50 years of pension for 20 years of work

[Daniel]

The bonus is probably in a watertight contract, so Citi will end up paying it (unless Congress screams again).

But this type of “performance” bonuses are precisely what’s wrong with the whole system: say there was John Doe from AIG or BoA or whatever on the other side of the Citi trade. Is John Doe going to pay $100 million out of his pocket to share in the loss? I think not. He may get fired. So what? When presented with the odds, any sane, rational trader in this world would make a big trade if the probabilities were: 50% chance of making $100 million dollars, 50% chance of getting fired. I know I would.

[Coronita]

….so for folks that answered that $100 million is an outrage for this trader that earned $600 million for citigroup, I guess then it would be better for the trader to walk over to a non-tarp controlled institution like Goldman Sachs that would pay him $100million in return for adding $600 million to GS’s profit…And I guess it’s ok for Citigroup to now have $600million less in profit, right?

As a taxpayer/shareholder of citigroup, is that what your saying? Citigroup would have been better off if this trader didn’t earn $600million for them and would have been better employed in a non-tarp controlled bank not subject to any compensation restrictions.

So then, what, may I ask prevent that top trader from just doing that. Walking over to a non-tarp institution and making the same dollars there.

Seems to me, what we would be left with are, as a said so many times, government run banks with a bunch of C and D- players….Kinda of like….Employees of the SEC and the Post Office. Good luck getting your money back as a taxpayer.

Just curious.

[Coronita]

….so for folks that answered that $100 million is an outrage for this trader that earned $600 million for citigroup, I guess then it would be better for the trader to walk over to a non-tarp controlled institution like Goldman Sachs that would pay him $100million in return for adding $600 million to GS’s profit…And I guess it’s ok for Citigroup to now have $600million less in profit, right?

As a taxpayer/shareholder of citigroup, is that what your saying? Citigroup would have been better off if this trader didn’t earn $600million for them and would have been better employed in a non-tarp controlled bank not subject to any compensation restrictions.

So then, what, may I ask prevent that top trader from just doing that. Walking over to a non-tarp institution and making the same dollars there.

Seems to me, what we would be left with are, as a said so many times, government run banks with a bunch of C and D- players….Kinda of like….Employees of the SEC and the Post Office. Good luck getting your money back as a taxpayer.

Just curious.

[Coronita]

….so for folks that answered that $100 million is an outrage for this trader that earned $600 million for citigroup, I guess then it would be better for the trader to walk over to a non-tarp controlled institution like Goldman Sachs that would pay him $100million in return for adding $600 million to GS’s profit…And I guess it’s ok for Citigroup to now have $600million less in profit, right?

As a taxpayer/shareholder of citigroup, is that what your saying? Citigroup would have been better off if this trader didn’t earn $600million for them and would have been better employed in a non-tarp controlled bank not subject to any compensation restrictions.

So then, what, may I ask prevent that top trader from just doing that. Walking over to a non-tarp institution and making the same dollars there.

Seems to me, what we would be left with are, as a said so many times, government run banks with a bunch of C and D- players….Kinda of like….Employees of the SEC and the Post Office. Good luck getting your money back as a taxpayer.

Just curious.

[Coronita]

….so for folks that answered that $100 million is an outrage for this trader that earned $600 million for citigroup, I guess then it would be better for the trader to walk over to a non-tarp controlled institution like Goldman Sachs that would pay him $100million in return for adding $600 million to GS’s profit…And I guess it’s ok for Citigroup to now have $600million less in profit, right?

As a taxpayer/shareholder of citigroup, is that what your saying? Citigroup would have been better off if this trader didn’t earn $600million for them and would have been better employed in a non-tarp controlled bank not subject to any compensation restrictions.

So then, what, may I ask prevent that top trader from just doing that. Walking over to a non-tarp institution and making the same dollars there.

Seems to me, what we would be left with are, as a said so many times, government run banks with a bunch of C and D- players….Kinda of like….Employees of the SEC and the Post Office. Good luck getting your money back as a taxpayer.

Just curious.

[Coronita]

….so for folks that answered that $100 million is an outrage for this trader that earned $600 million for citigroup, I guess then it would be better for the trader to walk over to a non-tarp controlled institution like Goldman Sachs that would pay him $100million in return for adding $600 million to GS’s profit…And I guess it’s ok for Citigroup to now have $600million less in profit, right?

As a taxpayer/shareholder of citigroup, is that what your saying? Citigroup would have been better off if this trader didn’t earn $600million for them and would have been better employed in a non-tarp controlled bank not subject to any compensation restrictions.

So then, what, may I ask prevent that top trader from just doing that. Walking over to a non-tarp institution and making the same dollars there.

Seems to me, what we would be left with are, as a said so many times, government run banks with a bunch of C and D- players….Kinda of like….Employees of the SEC and the Post Office. Good luck getting your money back as a taxpayer.

Just curious.

[afx114]

I guess that depends.. was the $600 mil he made used to pay back the taxpayers?

[afx114]

I guess that depends.. was the $600 mil he made used to pay back the taxpayers?

[afx114]

I guess that depends.. was the $600 mil he made used to pay back the taxpayers?

[afx114]

I guess that depends.. was the $600 mil he made used to pay back the taxpayers?

[afx114]

I guess that depends.. was the $600 mil he made used to pay back the taxpayers?

[briansd1]

flu, financial institutions are different from other private enterprise

1) they are not only subsidized trough TARP (fiscal spending by Congress).

2) They are subsidized through monetary policy in which they are guaranteed a rate of return by borrowing from the Central Bank then lending that money again, or investing in more profitable ventures.

Banks can also pledge their worthless assets for cash.

They benefit from government largess and should thus be regulated accordingly.

Banks are simple middle-men milking the system for running the financial system.

The Fed/Government could lend directly to the consumers and cut out the middle men. But instead of some select executives making millions, with a government run bank, you’ll have everyone making $100k (which would cost a lot more).

Some government run programs are good. The Department of Education used to lend directly to students and loan and administrative costs were lower.

[briansd1]

flu, financial institutions are different from other private enterprise

1) they are not only subsidized trough TARP (fiscal spending by Congress).

2) They are subsidized through monetary policy in which they are guaranteed a rate of return by borrowing from the Central Bank then lending that money again, or investing in more profitable ventures.

Banks can also pledge their worthless assets for cash.

They benefit from government largess and should thus be regulated accordingly.

Banks are simple middle-men milking the system for running the financial system.

The Fed/Government could lend directly to the consumers and cut out the middle men. But instead of some select executives making millions, with a government run bank, you’ll have everyone making $100k (which would cost a lot more).

Some government run programs are good. The Department of Education used to lend directly to students and loan and administrative costs were lower.

[briansd1]

flu, financial institutions are different from other private enterprise

1) they are not only subsidized trough TARP (fiscal spending by Congress).

2) They are subsidized through monetary policy in which they are guaranteed a rate of return by borrowing from the Central Bank then lending that money again, or investing in more profitable ventures.

Banks can also pledge their worthless assets for cash.

They benefit from government largess and should thus be regulated accordingly.

Banks are simple middle-men milking the system for running the financial system.

The Fed/Government could lend directly to the consumers and cut out the middle men. But instead of some select executives making millions, with a government run bank, you’ll have everyone making $100k (which would cost a lot more).

Some government run programs are good. The Department of Education used to lend directly to students and loan and administrative costs were lower.

[briansd1]

flu, financial institutions are different from other private enterprise

1) they are not only subsidized trough TARP (fiscal spending by Congress).

2) They are subsidized through monetary policy in which they are guaranteed a rate of return by borrowing from the Central Bank then lending that money again, or investing in more profitable ventures.

Banks can also pledge their worthless assets for cash.

They benefit from government largess and should thus be regulated accordingly.

Banks are simple middle-men milking the system for running the financial system.

The Fed/Government could lend directly to the consumers and cut out the middle men. But instead of some select executives making millions, with a government run bank, you’ll have everyone making $100k (which would cost a lot more).

Some government run programs are good. The Department of Education used to lend directly to students and loan and administrative costs were lower.

[Author]

Posts