Live data from Hacker News

Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009)

bloomberg.com

91–100 of 168 posts

Re: Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009)

#91
I don't really think that this is that surprising or the worst thing about the recent financial crisis.

One thing about financial markets is that if everybody thinks you're doing badly suddenly they don't want to lend you money and this might do you in even if your problems had been survivable. And Lehman Brothers waited until the very last moment before telling the Fed they had a problem. So the Fed insisted on throwing money at every financial institution - even the ones that were hugely profitable during the crisis.

And if your company is short on money or dying the last thing you want to cut is bonuses. If your employees smell blood they'll be thinking about jumping ship. If you stop paying salary but leave bonuses intact you'll do better at keeping people at their desks until until they've finished wrapping the company up. And if somebody screwed up in a way that contributed to the crisis they should be fired and replaced, not have their bonus cut.

THere were a lot of things that should have been done differently in the crisis. Investors in insolvent companies really needed to be wiped out to encourage them to take better care in the future. Interest On Reserves was really not needed to prevent the economy from overheating the way the Fed feared (the Fed works with numbers months out of date and they still thought the larger economy was fine and that inflation has highish when the crisis hit). The bonuses are at best a distraction but one that's easy for politicians to make sound bites out of.

Re: Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009)

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the problem in practice is that government sucks at running things. They introduce layers of infrastructure that business doesn't Actually, there is no evidence of this. See this report that compares the Govt run industries before and after privatisation: http://www.psiru.org/reports/public-and-private-sector-effic... "The results are remarkably consistent across all sectors and all forms of privatisation and outso…

> "The results are remarkably consistent across all sectors and all forms of privatisation and outsourcing: there is no empirical evidence that the private sector is intrinsically more efficient" Exactly this. I've spent years in both sectors. People suck at running things, not governments.

At least those inefficient companies could be disrupted by startups, and at least they don't get to take my money by force (apart from subsidies and bailouts). No such mechanism exists for government. That people suck at running things is the very reason we need this rise-and-fall structure.

Re: Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009)

#93
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money were made but not enough compared to the risk involved with lending them out. Thats the point.

Bot possibly, even probably, enough compared to the risk involved with not lending them out (i.e. another depression).

You assume there's no other way to avoid a depression. The banks can be bypassed, even if that would be a bit unconventional.

Re: Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009)

#94
post #19
post #5

an industry driven by greed is greedy... why am i not surprised. that stuff needs some regulating. its all well and good making everyone richer and deregulating to encourage it, but if the gap widens, because of how the economy works, the poor get poorer in real terms :( also we have big explosive crashes...

I think a better analogy would be, an industry that makes money has money. Just like a baker wouldn't go hungry and a shoemaker will have shoes.

Or a Foxconn worker wouldn't go without an iPhone. Oh, wait.

Re: Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009)

#95
post #39
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice that you're effectively saying "the bailed out banks should renege on contracts". If nothing else, there's enough money on the table that the affected people are likely to litigate, and there's a fair chance you'll just end up paying the bonuses just the same, but now topped off with the expenses of a lawsuit.

Are the bonuses often contractual and not discretionary? If so, they're not really bonuses.

They are bonuses, but the word "bonus" means slightly different things in different industries. In the banking industry, think of it more like a sales commission than a totally optional check for doing a really good job. It's paid out according to a pre-determined formula, not the whim of a manager.

Re: Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009)

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the fallacy that the U.S. taxpayers made money on the bailouts, note that in finance deals get judged by how much money they make given the risk that had to be assumed to make it. In the case of the bailouts: $614 billion was disbursed $667 billion was recouped For a difference of $53.1 billion, i.e. 8.6%. [1] 8.6% is insultingly low compensation to use taxpayer money that, by the way, could have been spent on mor…

The risk was incredibly low. The banks were rather profitable, but they had cash flow issues from deleveraging. And credit vanished in 2008. For the government's balance sheet, getting paid back 8.6% is a lot more reliable than your gut instinct of infrastructure or education or (especially!) health care.

[deleted]

Re: Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009)

#97
post #59

While the data is accurate - the messenger, in this case, is Andrew Cuomo - a politician who aspires to run for President in the near-term. He had very little problem accepting campaign contributions from the financial services industry - they were his second-largest contributor by-sector. http://influenceexplorer.com/politician/andrew-cuomo/d83c545...

The criticism usually goes in the other direction: that a politician is too soft on an industry that contributed significant campaign contributions. In the era of the Koch brothers / Super PACs, everybody has contributions from one industry or another. Unless there's something I'm missing, it would seem a positive thing overall that financial industry contributions to Andrew Cuomo's campaign didn't keep him from analyzing and stumping over their bonuses later.

Note: Andrew Cuomo is a name I'm only vaguely aware of. I don't know anything about him outside of what I've learned from the article, and these comments. I have no opinion on whether he should or shouldn't be elected. So the above would apply to any given politician who behaved similarly.

Re: Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009)

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the fallacy that the U.S. taxpayers made money on the bailouts, note that in finance deals get judged by how much money they make given the risk that had to be assumed to make it. In the case of the bailouts: $614 billion was disbursed $667 billion was recouped For a difference of $53.1 billion, i.e. 8.6%. [1] 8.6% is insultingly low compensation to use taxpayer money that, by the way, could have been spent on mor…

The risk was incredibly low. The banks were rather profitable, but they had cash flow issues from deleveraging. And credit vanished in 2008. For the government's balance sheet, getting paid back 8.6% is a lot more reliable than your gut instinct of infrastructure or education or (especially!) health care.

If the risk was so low, why couldn't a private entity bail out the banks? Would have been a gangbusters investment, right? 8.6% is a good return for that risk?

Re: Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009)

#100
post #4

>“When the banks did well, their employees were paid well. When the banks did poorly, their employees were paid well,” Cuomo’s office said in the 22-page report. “When the banks did very poorly, they were bailed out by taxpayers and their employees were still paid well. Bonuses and overall compensation did not vary significantly as profits diminished.” Waaat. I think the government should stop bailing out businesses.…

I work in banking as just another cog. We suffered wage stagnation and no bonuses. The executives on the other hand still got at least a 10% bonus each year, because they had contracts. So, please keep that in mind when it says 'employees'.

Not to defend the banks, but this reminds me of when a company declares bankruptcy and pays its executives bonuses. The argument is always that, no matter how flawed the executives' judgment is, it's better to have somebody doing the job than to have the executives jump ship.

I'm not sure the argument applies here, since I'm not sure how many companies were hiring executives during the time frame.

Post reply on HN