Posted on 01/09/2010 12:04:18 PM PST by TopQuark
The bank bonus season, that annual rite of big money and bigger egos, begins in earnest this week, and it looks as if it will be one of the largest and most controversial blowouts the industry has ever seen.
Bank executives are grappling with a question that exasperates, even infuriates, many recession-weary Americans: Just how big should their paydays be? Despite calls for restraint from Washington and a chafed public, resurgent banks are preparing to pay out bonuses that rival those of the boom years. The haul, in cash and stock, will run into many billions of dollars. .
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Sadly, great many conservatives on this forum share these feelings with the socialists.
Industry executives acknowledge that the numbers being tossed around — six-, seven- and even eight-figure sums for some chief executives and top producers — will probably stun the many Americans still hurting from the financial collapse and ensuing Great Recession.
Goldman Sachs is expected to pay its employees an average of about $595,000 apiece for 2009, one of the most profitable years in its 141-year history. Workers in the investment bank of JPMorgan Chase stand to collect about $463,000 on average.
Many executives are bracing for more scrutiny of pay from Washington, as well as from officials like Andrew M. Cuomo, the attorney general of New York, who last year demanded that banks disclose details about their bonus payments. Some bankers worry that the United States, like Britain, might create an extra tax on bank bonuses, and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, is proposing legislation to do so.
I obviously placed the URL into a wrong line. The title is
“For Top Bonuses on Wall Street, 7 Figures or 8?”
Could you please fix it?
Has Goldman paid back all the Goverment money they were granted under TARP yet?
Then it is this
An oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) (oligocracy) is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military, or religious hegemony. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγος olígos) and "rule" (ἀρχή arkhē). Such states are often controlled by politically powerful families whose children are heavily conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy. Therefore China would be a communist oligarchy style of governmen
No, without these people it is an oligarchy.
Anyone can become a top trader & earn the big paydays if they are capable.
“power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal,...”
does not apply. This is classic leftist ploy: play people off against a small group & blame societies ills on them.
It’s got NOTHING to do with what money they borrowed UNLESS there were specific clauses forbidding certain things. If there were not, it has NOTHING to do with it.
Or as Ayn Rand put it, the aristocracy of pull. In Chicago it would be the aristocracy of clout.
As a shareholder of many of these banks through index funds, I can say it stinks. Although they had some what of a nice recovery this year after the near death experience, the stocks are still way down in most cases.
As a taxpayer, these guys would be shining shoes if it weren't for the TARP money and trading their way out of the problem they created..
Heads, they win. Tails, you pay.
Back in June.
Yeah, we shouldn't pay Congressman until they stop wasting taxpayer money.
Yes
Unfortunately, I find myself agreeing with Robert Reich about breaking up the big banks. No way should high risk taking be intertwined with FDIC banking.
All those banks holding all those mortgages. What were they thinking? They should have held something safe like.......um.....uh......what should they have held?
Mortgages that were somewhat likely to be repaid. Countrywide would still be around if they hadn't gone hog wild and loaned money to people only capable of fogging a mirror.
Mortgages that were somewhat likely to be repaid.
Like investors should only buy stocks that are going to go up?
You know not all banks originated sub prime liar loans? Not all losses were from sub prime liar loans?
If they weren't heavily involved with sub prime loans, they are more likely to still be in business. All the big financial institutions that got into trouble were heavily involved with sub prime. Citi had something like 55b in sub prime write downs and losses..
I don’t begrude them bonuses, but I would like to know just what they did to deserve them. If the taxpayers hadn’t bailed them out, they wouldn’t even have a draw.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.