Goldman Sachs ready to hand out £7bn salary and bonus package… after its £6bn bail-out
A Financial “expert” ,Paulson is running it. He made a mere 750 million in swaps and working at Goldman. We always let the thieves who robbed us to fix the messes they make. Somehow they are experts. Now we can trust them. They have advanced degrees in complex and exciting ways to create banking theft. You can not expect such important people to go to work for a mere million or so a month. Not worth calling a limo to go to work. They need huge bonuses to make them feel they are appreciated. I would feel horrible if they felt sad.
I agree that using Government bail-out money for bonuses is ludicrous.
So of course is paying bonuses when your efforts have bankrupted the company.
Even if you’re in a different department, you should get no bonus (and can blame the department who lost so much for your misfortune).
You just have to laugh. What a looting. It makes The Joker look like Gandhi.
I’m starting to think this will be remembered in history as the greatest confidence scam of all time.
So, these guys make the big bucks because they make the “big decisions” that have serious “consequences”.
But if they make the wrong “big decision” they still get to stuff their parachutes with as much loot as they can.
Wow. That makes so much sense.
-Joe
These people should face criminal penalties in my opinion. They’re nothing but crooks.
Its called Privatizing Profits while Socializing Losses. That’s us, halfassed socialists. We get the worst of both worlds…
Bob Dylan said it best 40 years ago, “Steal a little and they throw you in jail, Steal a lot and they make you a king”.
No. Andrew Jackson said it best 172 years ago:
“Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.”
On the plus side, it’s been so bad a backlash may well happen. I imagine candidates running against Wall Street would be pretty successful right about now.
I’m going to try to play Devil’s Advocate and explain why this isn’t as bad as it seems.
OK. I got nuttin’.
This makes sense to me. If you want the all stars in these positions, these are the kind of perks they demand.
You mean the all-stars who just drove the company to near bankruptcy? Why the heck would you want them?
I was trying to be funny because that’s the line that’s always thrown out when discussing executive compensation. I wouldn’t be saddened to have many of them imprisoned or killed.
Ok. You win, that was better.
To be fair to Goldman Sachs, they were one of the companies that didn’t bet the farm on the housing market, in fact they in general invested wisely. So they aren’t being affected by their own problems so much as their national situation.
Yeah, but IMO if they are sucking off the national bail-out teat, they should forego perks such as bonuses, or raises (at least raises exceeding COL).
Yeah, and when they get to power who will they work for? Joe the Plumber or Mr. Moneybags?
This just makes me furious. And the thing is, money is fungible, so I don’t see how a bank can pay any bonuses and not have it come out of the bailout money one way or another. The only way to deal with this is no bonuses, no raises, no nuthin’. And let’s not forget dividends. Lots and lots of dividends.
Time to build a nice whitewashed wall on Wall Street and start handing out blindfolds and cigarettes. They need to be taught that there are consequences to their actions, and it looks like nothing short of a decimation will do that.
That’s actually true. GS is, for the most part, innocent in the real estate meltdown.
But it’s irrelevant to this issue. The problem is that a responsibly owned firm that is acting in its long term interests doesn’t act like THIS. Billions of dollars in executive bonuses when the company is inarguably in dire straits is just plain looting.
My wife’s company has had a very rough time. It wasn’t anyone’s fault; they sell a semi-luxury good with a very high elasticity of demand in the U.S. market, so the faltering economy has slashed revenues. So they laid some people off and have put limits on the salary increases of the remaining personnel. My wife is their star employee (no, really, she is) and her raise was just cost of living. Were their problems her fault? Not at all; she’s helped save the company. But it would be irresponsible to hand out big bucks in incentives when the company is struggling. My best friend is a senior manager at Cisco Systems and their bonuses were slashed this year. He’s a fast-rising star as well (all my friends are better workers than I am) but there was no lavish bonus for him. Why? Because times are rough at Cisco. John Chambers himself explained it to them; you’re doing a fine job but we ain’t handing out money we don’t have. My father was an executive for many years for Dupont Canada, and when times were slim, bonuses were cut and expenses were slashed. When times were good, the employees received handsome bonuses and generous raises. Strangely, Cisco and Dupont Canada never needed the government to bail them out. Gosh, I wonder if there’s a connection there.
I have never in my life encountered a company that hands out huge bonuses when the company performs badly. And in my line of work I work with the management of over a hundred different companies across a wide range of industries. I work with big companies and small, service and manufacturing and logistics and quasigovernmental, publicly and privately owned, companies in the automative sector, defense, high tech, service, logistics, light and heavy manufacturing, fabrication, retail. I NEVER see this shit. This sort of irresponsible behaviour seems to be limited only to the executives of extremely large publicly held corporations, especially in the financial sector, and it’s a structural problem; the directors are too far removed from the stockholders to prevent them from voting themselves and their minions ludicrous bonuses, and they stand more to gain from the ludicrous bonuses than they stand to lose from the company’s failure. It doesn’t seem to happen (as much) in privately held companies with few owners, because the owners are the ones who lose money by giving away huge bonuses when the company does poorly.
Goldman Sachs’s responsible move would have been to cancel ALL bonuses they were not absolutely, by-the-numbers legally required to hand out. If the executives don’t like it, let them walk - and of course they would have had few places to walk to.