and that’s fine.
so you are aware what a bonus is, right? bonuses are rewards for hard work and over reaching your company’s goals.
these banks failed. without the help of the government, they wouldn’t be in business. the bailout money was to keep them from failing. so in the end, the executives did not reach the goals as the companies were on “welfare” and thus they should not have received a performance based bonus.
First and foremost… WHAT THE FUCK is that word in bold?
Second, SOME companies are owned by shareholders, some are privately owned. The shareholders are the ones who elect board members who are the ones who decide on CEO, CFO, etc… It’s not uncommon for the CEO to be one the board as well as a shareholder. Each tiny shareholder doesn’t have a say realistically. Usually, it is set up as a vote by proxy where one person can represent them in the case of voting. The shareholders do not decide who gets paid how much and such. The board does.
Do you know if they were performance based bonuses or not? Were you there when they were reading their contract and could note any clauses regarding performance and bonuses?
I’m well aware of what a bonus is. Sometimes, there are performance based bonuses, sometimes there are not.
For the record the government could have given the bailout money contractually as well making sure they didnt spend the money on the bonuses, go ahead try to sue sue the government for that when they didn’t get it.
Was half a million dollar AIG resort party a week after the bail out in contract too?
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2008/10/07/one-week-later-aig-throws-lavish-party-to-celebrate/
How about northern trust who was bailed doing the same.
I’m not saying it’s just the corporations that are at fault, corrupted government who supports these laws and regulations at ease and blows money on shit like that are at fault.
And Cossey back to union being like a lobbyist, I’m pretty sure union cant get your boss to pay for a party when you’re getting fired for being a bad worker and pay you a few years worth of salary as you’re leaving.
I blame iPhone for that :lol
I know how board of electives work, I also know that most corporations are shareholders owned. Corporations by definition are shareholders owned, however some only have less than a dozen shareholders, or just a few, going back to what you said. I known they each down have a say, which is why this bulshit happens, just like the government.
Please show me where I said anything about any sort of party? You’re bringing up stuff to use against me when it’s not even the subject matter.
IIRC, it’d be considered fraud if the government made a contract with the company to nullify the contracts it has made with it’s employees. Why? Because it would pretty much be a contract for a company to breach a contract. Unenforceable.
I not once said that what the companies were doing were the right thing. The bonuses being paid were contractual obligations. The party you bring up was not, as far as I know.
There’s always going to be faults in every system, unfortunately.
I damn the electoral college, another reason why we have this BS two-party system.
Surprisingly agreed ^ :number1
this thread sucks ass
disgusting
Agreed.
The bottom line is these protestors want something they didn’t earn, didn’t work for and aren’t entitled to.
So full of stupid I cant even believe I am replying… ever hear of the Community Reinvestment Act?
A Law
A Statue
Basically if banks didnt start to give money to the poor among us, they would face stiff resistance and regulatory issues.Thank Carter and Clinton!
“The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]”
The banks werent forced?
The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?
According to one enforcement agency, “discrimination exists when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.” Note that these “arbitrary or outdated criteria” include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history–the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring.
Fuck, uninformed people shouldnt talk through their ass cause it sounds good or some liberal parent or teacher told them so.
Motto for some in here should be … Go live life some and learn something from experience.
Edit…ok, that was harsh, some things you said ring true about some lenders, no doubt… but most did it with the law… but still knew it was robbery deep down. Of course there are hundreds of examples of downright thieves that robbed the systemand took advantage… but in the end, it was the act that caused and allowed for it.
All this overlooks a crucial fact: There has been no free market in housing or finance. Government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets–including its creation of Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE - news - people ) (which have now amassed $5 trillion in liabilities)–leading to many of the problems being blamed on the free market today.
Consider the low lending standards that were a significant component of the mortgage crisis. Lenders made millions of loans to borrowers who, under normal market conditions, weren’t able to pay them off. These decisions have cost lenders, especially leading financial institutions, tens of billions of dollars.
It is popular to take low lending standards as proof that the free market has failed, that the system that is supposed to reward productive behavior and punish unproductive behavior has failed to do so. Yet this claim ignores that for years irrational lending standards have been forced on lenders by the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and rewarded (at taxpayers’ expense) by multiple government bodies.
The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?
According to one enforcement agency, “discrimination exists when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.” Note that these “arbitrary or outdated criteria” include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history–the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring.
The government has promoted bad loans not just through the stick of the CRA but through the carrot of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase, securitize and guarantee loans made by lenders and whose debt is itself implicitly guaranteed by the federal government. This setup created an easy, artificial profit opportunity for lenders to wrap up bundles of subprime loans and sell them to a government-backed buyer whose primary mandate was to “promote homeownership,” not to apply sound lending standards.
The CRA guidelines were manipulated by the banking industry to sell mortgages to everyone because they knew if the loan was defaulted on, it would be paid for by the government. For the banks it was a win-win situation as they were going to get paid either way.
The CRA’s original intent was to help underprivileged communities especially people of color, and get people to own a reasonably priced home. Throughout history we see the disparity between the white neighborhoods and those of black and latino. This was a step to reach out to people to fix the wrongs that have been going on for hundreds of years. We still see it today in terms of education and governmental service (police, fire, etc) due to the tax base of affluent and non-affluent neighborhoods. Again, refer to the “cycle of poverty.”
These loans also originated before the housing boom and the prices of homes weren’t outrageous like they were in the mid 2000s. The idea of owning a home is a major selling point in American culture. It’s considered the entry way into the middle class. It’s the American Dream, and therefore it was easy to sell to the gullible. Houses are considered an asset that will never depreciate in value and this is why people choose to “invest” into owning. This also made it great for the banks as they would be collecting interest for 15-40 years making outrageous money on the idea.
Banks have been known to use discriminatory practices, and even during the MBS-era, we saw it. Blacks saw sub-prime loans with higher fees compared to that of white counterparts. However, during this time-frame whites were the ones who originated a majority of the loans and 56% of the foreclosures.
For 30 years with the programs implemented by Carter and Clinton the foreclosure rate of the US lingered around .5% until the housing crisis which made it 1.5%. Again, this was due to predatory lending, and abuse of the bankers on a program that was meant to help a certain demographic.
Yeah, this was a win win for banks… really really? Really! Over 500 banks have closed and the bail out was bullshit, but this was NOT a WIN WIN for banks… Really? Wow
Wait, the CRA was there to right hundreds of years of wrongs??? Really? That was the solution? Give people with no money…mortgages… yup, liberal solution. Started with carter, pushed on and mandated with Clinton. REALLY? Houses are considered an asset that will never depreciate (that type of thinking helped get us here…who says that as if its a guarantee)… I suppose you would say that about Gold too. Its an investment. Know the risks.
Of course whites origionated most loans… they were more likely to be educated enough to become a loan officer or in banking unfortunately, and, umm, there are more whites.
Your closing statement shows your utter ignorance on the subject. Predatory lending was not the cause of the failure. Sub-Prime lending was probably the leading cause. It was there, it was wrong, but without it, there still would have been the crash. Many people were given loans that shouldnt have had them. But, ummm, the LAW said they must or pay the consequences. The LIBERAL driven bill and Law. This wasnt a suggestion. Given loans by non-predators. Only a small percentage were unscrupilous in the big picture. It sucks there are misinformed loudmouths that just continue to talk the liberal talking points.
In the future I suggest your form your opines from experience rather than teachers, parents or left wing commentary. Read the bills, laws, talk to business owners (u must hate them).
Lets be real, the securities market robbed america by packaging shit mortgages and selling them for big money, knowing they may well fail. The government backed the loans so the win was to securities markets. Look to a few key packagers for the move… but do not blame this on anyone but the government that not only allowed this, but nearly forced it on banks. The government needed to stay the fuck out of regulating private banking practices. Gov’t has no business in business when it comes to how they should choose their customers.
BLAME 1: Liberal Gov’t
Blame 2 : People over extending, the art of personal responsability
Blame 3; The securities market (I. E. Saks), for scheeming up a way to give Government, and therefor the people, back the bag of shit that they ammassed.
you obviously didnt understand what the meaning behind, “The idea of owning a home is a major selling point in American culture. It’s considered the entry way into the middle class. It’s the American Dream, and therefore it was easy to sell to the gullible. Houses are considered an asset that will never depreciate in value and this is why people choose to “invest” into owning.”
“Of course whites origionated most loans… they were more likely to be educated enough to become a loan officer or in banking unfortunately,”
umm, what? we are talking about borrowers not loan agents/officers.
“our closing statement shows your utter ignorance on the subject. Predatory lending was not the cause of the failure. Sub-Prime lending was probably the leading cause.”
umm, hello…read everything i wrote. i stated sub-prime was the major cause, and guess what? thats a product of the predatory lenders. just because you think we have totally different views (even though we dont) doesnt mean you should discredit my opinion so fast, considering we have very similar viewpoints / opinions on the matter.
May I subscribe to your newsletter?
This is bound to get some comments from both sides
The daily show? Thats your news source? Thats as bad a quoting of Hannitys site.
I read what you wrote and replied accordingly. Not my fault you cant line your comments up with my replies. Personally, I can see your tunnel visioned with info your mind thinks is fact. Done
kthxby3
see ya, mule.