You see how that works, right? The only way to keep people is to pay them millions of dollars. If you stop paying them millions of dollars, they will leave. Bank of America's evidence of this is that 45% of the people to whom it was paying the most millions of dollars left. Q.E.D.
They saw it coming. Top performers at notable TARP banks have been jumping ship at an incredible rate. Use the internet. #aig
@Unsolicited Advice: If they were really top performers (as opposed to over-paid charlatans), then why were the companies they ran teetering on the brink of failure, and threatening to pull the real economy down into the hole with them? #aig
You understand that banks have revenue streams all over the place, right? There's the bond shop. The equity shop. Client service. The back end. All of them have wildly different, easily individualized performance - and the guys doing well want to be paid. If they aren't, they'll take their clients to another firm that's willing to compensate them. It may shock you, because the media covers this very poorly, but corporations aren't one big box where everyone shares. #aig
"skimming millions in taxpayer dollars"? you guys crack me up with how much you have simplified this issue, typical liberals. Have fun watching your city goto shit because you depend on these EVIL executives to fund your infrastructure and employ your city, this wont bite you in the ass or anything... change the system to fit what you think is "right" and we will gladly take these executives and their salaries down here in Philly. #aig
It's not "funding" if it's printed money covering sour bets. That's called a mirage. New York is basically a national debt citadel - it's doomed. Philly should be so grateful that it's already dealing with massive shortfalls and burgeoning crime. At least it will have a leg up! #aig
@Lafarge: AIG was playing such games with compensation even well before TARP that the former CEO was able just to pocket the entire separate entity they had set up to pay compensation to highly-paid employees and walk away with what, a few hundred million of shareholder money? They weren't funding infrastructure - they were building private golf courses and lining their pockets. #aig
@Lafarge: Omigod, now I see you're from Philly! clean up the bloodsuckers in your govt before you go giving NYC a hard time. "Corrupt and content" - it's still true. #aig
AIG was a shitshow since 2005 / 2006, when Maury "Hank" Greenberg and sons got caught with their leathery hands in the cookie jar. None of this should come as any surprise to anyone. #aig
Summary of massive screed deleted: there are unintended consequence to this populism. Pay restraints have to get everybody, not just TARP guys, or you screw the taxpayer even harder. Non-TARP firms are feasting on the Phibros, Mitch Coxes, Bob McCanns, etc.
Proposed solution: wanna limit banker pay? Don't bail the banks they work for out. Liquidate the paper wealth.
That's a lot bigger than $36 million, and we all are paying for it. It's great that Cuomo is suing, but let's all remember one thing: it never should have happened in the first place.
@bluebears: SEC hatin' is fun, but in reality, a lot of the problem is entrenched idiotic management, coupled with severe underfunding. They have some good people there on the lower rungs who try to make a difference, but when you've got two interns and one lawyer working a case for the SEC and the bank can afford to have 20 lawyers on the same case for their side, you're not going to be able to do much. Welcome to the wonderful world of deregulation.
@bluebears: Certainly, and I guess if the SEC were doing its job better and fining banks more heavily, the banks wouldn't have so much money to throw at lawyers.
I was under the impression that the lawsuit was over the fact that Bank of America execs failed to disclose information on Merrill to the shareholders prior to the merger and that the bonuses went to Merrill execs, not BofA.
I was also under the impression that Ken Lewis has a gigantic head that looks like a constipated potato.
"I’m having a difficult time understanding who was harmed here," said Richard X. Bove, a banking analyst with Rochdale Securities. "Why is this company being put into court over a series of events that benefited the nation, its economy, its financial system, the shareholders of Bank of America and the bank itself."
Um, Dick? Those bonuses came out of the shareholders' pockets. So the shareholders were harmed, because they weren't informed of them. Why were they not informed? Oh, I dunno. Maybe because they would have dumped the stock en masse?
@BettyCrocker: If they had known, the board of directors would have rejected the deal before it even went through and Merrill would have been the next Lehman.
@skippywasserman: This is as much a setback for the SEC as for the bank. There is a good editorial in WSJ on it. That said, one of these bullets will eventually be caught by Ken Lewis.
How's this for fun? While recently on vaca in a place somewhat off the grid (as in, no interwebs) Chase bank took the opportunity to suddenly cut the credit limit IN HALF on a card they practically pushed into my hands during a bank visit nearly a year ago. Then two days later, somewhat unceremoniously, they cut the credit limit on my meager $1000 overdraft account (recently completely paid off) and the Wamu account they had absorbed during the takeover was cut by 60%.
A week later, two separate mailings detailed their meticulous reasoning. The first card's limit was cut due to having one or more cards active for less than 24 months solid (one of course being SAID CARD they gave me right in the bank branch). Then a mailing dated 4 days later stated the other two accounts had their limits cut because of an account being too close to its stated limit. This of course happened because that card had been reduced in half two days earlier, bringing my outstanding balance close to the limit. My good credit rating is now affected, I have less credit to speak of and once again Chase leaves me holding my dick in space.
Did I mention I haven't been anywhere near delinquent on payments in years, or that I consistently pay at least twice the monthly minimum? Color me bedazzled with a sprinkling of jihadist-rage orange and flesh-whipped pink.
@stuporman : Wait until Jamie Dimon hears about this. He promised he was going to fix customer relations. Well, that's what it sounded like he said. And while you're on the phone with him, tell him I called customer service to put me on the Never Mail Us Anything Luring Us To Open An Account with Chase, its affiliates, or its subsidiaries ever again. This was really brave of me, since Jamie D and the Goldmen at GS are gonna be the last banks left standing in the known universe when the dust settles. And I got my doubts about everybody else but Jamie D, too.
Even if you can afford to pay your credit card bill, Citigroup and Bank of American are both aggressively raising interest rates and cutting back on credit limits, tightening your budget. Why? Because they're not making enough fucking money.
Ugh. How about it. I have but one credit card (really) and two months ago my interest rate jumped up 5 percent. I called to ask for it to be lowered to its previous extortion-level rate, and the CSR ACTUALLY SAID "Well, if we don't raise your rate, the bank doesn't make any money." WTF?! Do I look like I give a shit about whether Bank of America makes money?!
AND THEN I got laid off, so my rate is going to go even higher. FML.
Of course, TARP lending is in the form of preferred equity stakes, which pay dividends directly to the Treasury. Direct capital injections carried something like 9%.
Even AIG, who is paying something like 14%, is meeting those obligations. After their devastating losses, because they're still an insurance company that pulls in billions in real revenue from insurance products.
The reason banks got bailed out isn't to confiscate money from taxpayers, though it seems that way in the short run. The banks have business models that can pay back taxpayers once the short-run pain of the junk assets can be overcome. The whole point of this is that taxpayers are better served in the long-run by maintaining the function of the companies that pay their paychecks, most of whom rely on the very banking industries you decry. They're receiving dividends, interest, and their capital back. How is that confiscation?
All dynamics you understand and ignore, John, so you have your little Huey Long hissyfit. Or do you not think TARP is going to be repaid and the Fed will never close the discount window?
Want to worry about theft? Ask why our government is building powerplants in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of our own fucking country.
@Unsolicited Advice: Huey Long's favorite book was The Count of Monte Cristo. He liked it because it taught him how to hate. Don't know what that has to do with anything, I've just always found that fact fascinating. To your point: Yes, TARP will (hopefully) be repaid at interest. That doesn't mean it's a just or even logical way to distribute scarce federal dollars over the short term. There are a lot of people who could use loans to shore up their financing right now, or to buy the things they want. In some cases, the federal government has programs to help those people. In many, many cases--like mine--it does not. Why can't I get a loan at 9 percent interest from the federal government? Oh nevermind, it's cool, I can get it from Bank of America at 13 percent interest. I'm glad to know that my interests are best served over the long-term by propping up a bank that I'm already paying interest to with my tax dollars so it can hire bond traders at $6 million per year.
Does the Federal Government have the capability to loan to you directly, though? Part of the problem here is that the Government has an interest in creating the appearance of an independent banking system. 4% spreads are seen as a small price to pay to staunch the hue and cry over "socialism." I agree that the spreads should be far, far smaller.
As for the traders, though, that's a function of TARP that I hate. It's preventing the function of a labor market that shouldn't be paying ANYONE in finance 6 mil a year to act as storefronts for printed money. TARP shouldn't have been passed.
10/22/09
You see how that works, right? The only way to keep people is to pay them millions of dollars. If you stop paying them millions of dollars, they will leave. Bank of America's evidence of this is that 45% of the people to whom it was paying the most millions of dollars left. Q.E.D.
They saw it coming. Top performers at notable TARP banks have been jumping ship at an incredible rate. Use the internet. #aig
10/22/09
10/22/09
You understand that banks have revenue streams all over the place, right? There's the bond shop. The equity shop. Client service. The back end. All of them have wildly different, easily individualized performance - and the guys doing well want to be paid. If they aren't, they'll take their clients to another firm that's willing to compensate them. It may shock you, because the media covers this very poorly, but corporations aren't one big box where everyone shares. #aig
10/22/09
10/22/09
It's not "funding" if it's printed money covering sour bets. That's called a mirage. New York is basically a national debt citadel - it's doomed. Philly should be so grateful that it's already dealing with massive shortfalls and burgeoning crime. At least it will have a leg up! #aig
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
10/22/09
Summary of massive screed deleted: there are unintended consequence to this populism. Pay restraints have to get everybody, not just TARP guys, or you screw the taxpayer even harder. Non-TARP firms are feasting on the Phibros, Mitch Coxes, Bob McCanns, etc.
Proposed solution: wanna limit banker pay? Don't bail the banks they work for out. Liquidate the paper wealth.
10/01/09
09/30/09
09/17/09
09/17/09
That's a lot bigger than $36 million, and we all are paying for it. It's great that Cuomo is suing, but let's all remember one thing: it never should have happened in the first place.
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
I was also under the impression that Ken Lewis has a gigantic head that looks like a constipated potato.
09/15/09
Um, Dick? Those bonuses came out of the shareholders' pockets. So the shareholders were harmed, because they weren't informed of them. Why were they not informed? Oh, I dunno. Maybe because they would have dumped the stock en masse?
09/15/09
09/15/09
09/15/09
This is Communistism!
09/15/09
07/17/09
A week later, two separate mailings detailed their meticulous reasoning. The first card's limit was cut due to having one or more cards active for less than 24 months solid (one of course being SAID CARD they gave me right in the bank branch). Then a mailing dated 4 days later stated the other two accounts had their limits cut because of an account being too close to its stated limit. This of course happened because that card had been reduced in half two days earlier, bringing my outstanding balance close to the limit. My good credit rating is now affected, I have less credit to speak of and once again Chase leaves me holding my dick in space.
Did I mention I haven't been anywhere near delinquent on payments in years, or that I consistently pay at least twice the monthly minimum? Color me bedazzled with a sprinkling of jihadist-rage orange and flesh-whipped pink.
07/17/09
07/17/09
Ugh. How about it. I have but one credit card (really) and two months ago my interest rate jumped up 5 percent. I called to ask for it to be lowered to its previous extortion-level rate, and the CSR ACTUALLY SAID "Well, if we don't raise your rate, the bank doesn't make any money." WTF?! Do I look like I give a shit about whether Bank of America makes money?!
AND THEN I got laid off, so my rate is going to go even higher. FML.
07/17/09
Even AIG, who is paying something like 14%, is meeting those obligations. After their devastating losses, because they're still an insurance company that pulls in billions in real revenue from insurance products.
The reason banks got bailed out isn't to confiscate money from taxpayers, though it seems that way in the short run. The banks have business models that can pay back taxpayers once the short-run pain of the junk assets can be overcome. The whole point of this is that taxpayers are better served in the long-run by maintaining the function of the companies that pay their paychecks, most of whom rely on the very banking industries you decry. They're receiving dividends, interest, and their capital back. How is that confiscation?
All dynamics you understand and ignore, John, so you have your little Huey Long hissyfit. Or do you not think TARP is going to be repaid and the Fed will never close the discount window?
Want to worry about theft? Ask why our government is building powerplants in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of our own fucking country.
07/17/09
07/17/09
Does the Federal Government have the capability to loan to you directly, though? Part of the problem here is that the Government has an interest in creating the appearance of an independent banking system. 4% spreads are seen as a small price to pay to staunch the hue and cry over "socialism." I agree that the spreads should be far, far smaller.
As for the traders, though, that's a function of TARP that I hate. It's preventing the function of a labor market that shouldn't be paying ANYONE in finance 6 mil a year to act as storefronts for printed money. TARP shouldn't have been passed.