Goldman Chiefs Give Up Bonuses

[question everything]

Source: WSJ

NOVEMBER 17, 2008


Seven Top Executives to Forgo Millions in 2008; Move Could Pressure Other Firms
By SUSANNE CRAIG


In a closely watched move that may be followed across Wall Street, the top executives at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have decided to forgo their 2008 bonuses. In doing so, they are giving up potentially tens of millions of dollars in payouts in a year that reshaped the securities industry. After months of internal debate at Goldman, the seven top executives at the firm, including Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein, asked the board's compensation committee to grant them no bonuses. The board approved the request on Sunday. The executives will only be eligible for their base salaries, $600,000 for each. A firm spokesman said the executives felt it was "the right thing" to do.

(snip)

It isn't clear yet whether other firms will follow suit. Spokeswomen at Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch & Co. said no compensation decisions have been made yet. Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack took no bonus in 2007 after the firm suffered a fourth-quarter loss.

Just a year ago firms across Wall Street were still more or less untouched by the mortgage meltdown and were ringing up record profits. Mr. Blankfein took home $68.5 million in cash and stock in 2007, a record payday for the head of a publicly-traded securities firm. But over the past year, mortgage related losses have slammed the firms, starting in March with the shotgun marriage of Bear Stearns Cos. to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Then, in September, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection and Merrill Lynch agreed to be bought by Bank of America Corp.


Goldman has fared better than other firms, but its stock is down more than 60% this year. Analysts are predicting it is on course to post its first quarterly loss as a public company in December when it reports its fourth-quarter earnings. The debate over bonuses and how much should be paid out has been raging for months across Wall Street. Some investment bankers have argued that even if it was an ugly year, only a handful of people are responsible for the losses and not everyone should be punished for that.




Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122687023712831667.html

[Kaleko]

1. "mortgage related losses..." Translate that to fictitious securities backed by nothing

in collateral. Billions of fraudulent bonds created out of thin air.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Holy Moley!!!!

Mr. Blankfein took home $68.5 million in cash and stock in 2007, a record payday for the head of a publicly-traded securities firm.

:wow:

[question everything]

23. Which is why many of us, who supported the bailout, conditioned it on eliminating

those obscene bonuses.

[BR_Parkway]

3. While we're at it, can we force Dick and Bush to give back their

salaries for the past 8 years? Seems like incompetence would be enough, but surely doing everything possible against your oath of office would make it mandatory

[fasttense]

4. Give up bonus? He should be giving up his freedom

and be in jail. Bunch of criminals playing at a Ponzi scheme that has collapsed.

[tavalon]

5. Mighty big of them

I wonder how they'll put food on their families. :eyes:

[Buns_of_Fire]

6. Perhaps they caught a whiff of that hot tar being prepared for them. n/t

[bedazzled]

7. they've DECIDED. must be great to decide to give yourselves millions

totally out of control. no wonder we're in
such a mess

[tanyev]

10. And it only took them "months of internal debate".

Probably more like "months of futile searching for really good loopholes".

[vssmith]

8. Iacocca worked for $1 when Chrysler was getting bailed out

[JerseygirlCT]

9. What I don't understand is why bonuses would be forthcoming for

any where profits are down to begin with. Isn't the point of a bonus to reward performance above and beyond?

Seems we've completely lost any connection to that idea now, and bonus is just another way to pay people exorbitant salaries. I mean, this is a good gesture, but it's just a start, and really, the boards of directors ought to be doing this across the Street, and across the country.

[Vinca]

11. Sniff, sniff . . . it's going to be a Walmart Christmas.

How else does a person get by on $68.5 million for 2 whole years?:mad:

[daggahead]

20. Jeebus ...

I could get by on that for 20 lifetimes!

[acmavm]

12. I don't think they'll be having problems paying the mortgage, the

heat bill, nor do I think they'll go hungry.

I don't think they did one damnt thing special passing up their 'bonuses'. They belong in jail.

[customerserviceguy]

13. It's only because we're finally looking

It'd be nice to grab some of what they were sucking down back when they thought they had us all fooled with fairy-dust "securities".

Even $600K is a lot of money to pay someone to run something into the ground.

[antimatter98]

14. A phony gesture

Because of all the money these guys have socked away while they looted customers in
years past.

Jail time and repayment is what we need to impose on these people. Let the IRS
be in charge of this 'collection' process.

[natrat]

15. line em up and shoot em

[daggahead]

21. No ... that's too good for them.

Waterboarding, anybody?

[Bake]

16. With record losses, how the hell would they QUALIFY for a bonus???

No rational employer pays a freakin' BONUS to an employee that has lost them money, lost share value, etc.

Bake

[bdamomma]

17. oh my heart is bleeding for them

:sarcasm:

[nc4bo]

18. The greedy criminal bastards should not only give up their "bonuses"

but should also give up every damn thing they owned/bought during the "financial reshaping" period of time, including bonuses from previous years.

AND I do mean give up EVERYTHING. Fuck their criminal ideas of capitalism, what they did was just plain evil. Hell, since their activities (and other companies like them) for the most part undermined the economic health of not only the U.S. but all over the world, I consider them guilty of treason also. They should be forced to become paupers in prison for a very, very long time.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[CrispyQ]

19. It's gonna be tough living on $600k a year.

:eyes:

:grr:

:banghead:

[daggahead]

22. Yes, they'll have to make sacrifices ... n/y

[Tansy_Gold]

24. When they have to get by on $6,000 a year -- and without access

to the billions they've stocked (pun intended) away, then I might feel sorry for 'em. But not 'till then.



Tansy Gold, who knows what it's like to try to get by on $500 a month.

[Canuckistanian]

25. Ooo, that must be rough

How they going to afford to buy that new GI Joe with the Kung-Fu grip for their kids this Xmas?