A Nice Gesture from Wall Street

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:28 pm

You will all be happy to know that the top seven executives at Goldman Sachs will fore go their 2008 bonuses. There you go, a gesture of magnificence in unparalleled proportions. They have each agreed to muddle by on their base salaries of $600,000.

Don't' get me wrong, I am all for paying people what they are worth and based on the value they create even if it is millions, but before you cry a tear for these guys you should also know that last year the CEOs bonus was $68.5 million (but hey since a big part was in stock, he lost money like the rest of us). :yh_rotfl

This gesture was made to make you feel better, to boost confidence in Wall Street. Do you feel better? Just think of all the GM stock you could buy with $600,000.

Just to give you a frame of reference, after taxes he netted only about $29.61 million last year which if invested in a tax free municipal bond fund would yield about $1,110,375 a year or $21,353 a week in tax free income

And you thought it would help the economy to raise taxes on the wealthy. :rolleyes:

And it is not just the Wall Street people who are smart; during the year he was running for President, John Kerry's wife earned $500,000 in tax free income from her municipal bond funds, small time stuff.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:36 pm

B*sterds:mad:

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

qsducks;1061076 wrote: B*sterds:mad:

That's B*stards

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:53 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1061100 wrote: That's B*stards

Whatever, how about scumbags?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:05 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1061057 wrote: You will all be happy to know that the top seven executives at Goldman Sachs will fore go their 2008 bonuses. There you go, a gesture of magnificence in unparalleled proportions. They have each agreed to muddle by on their base salaries of $600,000.

Don't' get me wrong, I am all for paying people what they are worth and based on the value they create even if it is millions, but before you cry a tear for these guys you should also know that last year the CEOs bonus was $68.5 million (but hey since a big part was in stock, he lost money like the rest of us). :yh_rotfl

This gesture was made to make you feel better, to boost confidence in Wall Street. Do you feel better? Just think of all the GM stock you could buy with $600,000.

Just to give you a frame of reference, after taxes he netted only about $29.61 million last year which if invested in a tax free municipal bond fund would yield about $1,110,375 a year or $21,353 a week in tax free income

And you thought it would help the economy to raise taxes on the wealthy. :rolleyes:

And it is not just the Wall Street people who are smart; during the year he was running for President, John Kerry's wife earned $500,000 in tax free income from her municipal bond funds, small time stuff.

I'm very pleased for the folks of America. This must give some of you a little comfort.

Our PM sacked the bank chiefs and the Directors but they did get their bonuses. Having said that, we have such tight regulation on employee's suing Employers that it had to be done. There is no doubt that if the PM had not paid them what they were legally entitled to, the bastrads would have had the slick lawyers in costing the tax payer more money. In our case, it was better to pay them off.. and get rid of them for good.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:11 pm

oh yea..that just made me feel so much better....not!!!!!!

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:11 pm

Here is a idea for a new bonus "structure".

1. If your company makes a profit next year you can get paid, but you don't get bonuses any more, you are already paid an obscene amount of money and its obvious that your not half as bright as we thought, just lucky to be in such a p*ss easy career for making lollly.

2. If your company doesn't make a profit the first year, thats okay, it happens; however you pay back 20 percent of your salary from the year previous out of that year's salary.

3. If it doesn't make a profit in year 2 then its 35 percent.

4. If it doesn't make a profit in year 3 then its 50 percent.

5. If your company doesn't make a profit in year 4 of your tenure you are automatically fired and you owe us the previous 2 years salary payable over 20 years, using your house as collateral.

6. Any money's or share options you accrue will be linked to the 10 year performance of the company whether you work there or not anymore, as will any "golden handjobs" as you leave. If the company goes bust, so will you.

That should sharpen the mind about more responsible "long term decision making". :-6

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:47 pm

Galbally;1061137 wrote: Here is a idea for a new bonus "structure".

1. If your company makes a profit next year you can get paid, but you don't get bonuses any more, you are already paid an obscene amount of money and its obvious that your not half as bright as we thought, just lucky to be in such a p*ss easy career for making lollly.

2. If your company doesn't make a profit the first year, thats okay, it happens; however you pay back 20 percent of your salary from the year previous out of that year's salary.

3. If it doesn't make a profit in year 2 then its 35 percent.

4. If it doesn't make a profit in year 3 then its 50 percent.

5. If your company doesn't make a profit in year 4 of your tenure you are automatically fired and you owe us the previous 2 years salary payable over 20 years, using your house as collateral.

6. Any money's or share options you accrue will be linked to the 10 year performance of the company whether you work there or not anymore, as will any "golden handjobs" as you leave. If the company goes bust, so will you.

That should sharpen the mind about more responsible "long term decision making". :-6

As some one who designed and administered executive incentive compensation plans I can tell you they are a farce and should be eliminated. At best they get people focused on specific things and little more thus missing important opportunities or doing stupid things just to get the money. They are short sighted and unnecessary. People should get a good base pay that is evaluated each year, if they do something extraordinary during the year give them something extra at that point. Any additional compensation should only be as the result of some form of profit sharing which should be available to all employees one way or the other.

wildhorses · Post by **wildhorses** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:17 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1061166 wrote: As some one who designed and administered executive incentive compensation plans I can tell you they are a farce and should be eliminated. At best they get people focused on specific things and little more thus missing important opportunities or doing stupid things just to get the money. They are short sighted and unnecessary. People should get a good base pay that is evaluated each year, if they do something extraordinary during the year give them something extra at that point. Any additional compensation should only be as the result of some form of profit sharing which should be available to all employees one way or the other.

Profit sharing is a pretty good idea. But if the company does well one year and loses money the next....they should have to pay money to the company.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:14 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1061166 wrote: As some one who designed and administered executive incentive compensation plans I can tell you they are a farce and should be eliminated. At best they get people focused on specific things and little more thus missing important opportunities or doing stupid things just to get the money. They are short sighted and unnecessary. People should get a good base pay that is evaluated each year, if they do something extraordinary during the year give them something extra at that point. Any additional compensation should only be as the result of some form of profit sharing which should be available to all employees one way or the other.

I completely agree, I think everyone who is involved in such things recognizes that that kind of model has proven to be a disasterous mistake in the long run. Of course the people getting the money might disagree, but so what.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:29 pm

Galbally;1061635 wrote: I completely agree, I think everyone who is involved in such things recognizes that that kind of model has proven to be a disasterous mistake in the long run. Of course the people getting the money might disagree, but so what.

Blimey, your up early galbally. Good morning to you :-6