who knows?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

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?

look, everyone knows that congress hasn't done shit about it. when are you going to acknowledge that banks paid them not to do anything?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

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?

look, everyone knows that congress hasn't done shit about it. when are you going to acknowledge that banks paid them not to do anything?

Again, the blame falls on Congress for accepting those payments to do nothing constructive or effective to address the real issues.

After all, the banks can't be expected to regulate themselves when the Government has made it quite clear that doing so is their job.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

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.

bankers wages are not being determined by normal supply and demand, there is alot of cronyism in the pay and bonus systems, and no real way to hold them accountable. Much of the nations equity wealth is held through mutual funds and banks, and often exercise those shareholder rights to scratch each others backs.

If the smart bankers (who did such a fantastic job btw) leave the industry, i think we would be better off. Finance should be a simple and boring industry, it was that way for a long time and it worked well. Finance in its modern version seems to be behaving much like a racket

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 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.

i made money off the stocks i own precisely because these people are so terrible at their jobs, there was no sense in letting someone else make money of it if noone is going to fix the system.

before i bought them, i was advocating nationalizing both of them, when i realized it wasn't going to happen i jumped in.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

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?

look, everyone knows that congress hasn't done shit about it. when are you going to acknowledge that banks paid them not to do anything?

Again, the blame falls on Congress for accepting those payments to do nothing constructive or effective to address the real issues.

After all, the banks can't be expected to regulate themselves when the Government has made it quite clear that doing so is their job.

you can still realize that the banks are shmucks and only making the situation worse.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

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.

bankers wages are not being determined by normal supply and demand, there is alot of cronyism in the pay and bonus systems, and no real way to hold them accountable. Much of the nations equity wealth is held through mutual funds and banks, and often exercise those shareholder rights to scratch each others backs.

Good luck trying to change the direction and practices of the global banking industry. Gimping the U.S. firms would do nothing to effect the direction and practices of the entire banking world -- all it would do is effectively destroy the U.S. segment of the industry.

Is that your goal?

If the smart bankers (who did such a fantastic job btw) leave the industry, i think we would be better off. Finance should be a simple and boring industry, it was that way for a long time and it worked well. Finance in its modern version seems to be behaving much like a racket

When was banking ever "simple and boring"?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

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?

look, everyone knows that congress hasn't done shit about it. when are you going to acknowledge that banks paid them not to do anything?

Again, the blame falls on Congress for accepting those payments to do nothing constructive or effective to address the real issues.

After all, the banks can't be expected to regulate themselves when the Government has made it quite clear that doing so is their job.

you can still realize that the banks are shmucks and only making the situation worse.

No, I don't realize that. Banks serve a vital role in society. The fact that you expect them to do so for less profit, or none, is your own fantasy, not mine.

As long as they operate within the confines of the law, I have no problem with their compensation or profits. If the law must be changed to restrict some of those practices, then I will rightfully shine the spotlight on those who are responsible for doing so -- Congress. If they fail to act, as they have, then the blame falls squarely on their shoulders, and I will vote accordingly.

The same is true with healthcare -- the current Congress is blowing the opportunity of a lifetime to impose reasonable and effective regulation on an industry that needs it more than ever. When viewed in the same context as their failure to properly address the banking industry, it comes as no surprise that they have once again dropped the ball.

Their consistent failures are a disease with no cure in sight.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
No, I don't realize that. Banks serve a vital role in society. The fact that you expect them to do so for less profit, or none, is your own fantasy, not mine.

banks are serving their roles as banks anymore, at least not the mega-banks. Anyone with a clue can see this. Finance should not be about risk taking, thats contrary to the entire idea of the industry. nowhere did i say they should earn no profit. The excess profits (and pay) of the industry is symptomatic of structural problems in the industry that need to be addressed

As long as they operate within the confines of the law, I have no problem with their compensation or profits. If the law must be changed to restrict some of those practices, then I will rightfully shine the spotlight on those who are responsible for doing so -- Congress. If they fail to act, as they have, then the blame falls squarely on their shoulders, and I will vote accordingly.

you can certainly blame banks of obfuscating the debate, stop being an apologist.

The same is true with healthcare -- the current Congress is blowing the opportunity of a lifetime to impose reasonable and effective regulation on an industry that needs it more than ever. When viewed in the same context as their failure to properly address the banking industry, it comes as no surprise that they have once again dropped the ball.

yes, congress is a disaster and needs rethinking from a constitutional level, which is never going to happen

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
This is why I wish I was an investment banker.

Make it happen.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: spidey07
They made the banks money. They deserve a cut of the revenue they brought in. Stop the jealousy and think logically.

Really. So they're ENTITLED to recieve a cut?

I've made my company a lot of money. Does that mean I'm ENTITLED to a cut of the money I've made for my company (above and beyond my salary)?

Sounds like ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY to me, something the 'pubs love to rip on the dems for.

But it's ok to feel entitled if you're a banker. Right.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: spidey07
They made the banks money. They deserve a cut of the revenue they brought in. Stop the jealousy and think logically.

Really. So they're ENTITLED to recieve a cut?

I've made my company a lot of money. Does that mean I'm ENTITLED to a cut of the money I've made for my company (above and beyond my salary)?

Sounds like ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY to me, something the 'pubs love to rip on the dems for.

But it's ok to feel entitled if you're a banker. Right.

EDIT: I'm all for big bonuses, have worked in the financial industry in the past, and they're awesome. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Anyone with a clue can see this.

People who say things like that are usually the ones who are without.

Finance should not be about risk taking, thats contrary to the entire idea of the industry.

LOL... you obviously do not understand finance or business in general -- risk is everything, and always has been. It's when the risks pass a certain ethical threshold that regulation should stop them from going further -- which happens to be exactly what Congress has failed to enact during this entire debacle.

nowhere did i say they should earn no profit. The excess profits (and pay) of the industry is symptomatic of structural problems in the industry that need to be addressed

Please define "excess profits," and explain to me who/what should determine such.

you can certainly blame banks of obfuscating the debate, stop being an apologist.

I do blame banks for obfuscating the debate, but that's not a criminal offense, nor is it a viable excuse for a lack of action by Congress.

yes, congress is a disaster and needs rethinking from a constitutional level, which is never going to happen

On that we can agree. Expecting Congress to self-regulate is just about as ridiculous as expecting banks to do the same.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: spidey07
They made the banks money. They deserve a cut of the revenue they brought in. Stop the jealousy and think logically.

Really. So they're ENTITLED to recieve a cut?

I've made my company a lot of money. Does that mean I'm ENTITLED to a cut of the money I've made for my company (above and beyond my salary)?

Sounds like ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY to me, something the 'pubs love to rip on the dems for.

But it's ok to feel entitled if you're a banker. Right.

Then you're doing something wrong. If you actually make money for your company you usually get a cut or commission. You negotiated poorly.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: spidey07
They made the banks money. They deserve a cut of the revenue they brought in. Stop the jealousy and think logically.

Really. So they're ENTITLED to recieve a cut?

I've made my company a lot of money. Does that mean I'm ENTITLED to a cut of the money I've made for my company (above and beyond my salary)?

Sounds like ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY to me, something the 'pubs love to rip on the dems for.

But it's ok to feel entitled if you're a banker. Right.

It's not that the individual employees are "entitled" to the bonuses, it's that nobody outside the company itself should have the power to make that decision. It's up to the private company to determine what it does with its own wages and profit sharing.

Then again, do you feel "entitled" to a fair wage for your particular profession based on your experience, education, and performance? Well, for bankers, these types of bonuses are a globally determined fair form of compensation for their chosen profession. Would you deny them wages that are equal to that of their global peers?

 

[Nebor]

It's easy to get up in arms over big salaries, but when you look at the value added by these guys, it's probably not so bad.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Anyone with a clue can see this.

People who say things like that are usually the ones who are without.

banks are earning economic profits, a common symptom of broken markets particularly cronyism and monopolistic behavior.

Finance should not be about risk taking, thats contrary to the entire idea of the industry.

LOL... you obviously do not understand finance or business in general -- risk is everything, and always has been. It's when the risks pass a certain ethical threshold that regulation should stop them from going further -- which happens to be exactly what Congress has failed to enact during this entire debacle.

finance is about analyzing, mitigating and spreading risk, not pursuing it

nowhere did i say they should earn no profit. The excess profits (and pay) of the industry is symptomatic of structural problems in the industry that need to be addressed

Please define "excess profits," and explain to me who/what should determine such.

excess (or economic) profits would be determined by the going rate of risk vs return on capital of a given investment, or the opportunity cost. banks have one of the highest returns on capital around, only monopolist industries (ie pharma) have better returns.

Employees clearly aren't earning market wages, people in other more stressful industries requiring greater skill and training earn less money, in spite of an enormous influx of people into the finance industry. Its very difficult to get into high finance, and there is a huge pay difference between those in and those that aren't, and a huge gap in pay. Generally this strongly suggests that there are false impediments to free movement of labor, and the culture of the industry as well as our cultural view of the industry reflects that. Hence not free market wages.

VERY few finance people are essential to their particular job, there are many qualified people who can't get a job in the industry, the place is a known good-ol-boys network with next to no accountability, and you take these sorts of wages to be the outcome of a free markets?

you can certainly blame banks of obfuscating the debate, stop being an apologist.

I do blame banks for obfuscating the debate, but that's not a criminal offense, nor is it a viable excuse for a lack of action by Congress.

not criminal, but its certainly part of the problem. Congress is a mess and they are exploiting it; it might be legal but its certainly bad ethics and certainly not good for either the shareholders or the country.

yes, congress is a disaster and needs rethinking from a constitutional level, which is never going to happen

On that we can agree. Expecting Congress to self-regulate is just about as ridiculous as expecting banks to do the same.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Nebor
It's easy to get up in arms over big salaries, but when you look at the value added by these guys, it's probably not so bad.

That's the thing. That big number winds up being an average of TOTAL compensation of 146K. No reason to turn the jealousy outrage on. If you have the wall street journal app for iPhone you can read the entire article.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: spidey07
They made the banks money. They deserve a cut of the revenue they brought in. Stop the jealousy and think logically.

Really. So they're ENTITLED to recieve a cut?

I've made my company a lot of money. Does that mean I'm ENTITLED to a cut of the money I've made for my company (above and beyond my salary)?

Sounds like ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY to me, something the 'pubs love to rip on the dems for.

But it's ok to feel entitled if you're a banker. Right.

It's not that the individual employees are "entitled" to the bonuses, it's that nobody outside the company itself should have the power to make that decision. It's up to the private company to determine what it does with its own wages and profit sharing.

Then again, do you feel "entitled" to a fair wage for your particular profession based on your experience, education, and performance? Well, for bankers, these types of bonuses are a globally determined fair form of compensation for their chosen profession. Would you deny them wages that are equal to that of their global peers?

again, the employees of the company are not accountable to their shareholders, the people that own the company.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Nebor
It's easy to get up in arms over big salaries, but when you look at the value added by these guys, it's probably not so bad.

the value added my many of these people is probably negative, a large portion of the industry amounts to little more than moving other peoples money around and getting paid for it. Goldman made billions being a brokerage for oil last year during the bubble, that added nothing to society and made a recession worse, and added to the already cyclical problems with investment facing the oil industry.

A few months ago there were a bunch of stories about GS and others making stacks of money by buying getting in between buyers and sellers in split second automatic transactions. This did nothing, had no value in arbitration, and hurt the two entities that were actually involved in the trade.