AIG

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Why is it the middle class and poor are always the first to have to sacrifice, no matter what the problem is?

They don't have power. In most situation, the more power you have, the less you will have to sacrifice.

[classicman]

Not just the finance industry. Bonuses are common in many others as well. In this case they were retention payments, not bonuses. That buzzword created all this outrage over virtually nothing. There are many more and much larger payments scheduled in other organizations.
Everyone knew these were on the books. There were no surprises, just a bunch of bureaucrats covering their asses when the public got outraged.

Look to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, both in charge of oversight on these matters. Certainly they have all the answers to the whys and hows of all this. After all, thats what we pay them for. If they pull their collective heads out of their asses long enough, just ask them.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Not just the finance industry. Bonuses are common in many others as well.

Funny. I worked in many productive operations. Bonuses occur only when the entire company is productive. The message is out. Bonuses are not deserved only because the employee's salary is not high enough. It is not about what is common. It’s about people who are typically not productive (finance people) who then take massive rewards for being part of that non-productive operation.

But again, is the purpose of the company its profits - or being a productive entity in America? Obviously the latter.

So Nardelli who was running Home Depot into the ground took a $200 million bonus (or whatever you want to call it). Or Thain manipulates bonuses so that Merril Lynch employees get bonuses provided by Tarp money and before the BoA takeover. Clearly these employees and CEO who did so much harm to America deserved them. classicman tells us they deserve to be paid more than doctors, scientists, engineers, and farmers because ... he does not say. Soundbyte logic with a left right dichotomy that would instead blame Barney Franks.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

Not just the finance industry. Bonuses are common in many others as well. In this case they were retention payments, not bonuses.

Who cares what you call them?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Not just the finance industry. Bonuses are common in many others as well. In this case they were retention payments, not bonuses. That buzzword created all this outrage over virtually nothing. There are many more and much larger payments scheduled in other organizations.
Everyone knew these were on the books. There were no surprises, just a bunch of bureaucrats covering their asses when the public got outraged.

Look to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, both in charge of oversight on these matters. Certainly they have all the answers to the whys and hows of all this. After all, thats what we pay them for. If they pull their collective heads out of their asses long enough, just ask them.

They renamed them "retention awards" because they knew this was going to a problem.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

They renamed them "retention bonuses" because they knew this was going to a problem.

Who cares what they call them? "Bonuses", "Retention Payments", etc. It's all crap, just another way to hand our tax money over to rich bastards for being failures.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

They renamed them "retention awards" because they knew this was going to a problem.

While I share your outrage that Wall Street is maintaining their entitlement attitude, and MY money is being thrown around by the bushel to people that have been overpaid for years, I believe the original contracts were written as retention payments, and bonuses is a description the press substituted thinking very few people would know what retention bonuses are.

[classicman]

Obviously tw has no idea what the purpose of these retention payments were.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Obviously tw has no idea what the purpose of these retention payments were.

Obviously classicman is so driven by left right dichotomy as to blame Barney Franks. classicman needs any excuse to post attacks rather than deal with the topic. But then extremists were never really known to understand anything but a political agenda. Clearly employees that subvert the American economy deserve bonuses when people who work in productive companies do not.

Or maybe we should post as classicman always does. Only someone dumb would not understand that thieve don’t deserve wealth. Rather complicated for one with extremist ethics.

Companies pay retention payments when someone cannot be replaced. That does not exist in those AIG divisions. But Limbaugh forgot to mention that part where the responsible people were fired for being too cautious.

[lookout123]

TGRR and Sugarpop... just wow. Either you are willfully ignorant and choose not to look beyond the soundbyte fluff of the story or you truly do not understand even the first thing about profitability.

I may disagree with TW on nearly everything but he understands something the two of you cannot grasp. Profitable companies make a profit that people want and are willing to pay for. In order to maintain future profitability they must have processes established to make profitability likely. Part of the process is making sure that people who have done their job and have proven to be a net asset (moneymaker) must be compensated for the value they bring. If a broker brings $25,000,000 profit to a firm in a 12 month period it would certainly seem logical compensating him his expected $2,500,000 so that he will also do it next year and the year after. If you don't, they will go across the street, receive a $5,000,000 check, and take their business with them. Giving bonuses to the unproductive employee would be foolish but that isn't how brokerage operations work. Bonuses are based upon production numbers.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But wasn't that $25,000,000 profit all smoke and mirrors... a perceived increase in wealth, along with trillions more, that disappeared in a heartbeat when the wizard was exposed?

Much of that profit was created out of irrational exuberance caused by people believing phony spread sheets and worthless derivatives were creating wealth, when i fact it was setting the worldwide financial web up for a fall... except The Bank of North Dakota.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But wasn't that $25,000,000 profit all smoke and mirrors... a perceived increase in wealth, along with trillions more, that disappeared in a heartbeat when the wizard was exposed?

Much of that profit was created out of irrational exuberance caused by people believing phony spread sheets and worthless derivatives were creating wealth, when i fact it was setting the worldwide financial web up for a fall... except The Bank of North Dakota.

We're talking about the brokers. a.k.a. financial planners, advisors, shiny shoe whores. Brokers gather client assets, build financial plans, and invest according to those plans. They can either charge fees or commissions but not both. Those fees and commissions are what is termed production. If a broker (or team) had $25,000,000 in production but worked as an employee of the firm they would expect to receive the lion's share of that as compensation. If they didn't they would simply go independent and keep 90-95% of that $25,000,000 for themselves and their staff. The firm had damn well better make being an employee an attractive proposition to a guy like that.

Most successful brokers at a firm like that should be producing in the $600K to $2M range. These people make the money so you'd better keep them happy. Just like if you owned a high end trendy restaurant that was THE place to be because the chef is a major draw. Then you realize customers were leaving unhappy because the wait staff sucked. You don't fire the chef because you had a bad wait staff that screwed things up. You get rid of the crap and you do what it takes to keep that chef happy while you fix the rest of the business.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by lookout123

We're talking about the brokers. a.k.a. financial planners, advisors, shiny shoe whores. Brokers gather client assets, build financial plans, and invest according to those plans. ~snip

OK, thanks.

Myself, being part of the "you wouldn't understand" group, hears "broker" and thinks the guy that's licensed to buy and sell stocks or commodities for clients. Hollywood tells me they do call clients on their list and offer information (hot tips) on what appears to be opportunities; 1-out of the goodness of their hearts or 2-more trades equals more commissions.

I thought financial planners/advisers (third option intentionally omitted), were the ones that look at the whole financial position of their clients and recommend strategies to make their money grow safely. That might include a number of financial instruments other than just stocks and commodities the "brokers" sell.

Apparently Hollywood lied to me.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by lookout123

TGRR and Sugarpop... just wow. Either you are willfully ignorant and choose not to look beyond the soundbyte fluff of the story or you truly do not understand even the first thing about profitability.

I may disagree with TW on nearly everything but he understands something the two of you cannot grasp. Profitable companies make a profit that people want and are willing to pay for. In order to maintain future profitability they must have processes established to make profitability likely. Part of the process is making sure that people who have done their job and have proven to be a net asset (moneymaker) must be compensated for the value they bring. If a broker brings $25,000,000 profit to a firm in a 12 month period it would certainly seem logical compensating him his expected $2,500,000 so that he will also do it next year and the year after. If you don't, they will go across the street, receive a $5,000,000 check, and take their business with them. Giving bonuses to the unproductive employee would be foolish but that isn't how brokerage operations work. Bonuses are based upon production numbers.

I understand all of that, CM. There's no need to be a condescending twat.

But I also understand that AIG, etc, are NOT profitable, and they are surviving on the public tit. As such, no "retention payments" are warranted in any case. You want them to have these "retention payments", take up a collection for the poor bastards. They don't need to take it out of my taxes.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

TGRR and Sugarpop... just wow. Either you are willfully ignorant and choose not to look beyond the soundbyte fluff of the story or you truly do not understand even the first thing about profitability.

I may disagree with TW on nearly everything but he understands something the two of you cannot grasp. Profitable companies make a profit that people want and are willing to pay for. In order to maintain future profitability they must have processes established to make profitability likely. Part of the process is making sure that people who have done their job and have proven to be a net asset (moneymaker) must be compensated for the value they bring. If a broker brings $25,000,000 profit to a firm in a 12 month period it would certainly seem logical compensating him his expected $2,500,000 so that he will also do it next year and the year after. If you don't, they will go across the street, receive a $5,000,000 check, and take their business with them. Giving bonuses to the unproductive employee would be foolish but that isn't how brokerage operations work. Bonuses are based upon production numbers.

And what you don't get, is that this company lost more than any company in the history of the world last quarter. THEY DIDN'T MAKE A PROFIT, THEY LOST MONEY. NO ONE who works there deserves a bonus. SORRY. The people who drove the company into the ground ruined it for everyone who works there.