Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Andrew Stephens · Dec 17, 2008, 04:40 PM

An investment bank is given $6 billion by a government bail out scheme. If the company proceeds to loose $1.7 billion in three months how much does it pay out in annual bonuses?

Answer $4.25 billion. Guess some banks have some more hard learnin' to do.

Screw em I say.

Uncle Skeleton · Dec 17, 2008, 04:52 PM

What a waste...

...that the last 0.05 billion wasn't also put into bonuses. Bonus-wasters.

turtle777 · Dec 17, 2008, 05:08 PM

Unfreakingbelievable.

However, AFAIK, those bonus payments have been contractually agreed upon years ago, so they can't just be singlehandedly cut by GS.

-t

Dakar V · Dec 17, 2008, 05:10 PM

I still don't get how it's a bonus if the damn thing is guaranteed.

Laminar · Dec 17, 2008, 07:00 PM

Is it taxed differently because it's a bonus? If it's guaranteed, why not build it into the salary?

turtle777 · Dec 17, 2008, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

I still don't get how it's a bonus if the damn thing is guaranteed.

Who said a bonus has to be performance related ?

Heck, if it was about performance, half of Wall Street's CEOs would have to PAY money to come to work.

-t

Uncle Skeleton · Dec 17, 2008, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Who said a bonus has to be performance related ?

The dictionary does, for one. From OS X's built-in:

bonus |ˈbōnəs|
noun
a payment or gift added to what is usual or expected, in particular See note at present.
• an amount of money added to wages on a seasonal basis, esp. as a reward for good performance : big Christmas bonuses.
• something welcome and often unexpected that accompanies and enhances something that is itself good : good weather is an added bonus but the real appeal is the landscape.

half of Wall Street's CEOs would have to PAY money to come to work.

Sounds alright to me

RAILhead · Dec 17, 2008, 08:12 PM

You have the option to have 401k taken out of a bonus, for one thing.

Dakar V · Dec 17, 2008, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Who said a bonus has to be performance related ?

Common sense.

turtle777 · Dec 17, 2008, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

Common sense.

Oh shuddup. I hate when people bring common sense into play.

-t

Dakar V · Dec 17, 2008, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Oh shuddup. I hate when people bring common sense into play.

-t

Sounds like you'd fit in at Goldman-Sachs, then.

stumblinmike · Dec 17, 2008, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Unfreakingbelievable.

However, AFAIK, those bonus payments have been contractually agreed upon years ago, so they can't just be singlehandedly cut by GS.

-t

Yea, not like those UAW contracts...whoops, never mind....

Mithras · Dec 17, 2008, 11:34 PM

Also, on Bloomberg News: Goldman Sachs pays 1% effective income tax in 2008. Last year it was 34%, but they did a better job of keeping funds offshore this year.

Last year: $6 billion in taxes.
This year: $14 million in taxes, $10 billion from taxpayers, and $2.3 billion profit.

Nice job, guys.

Andrew Stephens · Dec 18, 2008, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Unfreakingbelievable.

However, AFAIK, those bonus payments have been contractually agreed upon years ago, so they can't just be singlehandedly cut by GS.

-t

Sure you can, if it was me I'd say see me in court. However since the people with the authority to cut the bonuses are the people actually receiving the bonuses...

It should have been a cast iron condition of any bail out, take government money and zero bonuses for ten years. If you don't need the money that badly, don't take it, and fold.

However, as Lehmans proved, even if the company effectively folds there's still money salted away for bonuses.

I think the world needs to wake up to just how rapacious and greedy these f***ers are, and how much damage they have caused to us all.

osiris · Dec 18, 2008, 10:59 AM

Unf'ingbelievable... these pigs should be drawn and quartered.

Dakar V · Dec 18, 2008, 11:06 AM

I'd be curious to see that 4.25 Billion broken in down into individual bonuses.

osiris · Dec 18, 2008, 11:09 AM

I suppose this is why the bailout details were kept 'secret' and without ANY strings attached.

tie · Dec 18, 2008, 12:13 PM

Are people really outraged about this? What kind of bonuses did you expect to see? I agree that it might be fun to see what it looks like broken up into individual bonuses. From the company's perspective, certainly whoever managed to get the government money, with no strings attached, deserves a big fraction of it as a bonus.

olePigeon · Dec 18, 2008, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Who said a bonus has to be performance related ?

Heck, if it was about performance, half of Wall Street's CEOs would have to PAY money to come to work.

-t

I actually agree with turtle on something.

Dakar V · Dec 18, 2008, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I actually agree with turtle on something.

Isn't this why we have salaries, though? So you get guaranteed compensation regardless of the outcome of your work? Also, when was the last time you could get a bonus lower than zero?

What they're getting aren't bonuses so much as deferred lump-sum payments.

olePigeon · Dec 18, 2008, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by tie

Are people really outraged about this?

Ask any classified worker and certified staff at a school. "Double up" classes when 1/2 the teachers get fired. 60 to 70 kids per class? Unbelievable. I have a bad feeling that schools will just be shut down until funding resumes.

olePigeon · Dec 18, 2008, 02:45 PM

When this is over, the execs at AIG, Goldman, etc. need to head to Federal Prison with all that money given back to the tax payers, even (especially) if it means taking it directly from those Execs.

tie · Dec 18, 2008, 04:37 PM

Sorry, I don't see what the crime is. We gave them the money with no strings attached, after all.

turtle777 · Dec 18, 2008, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by tie

Sorry, I don't see what the crime is. We gave them the money with no strings attached, after all.

Yes, that is the unfortunate truth.

I truly hope Bush doesn't bail out Detroit. Can you imagine those managers pocketing even more money, despite their epic failure to manage their companies well ?

-t

Dakar V · Dec 18, 2008, 07:25 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...qcs&refer=home

Compare & Contrast.

Uncle Skeleton · Dec 18, 2008, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by tie

Sorry, I don't see what the crime is. We gave them the money with no strings attached, after all.

Fraud, extortion, racketeering, you name it. The problem isn't coming up with crimes, it's making them stick. For example, I'm sure there are a dozen ways to use the Patriot Act to pin something on each and every one of them. It's all a matter of perspective... my perspective is that while this sort of stretching the law to fit the will of the people is distasteful (just as distasteful as what the current administration has done wrt to the war on terror), I can't really fault people for trying to do it (the same way I can't really fault the current administration for their efforts; they thought they were on the right side, they were just wrong about that). The ends wouldn't justify the means, but the ends are understandable nonetheless.

turtle777 · Dec 18, 2008, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...qcs&refer=home

Clever. I hope more banks do that.

-t