Absolutely outrageous !

[lawgator1]

This guy Thain is why the Democrats won. Call it class-warfare to point out what's wrong with this picture all you want, but handing out $4 billion dollars in bonuses (that's billion with a "b") as your company goes under such that a bank has to get billions in federal dollars is just freaking inconceivable.

But the average guy out there knows this kind of thing goes on and it is infuriating.

Former Merrill CEO Thain resigns from BofA - CNBC TV- msnbc.com

I am finally, btw, seeing some outrage on such things from the fiscal conservatives who might have to now admit that free markets (unregulated) do not always work in this country as the purists might wish to believe simply because the shennanigans are allowed to continue like this.

[cd12]

This is not Dems vs Repubs! Everyones hands got dirty on this issue.

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

This guy Thain is why the Democrats won. Call it class-warfare to point out what's wrong with this picture all you want, but handing out $4 billion dollars in bonuses (that's billion with a "b") as your company goes under such that a bank has to get billions in federal dollars is just freaking inconceivable.

But the average guy out there knows this kind of thing goes on and it is infuriating.

Former Merrill CEO Thain resigns from BofA - CNBC TV- msnbc.com

I am finally, btw, seeing some outrage on such things from the fiscal conservatives who might have to now admit that free markets (unregulated) do not always work in this country as the purists might wish to believe simply because the shennanigans are allowed to continue like this.

I fail to see how this boosts your argument against markets without government interference...???

[joevol320]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

This guy Thain is why the Democrats won. Call it class-warfare to point out what's wrong with this picture all you want, but handing out $4 billion dollars in bonuses (that's billion with a "b") as your company goes under such that a bank has to get billions in federal dollars is just freaking inconceivable.

But the average guy out there knows this kind of thing goes on and it is infuriating.

Former Merrill CEO Thain resigns from BofA - CNBC TV- msnbc.com

I am finally, btw, seeing some outrage on such things from the fiscal conservatives who might have to now admit that free markets (unregulated) do not always work in this country as the purists might wish to believe simply because the shennanigans are allowed to continue like this.

so you're saying government should control any bonuses given? maybe we should all get paid the exact same, no matter what experiance or what education level. let the socialism start now.

what is the difference with that and lawyers getting paid 400-500 an hour.

it's not about unregulatd markets, it's about no oversite. there is big difference.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by cd12

This is not Dems vs Repubs! Everyones hands got dirty on this issue.

Yes, but my point is that while the Republicans oppose the bailout because of the notion of free market forces versus government interference, most Democrats are starting to wonder where is all this freaking money going, anyway?

Well, and granted this is a bit after the fact, but if you throw around $4 billion in intentionally early bonuses, to beat the wrath coming down for the firesale of your company, which is in turn enabled only by the government lending the buyer the dough to buy it, these bonuses in my mind were basically paid after the fact with tax dollars.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by joevol320

so you're saying government should control any bonuses given? maybe we should all get paid the exact same, no matter what experiance or what education level. let the socialism start now.

what is the difference with that and lawyers getting paid 400-500 an hour.

it's not about unregulatd markets, it's about no oversite. there is big difference.

I was equating regulation with oversight in this instance.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

This guy Thain is why the Democrats won. Call it class-warfare to point out what's wrong with this picture all you want, but handing out $4 billion dollars in bonuses (that's billion with a "b") as your company goes under such that a bank has to get billions in federal dollars is just freaking inconceivable.

But the average guy out there knows this kind of thing goes on and it is infuriating.

Former Merrill CEO Thain resigns from BofA - CNBC TV- msnbc.com

I am finally, btw, seeing some outrage on such things from the fiscal conservatives who might have to now admit that free markets (unregulated) do not always work in this country as the purists might wish to believe simply because the shennanigans are allowed to continue like this.

The enormous likelihood is that Thain is a liberal democrat, as are many who have finally made enough cash to stop worrying about tax bills.

Secondly, bonuses are the pay at places like Merrill. People aren't there for the salaries. The salaries are very high, but people are working for the February lick, period. You don't pay the analysts that drive sales or the corp. fin guys that bring in the high margin revenues, they go away.

You'd probably be shocked at the bonuses that Goldman paid this year, in an awful earnings year.

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Thain was rumored to be McCains Treasury Sec

and BTW...

He is now unemployed

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

I was equating regulation with oversight in this instance.

But the oversight that guys like you and Obama are referencing is pointed toward this overblown corporate "greed," which apparently caused all these problems.

The mortgage market was simply in the middle of enormous demand on both sides and came out with products that answered both sides. The lax underwriting that existed was failure on all sides. Borrowers overextending, underwriters thinking insurance could solve all ills and buyers taking trash combined caused this disaster.

I guarantee you that this is a long term lesson for mortgage buyers in this country.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

The enormous likelihood is that Thain is a liberal democrat, as are many who have finally made enough cash to stop worrying about tax bills.

Secondly, bonuses are the pay at places like Merrill. People aren't there for the salaries. The salaries are very high, but people are working for the February lick, period. You don't pay the analysts that drive sales or the corp. fin guys that bring in the high margin revenues, they go away.

You'd probably be shocked at the bonuses that Goldman paid this year, in an awful earnings year.

Well, how much are we talking about here? A salary of $200,000 with a bonus structure up to $50 million? And how is it that a bonus of eight figures can be justified in the context of a company going out of business like that? I mean, shouldn't the bonuses be tied at least in part to the ability to pay them without having to be bailed out with tax dollars?

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Well, how much are we talking about here? A salary of $200,000 with a bonus structure up to $50 million? And how is it that a bonus of eight figures can be justified in the context of a company going out of business like that? I mean, shouldn't the bonuses be tied at least in part to the ability to pay them without having to be bailed out with tax dollars?

I suspect the bonuses are meted out within departments, depending upon department profitability.

Your typical NYC Managing Director in a decent corp. fin. shop knocks down $350-$500 in salary and several million in bonuses. Average Goldman MD bonus while I was around was roughly $5 million. Our shop was about the same. During the tech boom, hordes of them were knocking down $10 million in bonuses.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

I suspect the bonuses are meted out within departments, depending upon department profitability.

Your typical NYC Managing Director in a decent corp. fin. shop knocks down $350-$500 in salary and several million in bonuses. Average Goldman MD bonus while I was around was roughly $5 million. Our shop was about the same. During the tech boom, hordes of them were knocking down $10 million in bonuses.

Its arguably a bit greedy, but that's a moral judgment for others, not for me.

My complaint is that the bonuses were hurried along, in evident anticipation of the sale, which was ultimately bankrolled by you and me. So, whatever the buyer got was worth $4 billion less than it would have been had the bonuses been withheld and in the end that's money out of our pockets and into theirs.

Where am I going wrong on that?

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Its arguably a bit greedy, but that's a moral judgment for others, not for me.

My complaint is that the bonuses were hurried along, in evident anticipation of the sale, which was ultimately bankrolled by you and me. So, whatever the buyer got was worth $4 billion less than it would have been had the bonuses been withheld and in the end that's money out of our pockets and into theirs.

Where am I going wrong on that?

it was funded by you and I because there were no stipulations on use of funds. That was absolute failure on the committee's part.

If the bonuses had been withheld, the professionals would likely have moved on. Without those professionals, many of the departments in an Ibank simply don't exist.

I don't know about the greedy end. We worked in 3 and 4 person teams on 6-10 deals per year. Average fee was probably $10 million (I'm hedging low because I don't remember).

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

it was funded by you and I because there were no stipulations on use of funds. That was absolute failure on the committee's part.

If the bonuses had been withheld, the professionals would likely have moved on. Without those professionals, many of the departments in an Ibank simply don't exist.

I don't know about the greedy end. We worked in 3 and 4 person teams on 6-10 deals per year. Average fee was probably $10 million (I'm hedging low because I don't remember).

I'm not arguing that the deals did not generate large fees and commissions. I am arguing that the ultimate use of tax dollars to subsidize enormous bonuses for people who ran a bank as it failed and had to be bailed out is a wee bit bothersome to me.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

I'm not arguing that the deals did not generate large fees and commissions. I am arguing that the ultimate use of tax dollars to subsidize enormous bonuses for people who ran a bank as it failed and had to be bailed out is a wee bit bothersome to me.

I would like to think the bonuses went to those executing deals and not those lobbying for the bonuses, who allocated the capital to the departments that lost all of the money.