Can Someone Explain This Math?

From another angle, it is very easy to comprehend. This is about a white collar gang of thieves looting other people's money.

This is about a white collar gang of thieves looting other people's money.

Bingo. They didn't care if the math did not add up, because they were on top of the world without a functional system of checks and balances.

What disturbs me the most is knowing that they are still there, still drawing ridiculous bonuses while they bankrupt their company, and, in the process, the country as a whole.

Kathy,

There is no tax benefit for either the company or the individual. Google it.

Because the "bonus" portion most times is flexible. Depending on how the company does, they determine the size of the bonus. A) for good, B) for better, etc. Sometimes there are even bonuses in times of losses. Got a problem with that, then go buy a share. If you dont own any, then mind your business...

Most wall street companies offer contractual compensation packages, even to interns. For professionals they are often rather complex, consisting of a mixture of cash, stock options, bonuses, etc. For example, traders on the floor of the NYSE make a very modest base salary, and make the majority of their money based on bonuses they receive, sort of like commissions. The more you trade, and the higher the quality of trades, the bigger your bonus will be. No matter what, you are going to trade something throughout the course of a quarter, so you are going to get some sort of bonus. Even of the company does poorly, you have to be compensated for your work.

Most people dont understand this concept because they try to compare it to the compensation practices of other industries. It simply doesnt work that way. Nobody cares if its fair or if you think people make too much. If you want go get a job on The Street and make what they make. If you cant do that that tough luck, dont complain.

I'll complain anytime I wish as this is taxpayer dollars.

As long as GS is operating legally

but that is not certain.

this is not an indication of "business as usual." the govt didnt send letters to every financial institution and tell them to open all their books. this is a specific problem, on which a light has been shined, and until it's over and the american people are confident that they arent driving over another cliff (like they did last time we gave them the wheel), they're going to have to deal with these things.

the govt is not handling this perfectly. it's not even handling it well, if you ask me. but that it's being handled is hardly the problem here. if these companies have a better idea for how exactly we should hold their hands so that, in their quest for unmatched riches, they dont bankrupt the entire country AGAIN, force ever more people out of their homes AGAIN, and cause global financial problems AGAIN.

if they dont like it, they should start selling flowers and bottles of water outside the holland tunnel. nobody asks to see those bonuses, and they can operate in private all they want.

firsty,

If you really think you have substantive evidence of GS acting illegally you should forward it to NY AG Cuomo. He has a good record on WS prosecution. But, I really think you just tossed out a thinly veiled accusation to support whatever point you think you are making. On the latter, your post is so nebulously worded that it is tough to tell what point you are trying to make. It may be that you really don't have any concrete points, just anger at what has occured. If that's it, fine. Just say I'm angry about what has happened. I am too.

If you really think you have substantive evidence of GS acting illegally you should forward it to NY AG Cuomo.

i said that whether or not they were doing something illegal was "not certain." i'm not sure how you concluded that i need substantive evidence to draw my conclusion. the basis for allowing this kind of govt inspection is that there is enough reason to suspect that illegal things were done, and that we are entitled to know what is happening with these companies based on the direct harm their actions caused.

your having missed my concrete points doesnt mean they arent there.

need substantive evidence to draw my conclusion. the basis for allowing this kind of govt inspection is that there is enough reason to suspect that illegal things were done

Ah, so YOU allege there is reason to believe something illegal was done but have no evidence that anything illegal was done - just your suspicion. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. I could just as easily say thet I suspect you have done something illegal and you should be investigated.

Ah, so YOU allege there is reason to believe something illegal was done but have no evidence that anything illegal was done - just your suspicion. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. I could just as easily say thet I suspect you have done something illegal and you should be investigated.....

(...which would be the way the govt acted towards peace activists, muslims, educators, scientists, etc., during the bush administration and still can, by law. 9/11 did nowhere near the financial harm that these companies did....so — please. but, i'll try to give you a more complete argument)...

1. i am not saying there is no evidence. i am only trying to present a cohesive argument. you dont need material evidence (in the legal term) of wrong-doing in order to inspect for wrong-doing.

2. the question is whether or not there was enough reason for an inspection. you think there wasnt, i think there was. (see above)

but thats not what you were arguing, and what you were saying was what informed my response. i am more than happy to discuss other aspects of this situation with you.

you started your response by saying they havent done anything illegal. my point was that they may have.

now, if you want to argue the merits of the existing evidence, and whether or not they warrant this kind of inspection, go ahead. but i should warn you — the evidence is already presented in this article — as of yet, i really dont feel you've done enough to justify rejecting it. but i'll keep reading.

so if you want to object to what is going on now, you cant just say "it's a business, you cant look." you have to say that the evidence provided as an argument for us looking at this is not sufficient.

it may not be. but your suggestion that this is somehow extralegal by its very nature doesnt hold water. as you said, if there is evidence that justifies looking, we should be looking.

and, of course, we both understand that we dont need to the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to look for evidence of a crime. we dont even need an indictment. we need to make sure, only, constitutionally, that we dont violate the established precedents and rule of law regarding searches and seizures (not that we dont have precedent for just changing the law on the fly anyway, but, not the point).

and, since legal precedent is important in this country, you should also be aware that any argument claiming that these are illegal searches and seizures is likely going to have to address the "thresholds" that were moved by the bush administration (and, in part, confirmed by various other checks and balances, as horrible as that was) but happened to primarily affect american individuals, as opposed to american corporations.

so you're also going to have to convince people that corporations should have a freer threshold of rights than individuals.

i'm not trying to set you up for failure; i'm just trying to responsibly inform you of the possible scope of this conversation.

as far as fixing all this financial nonsense with regulations, if we have to fix it with regulations, we cant fix it. there ARE regulations. the obvious pattern is that regulations are institutionalized, adapted to, and made to fit the next abusive profit model. so i think i have a valid reason to suspect that this isnt going to be the time when we actually get it just exactly perfect. so maybe we should, you know, try something else.

how can we even know how to regulate if we arent intimately familiar with the most minute details of an industry that operates specifically using the most minute details it can find?

so, yeah — i get what you're saying. i was just hoping to go point by point. you make a point, it's responded to, advanced or supported further, etc. having already belabored the very first point unnecessarily, i thought i'd be good to start with a little more this time.

Ahhh... Kathy - you have obviously never heard of the Three F's Theory of Equity Investing! That lack would make a BIG hole in your understanding of Wall Street.

Dear Andromeda,

Say hello to Perseus and the family. In the timely words of Professor Henry Higgins, "By George, I think she's got it!"

I don't say it if I don't mean it,

'DeX'

Andro

You could run the democratic campaign hmmm maybe you did

DeX, thank you... but the poor Gorgon, Medusa!

Wildwonderful, thank you, but I prefer a helmet of invisibility and winged sandals; the democratic campaign, I'll pass, too many parellels to the Mongul Conquests.

Dear Andromeda,

Oy! She DID have the original "Dread-Locks"...Hi-Ho!

'DeX'

Kathy #11.1

Folks aren't "borrowing money at ... a frantic pace" ... credit has dried up for businesses and normal folks.

That's because the Fed has it all. BBB at the Fed handed out the TARP cash to the banks so that their balance sheets would look good, then had Congress change the rules so that the Fed could now pay interest on reserve account deposits. Then the banks gave the TARP money back to the Fed as an interest bearing cash equivalent, which goes the same place on the balance sheet as cash (right next to the TAs valued uner FASB rule #139 at full face value - even though it's really nothing but Monopoly money.) So the banks - even though they have no cash - can still pass their stress tests and be adjudged "sound" even though they're bankrupt and deep in the hole!

What's the Fed doing with the cash so deposited? Buying Treasuries from the Government so the Dems can spend, spend, spend. That's why you have inflation, but not nearly as much as you SHOULD have given the spending levels the government is maintaining. Between BBB and Tax Cheat Timmy, they're just playing pass the bucks - back and forth. (Or was it a pigeon drop?)

But soon the TARP money will run out... And BBB will have to start printing... and then we can officially change the name of our country to Northern Brazil and like the Southern Brazil, we can rename our currency every ten years or so, and in the off five years, drop three zeroes off the end of the denominations due to chronically high inflation. (Brazil never met the government spending they couldn't do!)

Won't that just be so much FUN?

Wildwonderful, excellent and very analogous of the situation; wonderfully captures the bankers.

It gives the old Steppenwolf song a new dynamic. Maybe they should "tweak it " and re-release it. 'DeX'