- This topic has 380 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
paramount.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 6, 2009 at 9:51 PM #442577August 6, 2009 at 10:25 PM #441816
equalizer
Participant[quote=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.[/quote]
Thank you for that excellent post. It really is a zero sum game. Those NYC people that some people always love to idolize made that money by taking it from some other trader. So trader x makes company yearly profits of 10M, 30M, 60M, 90M and takes 20% bonus. Then the following year he loses 100M, should he pay that 20M in his bank account to the firm and shareholders? If not, then why pay him the huge bonus? Oh, the market was bad, there was a recession, and a host of other excuses. Funny,when the trades were going his way he didn’t blame the rain or snow for the massive profits. This trader’s pay package defines SOCIALISM. He gets the rewards and then when he fails he sticks the bill to shareholders and sometimes the taxpayers. I thought you people hated socialism.August 6, 2009 at 10:25 PM #442012Participant[quote=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.[/quote]
Thank you for that excellent post. It really is a zero sum game. Those NYC people that some people always love to idolize made that money by taking it from some other trader. So trader x makes company yearly profits of 10M, 30M, 60M, 90M and takes 20% bonus. Then the following year he loses 100M, should he pay that 20M in his bank account to the firm and shareholders? If not, then why pay him the huge bonus? Oh, the market was bad, there was a recession, and a host of other excuses. Funny,when the trades were going his way he didn’t blame the rain or snow for the massive profits. This trader’s pay package defines SOCIALISM. He gets the rewards and then when he fails he sticks the bill to shareholders and sometimes the taxpayers. I thought you people hated socialism.August 6, 2009 at 10:25 PM #442346Participant[quote=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.[/quote]
Thank you for that excellent post. It really is a zero sum game. Those NYC people that some people always love to idolize made that money by taking it from some other trader. So trader x makes company yearly profits of 10M, 30M, 60M, 90M and takes 20% bonus. Then the following year he loses 100M, should he pay that 20M in his bank account to the firm and shareholders? If not, then why pay him the huge bonus? Oh, the market was bad, there was a recession, and a host of other excuses. Funny,when the trades were going his way he didn’t blame the rain or snow for the massive profits. This trader’s pay package defines SOCIALISM. He gets the rewards and then when he fails he sticks the bill to shareholders and sometimes the taxpayers. I thought you people hated socialism.August 6, 2009 at 10:25 PM #442415Participant[quote=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.[/quote]
Thank you for that excellent post. It really is a zero sum game. Those NYC people that some people always love to idolize made that money by taking it from some other trader. So trader x makes company yearly profits of 10M, 30M, 60M, 90M and takes 20% bonus. Then the following year he loses 100M, should he pay that 20M in his bank account to the firm and shareholders? If not, then why pay him the huge bonus? Oh, the market was bad, there was a recession, and a host of other excuses. Funny,when the trades were going his way he didn’t blame the rain or snow for the massive profits. This trader’s pay package defines SOCIALISM. He gets the rewards and then when he fails he sticks the bill to shareholders and sometimes the taxpayers. I thought you people hated socialism.August 6, 2009 at 10:25 PM #442592Participant[quote=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.[/quote]
Thank you for that excellent post. It really is a zero sum game. Those NYC people that some people always love to idolize made that money by taking it from some other trader. So trader x makes company yearly profits of 10M, 30M, 60M, 90M and takes 20% bonus. Then the following year he loses 100M, should he pay that 20M in his bank account to the firm and shareholders? If not, then why pay him the huge bonus? Oh, the market was bad, there was a recession, and a host of other excuses. Funny,when the trades were going his way he didn’t blame the rain or snow for the massive profits. This trader’s pay package defines SOCIALISM. He gets the rewards and then when he fails he sticks the bill to shareholders and sometimes the taxpayers. I thought you people hated socialism.August 6, 2009 at 10:52 PM #441821CA renter
Participant[quote=RichardJamesEsquire][quote=paramount][quote]NOBODY is “guaranteed” overtime. The reason police and firefighters work O/T is because — unlike desk jockeys in the corporate world — they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time — [/quote]
Nobody is 100% necessary , 100% of the time…NOBODY.[/quote]
Saw that too,
firefighters are on standby 100% of the time. Just like doctors, utilities, even your plumber.[/quote]That person “on call” is the one who gets the overtime — the same overtime people here are complaining about.
Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. Every position needs to be filled, every single day. If one member of the engine crew doesn’t show up for work, the fire engine is not staffed, and they can’t run calls (each crew person has very specific tasks).
If a police officer doesn’t show up for work, his/her area will not be staffed — leading to longer response times and possibly putting fellow officers at risk.
Contrary to your beliefs, police and fire departments run very lean operations at the ground level.
August 6, 2009 at 10:52 PM #442017Participant[quote=RichardJamesEsquire][quote=paramount][quote]NOBODY is “guaranteed” overtime. The reason police and firefighters work O/T is because — unlike desk jockeys in the corporate world — they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time — [/quote]
Nobody is 100% necessary , 100% of the time…NOBODY.[/quote]
Saw that too,
firefighters are on standby 100% of the time. Just like doctors, utilities, even your plumber.[/quote]That person “on call” is the one who gets the overtime — the same overtime people here are complaining about.
Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. Every position needs to be filled, every single day. If one member of the engine crew doesn’t show up for work, the fire engine is not staffed, and they can’t run calls (each crew person has very specific tasks).
If a police officer doesn’t show up for work, his/her area will not be staffed — leading to longer response times and possibly putting fellow officers at risk.
Contrary to your beliefs, police and fire departments run very lean operations at the ground level.
August 6, 2009 at 10:52 PM #442351Participant[quote=RichardJamesEsquire][quote=paramount][quote]NOBODY is “guaranteed” overtime. The reason police and firefighters work O/T is because — unlike desk jockeys in the corporate world — they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time — [/quote]
Nobody is 100% necessary , 100% of the time…NOBODY.[/quote]
Saw that too,
firefighters are on standby 100% of the time. Just like doctors, utilities, even your plumber.[/quote]That person “on call” is the one who gets the overtime — the same overtime people here are complaining about.
Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. Every position needs to be filled, every single day. If one member of the engine crew doesn’t show up for work, the fire engine is not staffed, and they can’t run calls (each crew person has very specific tasks).
If a police officer doesn’t show up for work, his/her area will not be staffed — leading to longer response times and possibly putting fellow officers at risk.
Contrary to your beliefs, police and fire departments run very lean operations at the ground level.
August 6, 2009 at 10:52 PM #442420Participant[quote=RichardJamesEsquire][quote=paramount][quote]NOBODY is “guaranteed” overtime. The reason police and firefighters work O/T is because — unlike desk jockeys in the corporate world — they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time — [/quote]
Nobody is 100% necessary , 100% of the time…NOBODY.[/quote]
Saw that too,
firefighters are on standby 100% of the time. Just like doctors, utilities, even your plumber.[/quote]That person “on call” is the one who gets the overtime — the same overtime people here are complaining about.
Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. Every position needs to be filled, every single day. If one member of the engine crew doesn’t show up for work, the fire engine is not staffed, and they can’t run calls (each crew person has very specific tasks).
If a police officer doesn’t show up for work, his/her area will not be staffed — leading to longer response times and possibly putting fellow officers at risk.
Contrary to your beliefs, police and fire departments run very lean operations at the ground level.
August 6, 2009 at 10:52 PM #442597Participant[quote=RichardJamesEsquire][quote=paramount][quote]NOBODY is “guaranteed” overtime. The reason police and firefighters work O/T is because — unlike desk jockeys in the corporate world — they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time — [/quote]
Nobody is 100% necessary , 100% of the time…NOBODY.[/quote]
Saw that too,
firefighters are on standby 100% of the time. Just like doctors, utilities, even your plumber.[/quote]That person “on call” is the one who gets the overtime — the same overtime people here are complaining about.
Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. Every position needs to be filled, every single day. If one member of the engine crew doesn’t show up for work, the fire engine is not staffed, and they can’t run calls (each crew person has very specific tasks).
If a police officer doesn’t show up for work, his/her area will not be staffed — leading to longer response times and possibly putting fellow officers at risk.
Contrary to your beliefs, police and fire departments run very lean operations at the ground level.
August 6, 2009 at 11:22 PM #441831paramount
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. [/quote]
Uh, no they are not – I guarantee you the world and most likely mine and everyone else’s world will keep spinning with or without police and firefighters.
They are important, but not 100% important, 100% of the time. And that goes for anything and everything on this planet.
August 6, 2009 at 11:22 PM #442027Participant[quote=CA renter]
Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. [/quote]
Uh, no they are not – I guarantee you the world and most likely mine and everyone else’s world will keep spinning with or without police and firefighters.
They are important, but not 100% important, 100% of the time. And that goes for anything and everything on this planet.
August 6, 2009 at 11:22 PM #442361Participant[quote=CA renter]
Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. [/quote]
Uh, no they are not – I guarantee you the world and most likely mine and everyone else’s world will keep spinning with or without police and firefighters.
They are important, but not 100% important, 100% of the time. And that goes for anything and everything on this planet.
August 6, 2009 at 11:22 PM #442430Participant[quote=CA renter]
Yes, they are 100% necessary, 100% of the time. [/quote]
Uh, no they are not – I guarantee you the world and most likely mine and everyone else’s world will keep spinning with or without police and firefighters.
They are important, but not 100% important, 100% of the time. And that goes for anything and everything on this planet.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.