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.

bon bon does have a point. While a lot of things happened before 2008 to set up the economic mess (and to the extent government policies contributed, I'd go back a lot further), the mess and the extent of the mess have only become clearer within the last year or two. Using the mortgage mess as an example, you don't have to be as reckless as a New Century to see a lot of loans go bad when people are losing their jobs at rates we haven't seen in decades. So the worst generalization about bonuses based on 2007 results may be that they were based on short-term results that didn't consider possible long-term consequences. In other words, you could make an argument (and I'll stay out of whether I agree with that argument) for stupidity or negligence, but not fraud.

That said, there are a couple more points to be made. Bonuses based on 2008 results are among the highest ever (I'm hearing sixth). There may be individuals deserving bonuses, maybe even pretty substantial bonuses. But there's something wrong when a business or an industry goes into the tank and bonuses -- supposedly rewards for a job well done -- are at the high end of historic levels.

I'll also say there's something wrong when a business is laying workers off right and left, but the folks in the executive suites continue to knock down seven, eight, or even nine figure compensations as if nothing had gone wrong. I'll agree that laws restricting executive compensation in general are problematic (with a caveat that many laws, good and bad, happen because the private sector doesn't correct something that people are upset about). But if your business is in such bad shape that the government has to bail you out, your top folks can't conduct business and compensation as usual.

Tommyrot clearly hates me.

Just think of that post as a time saver. Look at how many links we got to skip.

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.

No, you're right, it's based on 2008 performance -- though with the exception of Merrill, the article doesn't distinguish which firms paid what -- all you know is that the industry as a whole did bad yet bonuses were paid to people in the industry.