Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (150799)	9/26/2008 12:42:58 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 306849

Bail 'em out. Wall Street Executives Scored $3 Billion as Banks Rose and Fell By Tom Randall and Jamie McGee Sept. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Wall Street's five biggest firms paid more than $3 billion in the last five years to their top executives, while they presided over the packaging and sale of loans that helped bring down the investment-banking system. Merrill Lynch & Co., once the largest U.S. brokerage, paid its chief executives the most, with Stanley O'Neal taking in $172 million from 2003 to 2007 and John Thain $86 million after a month's work last year. The company agreed to be acquired by Bank of America Corp. for about $50 billion on Sept. 15. Bear Stearns Cos.'s James ``Jimmy'' Cayne made $161 million before the company collapsed and was sold to JPMorgan Chase & Co. in June. Democrats and Republicans in Congress are demanding that limits be placed on executive pay as part of the $700 billion financial rescue plan proposed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO, who received about $111 million between 2003 and 2006, said in testimony to Congress on Sept. 24 that he would accept such limits as part of the plan, after initially opposing them. ``Shareholders and boards should have done something about this a long time ago,'' said Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware in Newark. ``They justified these levels of pay on the idea that they're all geniuses. I think that balloon has burst.'' Wall Street firms have shared profits liberally with employees. The five biggest -- Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Merrill, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Bear Stearns -- paid their 185,687 employees $66 billion in 2007, as problems with subprime mortgages mounted, including about $39 billion in bonuses. That amounts to average pay of $353,089 per employee, including an average bonus of $211,849. The five firms had combined net income of $93 billion during the five years through 2007. CEO Pay Doubled The $3.1 billion paid to the top five executives at the firms between 2003 and 2007 was about three times what JPMorgan spent to buy Bear Stearns. Goldman Sachs had the highest total, with $859 million, followed by Bear Stearns at $609 million. CEO pay at the five firms increased each year, doubling to $253 million in 2007, according to data compiled from company filings. Executive-compensation figures include salary, bonuses, stock and stock options, some awarded for past performance. The options were valued at a third of the fair-market price of the stock at the time the options were granted, a method recommended by Graef Crystal, a compensation specialist and author of the Crystal Report on Executive Compensation, an online newsletter. The companies value the options using different methods. bloomberg.com

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (150799)	9/26/2008 12:45:50 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 306849

Sorry, Calc...but VERY BAD JOB BUSH. RE:"Not true. You are so partisan it's amazing." If I'm partisan because I'm against the bailout, so be it. LIG said it well... "The bailout will not help the macroeconomy one bit as the banks will hoard the money in order to delever." While they continue to pay ridiculous salaries and bonuses.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (150799)	9/26/2008 3:08:14 PM
From: Peter V	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Jim is partisan, but so are a lot of people here. At least he's not an unreasonable partisan like so many of the folks on the politico threads. longnshort comes to mind, but I'm sure there are some nutjobs on the opposite side of him as well. For the most part I stay out of those threads because the pigheadedness on both sides is too much to take. This thread functions well because our partisans are far more reasonable than most, and we have actual discussions. And patron quashes most of the true political diatribe. We can't help a bit of political discussion now though, given the bailout is a very political subject. Anyway, I don't mean to quash the debate. Carry on.