Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Booking.com gives €28m in bonuses to three top execs; Took €65m in State aid

nltimes.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 346 posts

Re: Booking.com gives €28m in bonuses to three top execs; Took €65m in State aid

#321

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

ipaddr wrote: post #116
y04nn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to agree, if I want to start a competing reservation platform I would take this "opportunity" to launch it, but because big corps (almost a monopoly for booking.com) are helped in difficult times this makes it almost impossible to have competition or new small players that would have been advantaged by not having the weight of the big players.

Tell that to plentyoffish who took on the dating market and consistently ranked higher than big companies like match. If bookings.com suddenly disappeared you would have hundreds of players ready to jump in with their own angle. What would you offer? Is bookings.com really holding you back?

Plentyoffish sold to Match a few years back, as I recall.

I do take your general point though.

Re: Booking.com gives €28m in bonuses to three top execs; Took €65m in State aid

#322

Post by daddylongstroke »

jakearmitage wrote: post #135
slowhand09 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw people buying firearms with stimulus checks more than anything else. I saw a couple buy 2 identical $1300 handguns at once. They were joking about the stim checks. And annoyed they'd have to wait a week to pick up their purchases.

What's the problem with purchasing safety devices during unstable times?

The problem is the deeply seeded psychology of fear driven by the media. Americans are the most fearful people I think I've come across. The concept of resiliency of all kinds seems to be largely foreign here, except out in the 'sticks'.

Re: Booking.com gives €28m in bonuses to three top execs; Took €65m in State aid

#323

Post by sebmellen »

yunohn wrote: post #63
sebmellen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you replace "middle-aged white man" with "soulless corporate stooge" nearly anywhere this phrase is used, the replacement term will fit. The term "middle-aged white man" is a caricature of the extremely wealthy and powerful, even though (I believe) it is a misleading and inaccurate portrayal.

You say misleading caricature, yet all three of the people named in this article are middle aged white men.

I say misleading because there are soulless corporate stooges of exactly this kind in every race, gender perhaps less so. If you want to see a more egregious display of government/corporate corruption, you can find that in places like Southeast Asia, Africa (Angola, for example), some countries in South America, etc.

But more to the point — in this case specifically — it's just not a very helpful or distinctive description. "Middle-aged white men" own many companies and occupy many government positions in Europe, yes. But using that as a unique descriptor is pointless. Many "middle-aged white men" mine coal for a living or work hard mechanical labor jobs and are destitute. I'm sure that many "middle-aged white men" were the employees cheated out of jobs or higher wages by Booking.com.

Say you went to China and observed government corruption. If you said "middle-aged Asian men completed the unsavory deal" in an article on the topic as if it were some shocking revelation, I'm sure most would be confused as to why you thought that descriptor/qualifier was necessary or relevant.

Re: Booking.com gives €28m in bonuses to three top execs; Took €65m in State aid

#324

Post by nixgeek »

DangitBobby wrote: post #318
nradov wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most landlords raise rent as much as possible. Invitation Homes can't charge more than the market rate; their costs are irrelevant.

I hear people say this, but it's definitely not been my personal experience. I've rented at places where the rates were incredibly reasonable and did not increase. One guy let me rent month-to-month for over a year without ever increasing rent. Is there evidence to suggest that private landlords are mustache twirling villains?

In my limited experience with renting, self-managed properties often don’t hike rents annually. Feels to me like this is because the landlords aren’t tracking market movements and so don’t understand they can increase their gross revenue by 5-30% in some years because demand significantly outstrips supply in many metros.

Managed properties the agent generally does have a lot of datapoints about the market and will raise the rents accordingly,. They can see what similar properties are fetching, they can see the result of hikes in terms of people who move out, and their incentive is the management fee is quite often a % of gross revenue.

I’d go as far as saying charging significantly under the market rate for rents is financial mismanagement. You’ve got an asset delivering you income and you aren’t managing the return on the asset to be broadly what equivalent assets are returning to others.

I don’t think charging the market rate makes you a mustache twirling villain.

Re: Booking.com gives €28m in bonuses to three top execs; Took €65m in State aid

#325

Post by lobocinza »

fruityrudy wrote: post #284
Jiocus wrote: post #133

The title is almost underwhelming in severity (which is a refreshing break from sensationalistic headlines), “[€28m in bonuses] even after taking three billion euros in loans last year, and 100 million euros in State aid including 65 million from the Netherlands. The company also let go of thousands of people during the coronavirus pandemic.” Booking.com isn't alone engaging in these practices. Many corporations seem…

I think people make the mistake of thinking that the people who get bonuses are easily replaceable. The executive market of people who have experience at these kinds of levels is extremely thin. Your company needs to be attractive to this high echelon of talent. That means keeping a good record of treatment to executives. I think the thought of: “just pay them less or they can leave” is pretty common. But it’s just n…

Does not make it less immoral.

Re: Booking.com gives €28m in bonuses to three top execs; Took €65m in State aid

#326

Post by nixgeek »

daddylongstroke wrote: post #319
nly wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the power of capital vs the power of income. If you have a high salary and no ability to save for a deposit then property can be unaffordable and you're stuck paying someone else's mortgage. If you have a 5% deposit saved and a high salary, you still can't afford a home because lots of people are in your position and have driven up house prices and rates and leverage available sucks. If you have 20-25% down and…

> If you have a 5% deposit saved and a high salary, you still can't afford a home because lots of people are in your position and have driven up house prices and rates and leverage available sucks. I keep hearing this trope and reading about it. Not positive why it gets repeated. It doesn't take long to do a realtor.com or trulia search to find a shit-ton of affordable homes. It seems to me that, there's a certain cl…

Right now all I hear near Seattle is properties that are relatively unexceptional, that people bought 2-4 years ago for $800k, and are now being listed at $1.2M.

They’ll list on a Friday, get 35 viewings over the weekend, and the seller has 10+ offers by Wednesday and accepts $300k over asking with all contingencies waived.

I’ve personally heard over a dozen such examples in the last 90 days. I’m sure someone’s looked at MLS data and done a better analysis.

Lenders continue to appraise nearer the initial asking, availability of capital is tightening up because of risk and underwriting has become more conservative since Summer 2020, typically meaning buyers need >740 credit and good debt-to-income ratios to do 5% down, and then they also need the $300k cash to bridge the gap between appraisers valuations and what it actually takes to do a deal in this market.

Despite COVID purporting to offer more work location flexibility, what we seem to be experiencing in WA is downtown renters looking to buy within 30 miles of work, perhaps for a “Hybrid” future, rather than packing their bags and moving to WI.

Re: Booking.com gives €28m in bonuses to three top execs; Took €65m in State aid

#327

Post by lobocinza »

maxsilver wrote: post #81
MangoCoffee wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Fund people, not companies it depended. large corporation like Apple don't need the money but mom and pop shop that is forced to close during the peak should receive money. the sad thing is corporation that clearly can make it thur covid is receiving the largest amount like https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...

>mom and pop shop that is forced to close during the peak should receive money. No, they shouldn't. Don't give any money to any corporations, give all the money exclusively to people. If Mom and Pop run a business, they can get cash as humans to float their business, just like any human could. They could temporarily lay off all their staff (which is OK, because their staff are humans, and are also getting cash) There…

Did mom and dad directly fund political campaign of those in power?

Re: Booking.com gives €28m in bonuses to three top execs; Took €65m in State aid

#328

Post by nixgeek »

ab_testing wrote: post #288
slowhand09 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not rich here. Wife's company got COVID loans. They were forgiven. Company had to prove money was spent on rent, salaries, benefits. Company didn't make money on it. Employees were able to keep their jobs. No bonuses involved there.

Just a data point here. My company got a five million loan that got written off. The company claimed that around 120 jobs were at risk. However the truth is that since we are a consulting firm and our clients continued our services, the jobs were never really at risk and the owners made off with 5 million. For a company that has yearly profits in the low one million range, the owners did hit a lottery while cutting o…

If it’s truly as simple as what you describe then the owners committed fraud.

Re: Booking.com gives €28m in bonuses to three top execs; Took €65m in State aid

#329

Post by nixgeek »

quickthrowman wrote: post #207
mminer237 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does inflation help the rich? Doesn't that devalue their net worth?

Companies can raise prices and avoid the effects of inflation so equities will continue to rise, while cash deflates in value. Real estate values keep pace with inflation, generally speaking. Any borrowed money can be paid back cheaper (debt devalues with inflation) which helps anyone who is leveraged on their investments crank up the ROI even more. I’m sure I could come up with more but those are the main three that…

No property at all?

Re: Booking.com gives €28m in bonuses to three top execs; Took €65m in State aid

#330

Post by colordrops »

Sharlin wrote: post #303
colordrops wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it been tried without means testing in a capitalist system though? Where only the most basic necessities are provided to anykne who wants them, and you can buy whatever else you want beyond that?

Who is going to classify all zillions of goods offered by a modern market economy into “basic” vs “non-basic” necessities? Is triple-ply toilet paper basic? What about bananas? Beef? Coffee? A cellphone? A smartphone? After all, modern life is increasingly difficult without a Web terminal of some sort. Some luxuries become necessities over the years. It’s just utterly impossible to draw a line.

I was thinking stronger measures, e.g. you get free housing and basic utilities (with caps) if you want, and UBI for food and other basic necessities. Beyond that is up to you.
Post reply on HN