tax on retention bonus

102 replies [Last post]
slouzcar's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-29

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House is scheduled to vote today on a bill that
would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family
incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5
billion in government bailout money.

Didn't C and BAC both get over $5 billion in bailout money? Will the retention bonuses paid to bac-merrill and citi-smith
barney reps be Fed taxed at 90%?

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

That is the dumbest freakin thing I have seen them do yet.  First of all, why is it that people that make under 250K are somehow special?  What if you make 85K and your wife makes 200K, now YOU have to get penalized for your bonus?  What if you took the job with the explicit understanding that the bonus was the primary reason you took the job?
This is absolutely ludicrous.  They are not punishing "corporate executives" or the people that got us into the mess (otherwise, every Senator would have their entire SALARIES taxed at 90%), they are punishing good, hard-working people, that may happen to earn a lot of money.
 
Here we go again.....wealth re-distribution.  "F" all of you that make too much money.  When we elected Obama, even the most conservative people couldn't have imagined a 90% income tax....but we got what we (not me) voted for.

theironhorse's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-03

my biggest beef with the whole $250K mark is that it is not a given that someone earning $250K is anywhere near "rich."  that $ amount in iowa/wisconsin is nowhere near the same value for someone living in larger metropolitan areas like nyc/chicago.

Valhalla's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-13

the worst part of this IDIOCY is that there are good people at each of these companies that had nothing to do with the downfall. who went about their daily business in the proper fashion, and work hard to put food on the table just like everyone else in this country. they count on this money to live and provide just like the welfare mom counts on her stamps to do the same. 
 
why are these people being punished?
 
just remember,  if this administration can do it to these people... don't think it has not (or will not) cross their minds to do it to others in the private sector. all they need is a political reason.
 

footsoldier's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-04-30

they count on this money to live and provide just like the welfare mom counts on her stamps to do the same. 
 
Val-
 
I want some of whatever your smokin dude. Give me a flippin break equating someone who gets a 1M bonus to a welfare mom. Xanax will help bring you back to reality...
 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Why are these people being punished? Because congress doesn't understand the concept of bonuses. They get paid regardless of how they perform. If they were paid by way of a bonus package not only would they not make any money, they'd have to pay us.
 
As Will Rogers said "Thank god we're not getting all the government we're paying for."

Valhalla's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-13

footsoldier wrote:they count on this money to live and provide just like the welfare mom counts on her stamps to do the same. 
 
Val-
 
I want some of whatever your smokin dude. Give me a flippin break equating someone who gets a 1M bonus to a welfare mom. Xanax will help bring you back to reality...
 
 
i knew this would surface - the point is not a dollar to dollar comparison, rather that everyone has their own standard of living that is built into their income and what that income will provide for their families. is a $1 million dollar bonus outrageous for those persons who ruined their company and facilitated this economic meltdown - absolutely.
 
but not everyone who got that $1 million OR whose "family income is over $250k" (and did not get a $1 million bonus) was part of that circle of people. they are unjustifiably being punished IMHO - 90%!!!!!
 
this entire scenario is exactly why our government has NO business running businesses.
 
 

MrBig's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-05

F*%^ Obama and everyone who voted for him. $250k isn't enough to make a god damn mortgage payment anywhere around me. I think he should pay 90% taxes on the "forgiven" rent he's getting while living in the White House and on everything over $100k he makes.

footsoldier's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-04-30

It's too late to debate the bonuses for companies that receive government assistance. How anyone can justify a bonus (not wages) to an employee when the ship is ready to sink just doesn't pass the smell test and never will.
 
Bonuses are generally not guaranteed are they? If they are maybe they shouldn't be. Your argument about government intervention is completely valid, except for one minor issue. They needed the money in order to continue and NO ONE was willing to lend them a dime more.  I agree our govermnent shouldn't be running business, and I also believe that allowing these firms to go bankrupt would have been a better scenario over the long haul. The problem is that no one wanted to give the market time to correct itself. It has been too painful for many already. So we reap what we sow and now we have to deal with the aftermath....and it isn't a pretty picture as you describe. Let's not forget what caused us to go into this quagmire.
If I read correctly some of the bonuses went to folks who had already left AIG. Is this not insane? Where is my Makers Mark...and ice...

B24's picture
B24
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-08

Foot, your argument is flawed.  If your argument were true, then why not just stop paying everyone at AIG?  And at BAC? and at C?  What's the difference between the contractual bonuses they were offered before TARP, and their salaries?  It's all compensation.  TARP money was meant to keep the companies solvent.  Part of running the companies is paying them what they agreed to pay them. 
 
I don't know who you operate through, but let's just say LPL for argument's sake.  What if the government came out tomorrow and said that getting an 80% payout on commissions is unacceptable.  In fact, anything paid out over 50% will be taxed at 90%.  And it's retroactive back to all of 2008.  But just at LPL.  And RJ.  And Commonwealth.
 
They are not trying to take back the bonuses because these people got paid.  They are doing it to try to prove to the American people that they are in control of the situation.  And not doing a very good job of it.

MrBig's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-05

So, if you performed a job and, did it well, from 2006-2007, then in Jan 2008 you were given a contract that said because of your performance we're giving you your million dollar bonus payable in 1 year (whether you're here or not because it's based on the year prior), why the hell should you not be entitled to take that bonus? Why should the weight of the firm's failure rest on your shoulders. Are you the one at fault? Likely not. Should your family suffer because someone else screwed up (by the way, those people that did screw up got plenty of bonuses and didn't have to wait a year for them).

***I'm just speaking hypothetically here. I'm sure someone the people who got these bonuses screwed up the company and some did not. But let's be realistic.

SometimesNowhere's picture
Joined: 2008-12-22

I just read that some forms of the bill will levy the tax half on the company, and half on the individual. Isn't ultimately like we are charging ourselves for those bonuses?
-Government sends money to AIG from taxpayers
-AIG sends money to employees in form of bonuses
-Government then asks for a large portion of money that go out in bonuses to be taxed
-AIG doesn't have the money, otherwise government wouldn't be sending taxpayer money. AIG uses taxpayer money to pay back tax payers.
 
I hope I am wrong or unsophisticated with this. Otherwise, I think it is pretty awesome.

MrBig's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-05

B24 wrote: Foot, your argument is flawed.  If your argument were true, then why not just stop paying everyone at AIG?  And at BAC? and at C?  What's the difference between the contractual bonuses they were offered before TARP, and their salaries?  It's all compensation.  TARP money was meant to keep the companies solvent.  Part of running the companies is paying them what they agreed to pay them. 
 
I don't know who you operate through, but let's just say LPL for argument's sake.  What if the government came out tomorrow and said that getting an 80% payout on commissions is unacceptable.  In fact, anything paid out over 50% will be taxed at 90%.  And it's retroactive back to all of 2008.  But just at LPL.  And RJ.  And Commonwealth.
 
They are not trying to take back the bonuses because these people got paid.  They are doing it to try to prove to the American people that they are in control of the situation.  And not doing a very good job of it.

Nicely worded B24.

footsoldier's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-04-30

I am not sure that you can surmise that anyone did their job well in 06-08 if the company ran itself into the ground. If they were doing that well why not pay the gov back and pay their bonuses out of profits. Oops there weren't any because they strayed into territory with great risk associated and lost. Maybe we are closer to the same side, but I just can't get my hands around paying a bonus of a dollar, if the company is bleeding.
 
Again...pay a bonus for performance i.e., the company earned x therefore we are paying you y. But if you defer it to a different year and the company is now not profitable....there in lies the problem ,no money to pay the obligation. Maybe bonuses should be treated like deferred comp.
 
The public at large can't and probably won't ever accept this practice. It comes back to the smell test.

Valhalla's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-13

footsoldier wrote:I am not sure that you can surmise that anyone did their job well in 06-08 if the company ran itself into the ground. If they were doing that well why not pay the gov back and pay their bonuses out of profits. Oops there weren't any because they strayed into territory with great risk associated and lost. Maybe we are closer to the same side, but I just can't get my hands around paying a bonus of a dollar, if the company is bleeding.
 
Again...pay a bonus for performance i.e., the company earned x therefore we are paying you y. But if you defer it to a different year and the company is now not profitable....there in lies the problem ,no money to pay the obligation. Maybe bonuses should be treated like deferred comp.
 
The public at large can't and probably won't ever accept this practice. It comes back to the smell test.
 
Foot, AIG has many divisions so let's just take this example - you are a manager in the life/health division, said division had nothing to do with the deritives/CDS's, etc,  that ultimately got AIG, as a company, in trouble. under your leadership, the life/health division prospered, thus you were to be given a contractually oblligated bonus. are you telling me that you would not expect your bonus "because the company ran itself into the ground", but was bailed out by Uncle Sam to the tune of $170 Billion? I think most in that scenario would expect that bonus as contractually obligated exactly BECAUSE of your performance(although I agree with you that bonuses moving forward may need to be restructured).
 
Bankruptcy would have solved all of this, but NOOOOOOO, our wondeful politicians, in the heat of a Presidential election year just could not resist.
 

Regarding your other post, I agree with most everything you stated there. Hopefully your Makers is in the sameplace as my Woodford Reserve - at home, in the bar, awaiting my arrival.

feebasedrep's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-12-31

What about the Merrill,SB, and MS brokers who have already spent their bonuses....and does this mean everyone goes to UBS and Janney for the "recruitment bonus???

footsoldier's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-04-30

I told you we agree more than disagree...

Now if Geithner would resign maybe we can at least have someone running treasury  who pays his taxes on time. Why does my nose turn up so often?  Another test where the shnoz twitches.

Valhalla's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-13

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution
 
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
 
GO!

now_indy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-28

Valhalla wrote:Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution
 
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
 
GO!
 
I assume you're referring to the "bill of attainder," as in:
 
A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. Bills of attainder are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.
 
Good call, that's exactly what it is.
 
 

Hydeho's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

now_indy wrote:Valhalla wrote:Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution
 
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
 
GO!
 
I assume you're referring to the "bill of attainder," as in:
 
A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. Bills of attainder are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.
 
Good call, that's exactly what it is.
 
 Yeah the Demorats really believe in the US Constitution

Hydeho's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

feebasedrep wrote:What about the Merrill,SB, and MS brokers who have already spent their bonuses....and does this mean everyone goes to UBS and Janney for the "recruitment bonus???I guess you missed thisFORBESBlock That Bonus!
Brian Wingfield and Joshua Zumbrun,
03.17.09, 07:00 PM EDTSen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., expanded the battlefield Tuesday, calling
on the Obama administration to halt $3 billion in similar payments to
financial advisers at Morgan Stanley

(nyse:
MS -

news
-

people
).
"The retention payments at AIG and Morgan Stanley are both essentially
the same form of extra compensation, and they are not fully necessary
to retain executives in this tough financial market," Menendez told
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
in a letter. He's called on the administration to use "every legal
means available" to stop the payments, which are scheduled to be
awarded in January 2010.

GordonGekko12's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-25

If you read the legislation it states it will not apply to commissions.  They could rewrite our contracts to call them commissions paid??  There will be loopholes. 

fritz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-01-12

GordonGekko12 wrote:If you read the legislation it states it will not apply to commissions.  They could rewrite our contracts to call them commissions paid??  There will be loopholes. 
 
They cant say commissions paid?  That would be "paid" and no chance for firms to recover.  This would be an amazing mess with getting back up front deal money also.  We brought over a 5 person team of 2.5 million in Jan.  They were going nuts today worried about what it would mean, manager was telling them it could get dicey.  Nightmare coming up for 1000's of reps who got money in 2009, or due money down the road on backend deals.

GordonGekko12's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-25

Easy fix.........deferred commissions.

fritz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-01-12

GordonGekko12 wrote:Easy fix.........deferred commissions.
 
1,000,000 worth of deferred commish!!
 
My bet is they say "sorry cant give money now"...with no bonus deals for recruits it wont hurt them.. Think the way I read it, the pikers are good to go, because they fit under the 250K income including bonus threshold!!

CDO Squared's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-20

They are forgivable "loans".   
You "earn" it through production and time with firm in future.
Hell, one thing you can say about us is we earn our MF money.

sisu's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-07

This proposed legislation, if passed by the Senate and signed by the president as currently written, will surely be tested in the courts.  I believe the courts would strike it down as illegal for a number of reasons, many of which are being discussed in various blogs and talk shows.  The ultimate fall guy will be Geitner, who stated that he takes full responsibility for the loophole that allowed for the bonus payments.  The President along with the liberal congress is going too far with their socialist agenda and it will backfire on them.  It's going to take time...but this will eventually come back and bite them hard. 

Valhalla's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-13

now_indy wrote:Valhalla wrote:Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution
 
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
 
GO!
 
I assume you're referring to the "bill of attainder," as in:
 
A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. Bills of attainder are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.
 
Good call, that's exactly what it is.
 
 
 
yes. thank you. going to be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts over the next few months.

oldpruguy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-12

This is all a big distraction from dealing with the real problem that Obama and minions now have in their lap re: buffoons in the legislative branch that speak for their party and are driving the agenda right now coupled with the farce at the Treasury Dept...the tax is unconstitutional and won't pass, simple truth....
This is an anti-business, big government administration. We'll see how voters feel about it next year and 2012...The Revolution Begins.
 

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous

H.R. 1586 would impose a new 90% tax on bonuses received by employees of certain companies that received funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The tax would apply to any bonus given after December 31, 2008.

The legislation would apply the 90% tax to only the portion of a bonus that, in combination with other income, increases an employee's adjusted gross income to a level above $250,000 ($125,000 for married couples filing individually) in the taxable year when the bonus was received. Therefore, employees with adjusted gross incomes of less than $250,000 (including bonuses) would not be impacted.

The tax would apply to any retention payment, incentive payment, or any other payment made to an employee above their regular pay for their regular service. However, any commissions, fringe benefits, or expense reimbursements would be exempt from the taxation.

The bill would provide that employees that return a bonus in the same taxable year as the bonus was received would be exempt from the tax. The bill would also specify that any payment made by a TARP recipient to an employee to offset the cost of the tax would be considered as an additional bonus and would be subject to the 90% tax.

The bill defines a "TARP recipient" as any person or persons who have received more than $5 billion in TARP funds, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and any company that is either connected to a TARP recipient through stock ownership or is more than 50% owned by a TARP recipient. If a company repays its TARP assistance funding to a level below $5 billion, its employees would no longer be subject to the 90% tax.

CDO Squared's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-20

Morgan Stanley should scrap $3 billion bonuses: senator

Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:01am EDT Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single Page [-] Text [+]
By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Morgan Stanley (MS.N) should be barred from paying as much as $3 billion to entice brokers to stay when the company and Citigroup Inc (C.N) merge their brokerage operations, U.S. Senator Robert Menendez said.

In a Tuesday letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, urged the government to use "every legal means available" to stop the payouts as long as Morgan Stanley receives support from taxpayers.

"These payouts constitute misuse of taxpayer money," Menendez wrote. "Some on Wall Street don't understand that they, more than anyone, cannot be permitted to carry on with business as usual. These times demand shared sacrifice."

The senator said the payouts, like bonuses paid at troubled insurer American International Group Inc (AIG.N), are "essentially the same form of extra compensation" and are "not fully necessary to retain executives in this tough financial market."

Morgan Stanley has taken $10 billion and Citigroup $45 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

Christy Pollak, a Morgan Stanley spokeswoman, said each award is "not a bonus," but is a nine-year "forgivable loan" that must be paid back if a broker leaves sooner.

"The program is necessary because our financial advisers are being poached by competitors," Pollak said. The cost is covered by operating revenue of the joint venture and not government TARP money."

About 6,500 of the venture's 20,000 brokers are expected to be eligible for awards, which would be made in 2010 and 2012.

Retention awards are paid to keep brokers from defecting after a company is bought. Financial companies getting taxpayer money are facing heavy pressure from Congress and regulators to limit pay.

"If you want this venture to succeed, then this type of award is necessary," said Danny Sarch, founder of recruiting firm Leitner Sarch Consultants Ltd in White Plains, New York. "If the awards are cut back, they will have dramatically more attrition than they would otherwise. The rest of the industry would have a field day in recruiting."

Under the payout plan, brokers who generate at least $1.75 million in revenue a year may get awards equal to 105 percent of their annual production, a person familiar with the plan said last month. The person was not authorized to publicly discuss details of the plan.

Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N), which bought Wachovia Corp at the end of 2008, said last month it will not issue retention awards to about 14,600 brokers from Wachovia's brokerage arm, Wachovia Securities.

Morgan Stanley is paying Citigroup $2.7 billion for an initial 51 percent stake in their venture, and may take full control after five years. A closing is expected this summer.

A Treasury Department spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel, editing by Gerald E. McCormick and Jeffrey Benkoe)

wow.     anyone thinking about taking a check should probably jump.   we are under siege.

i guess this crap will make d*** head Stumhp and MF WFC look smart

fritz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-01-12

CDO Squared wrote:Morgan Stanley should scrap $3 billion bonuses: senator Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:01am EDT Email | Print | Share | Reprints | Single Page [-] Text [+] By Jonathan Stempel NEW YORK (Reuters) - Morgan Stanley (MS.N) should be barred from paying as much as $3 billion to entice brokers to stay when the company and Citigroup Inc (C.N) merge their brokerage operations, U.S. Senator Robert Menendez said. In a Tuesday letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, urged the government to use "every legal means available" to stop the payouts as long as Morgan Stanley receives support from taxpayers. "These payouts constitute misuse of taxpayer money," Menendez wrote. "Some on Wall Street don't understand that they, more than anyone, cannot be permitted to carry on with business as usual. These times demand shared sacrifice." The senator said the payouts, like bonuses paid at troubled insurer American International Group Inc (AIG.N), are "essentially the same form of extra compensation" and are "not fully necessary to retain executives in this tough financial market." Morgan Stanley has taken $10 billion and Citigroup $45 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Christy Pollak, a Morgan Stanley spokeswoman, said each award is "not a bonus," but is a nine-year "forgivable loan" that must be paid back if a broker leaves sooner. "The program is necessary because our financial advisers are being poached by competitors," Pollak said. The cost is covered by operating revenue of the joint venture and not government TARP money." About 6,500 of the venture's 20,000 brokers are expected to be eligible for awards, which would be made in 2010 and 2012. Retention awards are paid to keep brokers from defecting after a company is bought. Financial companies getting taxpayer money are facing heavy pressure from Congress and regulators to limit pay. "If you want this venture to succeed, then this type of award is necessary," said Danny Sarch, founder of recruiting firm Leitner Sarch Consultants Ltd in White Plains, New York. "If the awards are cut back, they will have dramatically more attrition than they would otherwise. The rest of the industry would have a field day in recruiting." Under the payout plan, brokers who generate at least $1.75 million in revenue a year may get awards equal to 105 percent of their annual production, a person familiar with the plan said last month. The person was not authorized to publicly discuss details of the plan. Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N), which bought Wachovia Corp at the end of 2008, said last month it will not issue retention awards to about 14,600 brokers from Wachovia's brokerage arm, Wachovia Securities. Morgan Stanley is paying Citigroup $2.7 billion for an initial 51 percent stake in their venture, and may take full control after five years. A closing is expected this summer. A Treasury Department spokesman was not immediately available for comment. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel, editing by Gerald E. McCormick and Jeffrey Benkoe) wow.     anyone thinking about taking a check should probably jump.   we are under siege. i guess this crap will make d*** head Stumhp and MF WFC look smart
 
Who would pay you to leave, that would be a bonus??  WFC, BAC, MS, SB, BAC can not give a bonus..Guess UBS could be the only one who could recruit, could get crowded and would think they could give guys 50% if they wanted and people would have no choice but to say where do I sign??

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

Obama administration is using this as another oppurtunity to get the masses all fired up at wall street and the wealthy.

they knew about these bonuses for months and congress even agreed to them.

Obama administration wants to pass laws so they can tax certain groups at crazy levels.   They are not doing this to get back at AIG. They are doing this to set a precedent for the future.

This is socialism. The government will be able to pick certain companies and certain people to tax at special rates.

There needs to be a serious revolution in this country. Capitilism is going away at a very, very fast pace.

I don't agree with AIG getting bonuses like this when they got that much money, but the precedant that is about to be set is unbelievable.

CDO Squared's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-20

These stupid idiot liberal congressmen jerk offs.
john mack will give that money back soon.
mack is the man

now_indy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-28

Hydeho wrote: feebasedrep wrote:What about the Merrill,SB, and MS brokers who have already spent their bonuses....and does this mean everyone goes to UBS and Janney for the "recruitment bonus???I guess you missed thisFORBES
Block That Bonus!Brian Wingfield and Joshua Zumbrun, 03.17.09, 07:00 PM EDTSen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., expanded the battlefield Tuesday, calling on the Obama administration to halt $3 billion in similar payments to financial advisers at Morgan Stanley (nyse: MS - news - people ). "The retention payments at AIG and Morgan Stanley are both essentially the same form of extra compensation, and they are not fully necessary to retain executives in this tough financial market," Menendez told Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in a letter. He's called on the administration to use "every legal means available" to stop the payments, which are scheduled to be awarded in January 2010.
 
I'm just glad that Senator Menendez knows that payments "are not fully necessary to retain executives." He must be a genius.  He probably knows just how many miles per gallon are "necessary" for my car to get, and just how much water is "necessary" to flush my toilet, and just how many calories are "necessary" in my BigMac, or just how much money is "necessary" for me to make, or just how much government cheese is "necessary" for my family ... 
 
These guys must have some type of God syndrome, where they think their opinion is fact. I can't wait until 2010, and some of these goobers will get a wake up call. Chris Dodd, enjoy your two last years in the Senate.

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

congressman should have to pay back all of the politcial contributions from companies that got tarp funds. the clawback should go back 10 years.

go_huskies's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-12-11

if every congressman returns every nickel via campaign contributions received from tarp recipients immediately in a single lump sum, this would almost be palatable. the likelihood these crooks see their frivilous law apply to themselves is nil.
 
keep in mind that this legislation renders insolvent any contract ever written.  the impact is beyond the scope of imagination.  the usa is a banana republic in the making and civil war may be the end result.
 
at least you won't have to pay your bills anymore since the contract is irrelevent...
 
worst presidential administration in history and not even 2 months in office...
 
 

CDO Squared's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-20

josephjones107 wrote: congressman should have to pay back all of the politcial contributions from companies that got tarp funds. the clawback should go back 10 years.

good call

Apollo 13's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-27

I guess Merrill knows the proper palms to grease since this proposal would not affect their bonuses since it occurred before Dec. 31. How simple it would be for the affected firms to take the money back and say it wasn't their fault. If you recently moved to a firm how would you explain to your clients that you are moving their accounts again? I guess you would just tell them that the $1 million plus you recvd was taken away. NOT
What a sweet deal for these firms. Have you ever thought that these firms may be secretly backing this legislation behind closed doors?
Just food for thought.

CDO Squared's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-20

Apollo 13 wrote: I guess Merrill knows the proper palms to grease since this proposal would not affect their bonuses since it occurred before Dec. 31. How simple it would be for the affected firms to take the money back and say it wasn't their fault. If you recently moved to a firm how would you explain to your clients that you are moving their accounts again? I guess you would just tell them that the $1 million plus you recvd was taken away. NOT
What a sweet deal for these firms. Have you ever thought that these firms may be secretly backing this legislation behind closed doors?
Just food for thought.

it is coming.    a reason for them all to stop.   UBS will be only one and deals will drop big time.    WFC started it

armycolors's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-14

Take my retention bonus!
There will be civil unrest.
Mark my words!

sisu's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-07

OK, I stayed up late to see the Prez with Leno.  It's clear that Washington libs have our industry in their crosshairs.  He said that AIG is a bunch of crooks that should not be paid, ML guys should go to jail, and college students should consider science and engineering rather than investment banking.  The Prez indicated the entire problem boils down to Wallstreet greed.  WHAT A BUNCH OF BULL sh*t!  When are they going to talk about the decision in the 1990's to loosen lending standards to low income people and have the loans subsidized by GSE's like Fannie and Freddie?  Meanwhile when the GSE's were in trouble, blow me barney frank said all was OK.  And what about Clinton & Rubin repealing Glass Steagall which allowed the banks to buy the toxic crap created by bad legislation.  And what about the fact that derivatives and credit default swaps were traded in unregulated markets because of government legislation.  Meanwhile, the SEC did not have the balls to bring back common sense rules such as the uptick rule or jawbone FASB to eliminate or loosen mark-to-market accounting.  I am sick and tired of hearing DC people point their lying, incompetent fingers at us!  We have GOT to fight back!! 

now_indy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-07-28

sisu wrote:OK, I stayed up late to see the Prez with Leno.  It's clear that Washington libs have our industry in their crosshairs.  He said that AIG is a bunch of crooks that should not be paid, ML guys should go to jail, and college students should consider science and engineering rather than investment banking.  The Prez indicated the entire problem boils down to Wallstreet greed.  WHAT A BUNCH OF BULL sh*t!  When are they going to talk about the decision in the 1990's to loosen lending standards to low income people and have the loans subsidized by GSE's like Fannie and Freddie?  Meanwhile when the GSE's were in trouble, blow me barney frank said all was OK.  And what about Clinton & Rubin repealing Glass Steagall which allowed the banks to buy the toxic crap created by bad legislation.  And what about the fact that derivatives and credit default swaps were traded in unregulated markets because of government legislation.  Meanwhile, the SEC did not have the balls to bring back common sense rules such as the uptick rule or jawbone FASB to eliminate or loosen mark-to-market accounting.  I am sick and tired of hearing DC people point their lying, incompetent fingers at us!  We have GOT to fight back!! 
 

preach on brother!

Valhalla's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-02-13

josephjones107 wrote:congressman should have to pay back all of the politcial contributions from companies that got tarp funds. the clawback should go back 10 years.
 
this would only make sense in reality, which unfortunately is not where career DC politicians live.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

How about someone on this board who is politically savvy, and doesn't mind giving up a good career, run for office? Then, we can all jump on board and support that person for office. I'm sure a board full of salesmen (probably the ultimate salesmen) can get someone elected if they choose. We do have connections to some wealthy and powerful people as a whole. Just a thought.

I'll throw all of my support behind someone who is willing to fight for us.

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

Here is a post on March 8th:
You hope this is not true, but it's possible.   Ever notice the Obama commercials? he's always taking a jab at business. expressing that good things are not created in skyscrapers. health care should be non for profit industry. the financial services industry is at the height of irresponsibility. there should be a windfall tax on the oil companies,
specific quotes:
"a corporate culture rife with inside dealing; questionable accounting practices and short-term greed;
"the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit."
he stands for socialism, but that word never comes out of his mouth. He writes a several hundred page book and doesn't mention that dirty word once.
once things meltdown more, he'll say see this is why we need complete CHANGE because the old way wasn't working

Things are getting much worse and now Obama is egging on the general public to despise wall street. Now they want to target certain people at certain companies. The AIG thing is a tool for them to target certain groups in the future. America needs to wake up!! This is serious sh*tx.

GWB43's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-31

Congress wants ta tax dem at 90%...Which leaves 10% fo' state an' local taxesLets not forget ta mention Congress usin' tax policy as uh financial weaponYa'll is mad stupid

gvf's picture
gvf
Offline
Joined: 2008-07-01

Friend sent me this, was pretty good:http://xkcd.com/558/

BL6's picture
BL6
Offline
Joined: 2008-10-07

Shouldn't the leaders of our firms stand up and call BS.  Take a stand for America. 
Instead they are hiding and butt kissing.

footsoldier's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-04-30

You have to see the writing on the wall...This is a gamechanger for our industry. We are going to be under more scrutiny than ever and bonuses are going away or severly cutback or monitored by the government. We asked for this by our own stupidity, by putting our collective heads in the sand, and allowing excesses to escalate out of control.
 
Any CEO who stands up against the masses (regular folk can't get their hands around the concept of 165 Million to AIG and 3+Billion in bonuses for Merrill, 3B for MS/C merger... and the list goes on) now that Washington is dictating to Wall St, the CEO's are hunkering down becasuse they know they can't win in the court of public opinion.
 
A whole new world. Get used to it.

josephjones107's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-20

How is everybody liking Obamanomics now?

this country is no longer a safe place to do business. Contracts mean nothing. Mortgages are being rewritten. Employment contracts are being rewritten. These things are being done after the fact. If you are a group not liked by federal gov watch out. This is only the beginging.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×