Just caught up... harking back to the suicide soda conversation. When I was growing up in Chicago's western suburbs we called it "garbage can pop". A "black suicide" was taking just a little off the top of every bottle in your dad's liquor cabinet so he wouldn't notice any was missing. I'm pretty sure I never heard anyone call a soda mix "suicide" until I moved to California.

also... My brother says "Easy Peasey Japanesey". Maybe I should tell him to stop.

of the people I know in banking, all receive their bonuses in February/March, based on the previous year. So, while I think most executive pay is outrageous, it's not really fair to say that the bonuses they received in 2008 were based on substandard performance.

So bonuses received in 2008 were based on 2007?

I have a very hard time believing that the economy's current shambles came about only from banking/financial/investment activity that occurred from January 1, 2008, and forward. It takes longer than 13 months to fuck over the economy this badly, and I'm fairly certain that economists have pointed to its origins being earlier than January 1, 2008; in fact, earlier than 2007.

So I, personally, think that bonuses received in 2008 -- even if based on 2007 performance -- were probably not all based on super-duper stellar rock star performance. Unless "laying the groundwork to fuck over the economy" = rock star performance. If that's the case, then they sure earned every penny of their bonuses.

Unless "laying the groundwork to fuck over the economy" = rock star performance. If that's the case, then they sure earned every penny of their bonuses.

Okay, so I was writing out this long post explaining about how this is really not that far from the truth and compensation structures and yadda yadda and then I realized was actually using the word "incented" and I had to go shoot myself in the head.

Because clearly it should be "incentivized." Wait.

kerblam!

Incented and peppermints, meaningless verbs....

So I, personally, think that bonuses received in 2008 -- even if based on 2007 performance -- were probably not all based on super-duper stellar rock star performance. Unless "laying the groundwork to fuck over the economy" = rock star performance. If that's the case, then they sure earned every penny of their bonuses.

I remember the rumblings on fall of 2006, and New Century Financial going bankrupt in April of 2007. So yeah, this has been going on for awhile. But people thought the fallout was limited to particular industries and financial products, so I don't think bonuses based on 2007 results in other segments of the market were fraudulent, no.

And, you know, you're talking about real people whose entire life revolves around the success of the market, I don't think they were all working toward a global financial collapse, or that they're all evil, mendacious monsters looking to ensure the loss of their own jobs.

Well, it's the "counts on tips" argument on a much larger scale. Not that I'm sympathetic when it comes to many banking salaries.

I think it's more like "defer this chunk of compensation for tax purposes." I'm not SURE it is, but I think it is.

what is the rhyme to easy peasy ____ ______?

"pumpkin pie, motherfucker"

And, you know, you're talking about real people whose entire life revolves around the success of the market, I don't think they were all working toward a global financial collapse, or that they're all evil, mendacious monsters looking to ensure the loss of their own jobs.

You're also talking about real people who assume they'll get their multimillion dollar bonus even if the company is staggering and needs a government bail out. They're not evil mendacious monsters, but they're more than a little entitled and deffinately out of touch with "cause and effect"

More bacon links

Tommyrot clearly hates me.

You're also talking about real people who assume they'll get their multimillion dollar bonus even if the company is staggering and needs a government bail out. They're not evil mendacious monsters, but they're more than a little entitled and deffinately out of touch with "cause and effect"

I thought I was referring to bonuses based on 2007 results, a year before government intervention. Maybe there are tons of i-bankers who still think they're entitled to bonuses when they do poorly, but I think that's a straw man.

So, bon bon, do you think articles like this one [link] are referring to bonuses paid in early 2008, based on 2007 activity? The article certainly left me with the impression that they are talking about Dec. 2008-Jan. 2009 bonus payouts, based on 2008 performance. But I don't know much about I-banking.