Comments on: The President Is Wrong On Wall Street Bonuses

By: Ray Lindsley

Ray Lindsley — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:06:30 +0000

Initially, I supported the President’s proposal, but now I am not so sure. I have seen a lot of anecdotal assertions that most of the $20 billion in bonuses went to rank and file workers, not the senior executives, but I have yet to see a source for this information that can prove these claims. If such evidence exists, I would like to see it.

I do agree, however, that there should not be an across the board cap. Perhaps it would make more sense to cap pay unless it can be tied to documented economic gains to the company (revenue and cost savings)and would have to be appropriately proportional.

As far as the comment about the President giving back some of his $4.2 million in income, the author himself admits it is mostly from sales of his book, so it is not coming from taxpayers, so why should he give it back?

By: More Financial » Sifting Through Financial Gray Area

More Financial » Sifting Through Financial Gray Area — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:52:11 +0000

[...] I’ve been hearing some nuance on newscasts and reading some illuminating pieces — like this post from Brian Sullivan’s blog on FoxBusiness.com regarding Wall Street bonuses and an article in [...]

By: johncorn

johncorn — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:58:09 +0000

One must start with the understanding that Obama is both ignorant of and prejudiced against Business. I don’t believe that one needs to prove a geometric equation to assert that.

By: Brian T

Brian T — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:52:15 +0000

Sigh
I’m a capitalist at heart. I recognize we can’t penalize the ‘execution level’ workers in companies who DID do their jobs. Whether we like it or there’s a percentage of expenditures, that on the surface appear exorbitant, but are necessary. Bonuses, raises, advertising/sponsoring a Super Bowl party (B. O. America), etc. . . HOWEVER. It pisses me off to see an outgoing CEO scramble to let bonuses days before recv’ng my dollars in a bailot. Wells is going on a boon-doggle now for it’s ‘valuable’ people. AIG entertained its execs on my nickle. And, to boot our new president thinks I should do more b/c the “wealth needs to be spread around”.
There is plenty of money ‘in the system’ via taxes. Our gov’t is horribly efficient at wasting our money.
But, you know what? We have nobody to blame but OURSELVES ! Unhappy with what’s happening, are you ? Well, vote responsibly! Don’t vote for the incumbent again b/c he “seems to be doing ok”. Reward them with your vote if they’ve behaved responsibly, and penalize them if they have not. It’s very simple.
Hold our politicians respon for their actions and they’ll respond by behaving responsibly! Period. Problem is, their constituents benefit by their bringing dollars home to them, so they continue to vote for them. That arrogant blowhard up in Pennsylvania is a perfect example. He’s a MUTT in every sense of the word, but he gets elected b/c he brings home the bacon. We better start looking at the big picture, or we’re in trouble.

By: movers

movers — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:38:58 +0000

As a contract issue most sales people who have a commission plan have to then be paid by the terms of that commission plan, but I do have an issue with the executives who were paid big bonuses on “profits” that were not “profits”. Most comp plans have a “claw back” clause so if you are paid for a deal and then the company loses that deal and they already paid you then they “calw back” or take back that money. I believe most people would be ok with paid bonuses if at the same time the company said we are taking back these amounts because they were paid on bad information or false profits/revenue.

By: Bri

Bri — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:28:15 +0000

“Bonuses were paid to retain the best talent” is the rationale given to justify the bonuses. Two major problems with this:

1. The best talent just created the worst financial mess in several generations.
2. AS far as retention, where the Hell else are they going to go? It’s not like there is a shortage of greedy money churners out there or a surplus of ratholes (see: solvent Wall St. firms) for them to ply their trade.

Yet another pantload of elitist reality for the masses to choke on.

By: purpleslog

purpleslog — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:12:23 +0000

Should he give some of that money back because the government needs to bail itself out?

I am quite okay with Senators being on an incentive plan with incentives being tied to budget deficits (incentive for 0 or surplus), regulatory size (more regulations = less pay; less regulations – more pay), # of Federal Employees (more employees l=less senatorial pay), Median US Income change or GDP change, etc

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:31:04 +0000

Comment by chops

Dear Chops, conservative still means the same as it always has. Liberal on the otherhand means strict not conservative. Which is a misnomer; Dictionary meaning of liberal is open-minded or tolerant. But Liberals are not tolerant of conservatives and calling them bigots and hate mongers simply because they don’t agree with their ideas, and are not open-minded to conservative ideas. In fact “Liberal” in this country has come to mean, ‘liberal with other peoples monies’

By: Arlen Dominek

Arlen Dominek — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:33:32 +0000

If you’re going to compare the financial salesperson with the widget salesperson, then let’s make sure that they’re compensated at the same rate and let’s make sure that they both get commissions based upon some realistic contribution to bottom line. If the financial salesperson is selling some product with, oh, a fifty per cent cost basis, maybe he should get $50-60K base +3% of sales. And if there’s some poor kid who is traveling every week, meeting until 11 or 12 at night and at the client’s site at 8AM, and working the whole weekend, someone who was graduated at the top of his class, maybe he deserves $150K too. He slaves to get your EHR up or get your AR working. Where’s the equity? Where’s my return for my risk for my stock investment? And let’s not include Obama’s book revenues. Get real.

By: Owen Bridgeman

Owen Bridgeman — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:51:24 +0000

You make a salient point. Perhaps the media should do a better job of reporting relevant facts and not generalizing so as to create public opinion. No, I am afraid that would be asking to much.