Comments on: Historical lessons in disincentivizing bankers

By: Patz

Patz — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:48:38 +0000

Ahh … what Dogman really meant to say was he hates socialist crap in things like health care or pensions for instance. But he eats it up when it’s going to the bankers.
So I guess he’s eating a lot of crap these days, hmmm… love it with cheese!

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:48:14 +0000

What @Dogma fails to understand is that the banks and their employees have become the welfare babies in our economy. Going beyond the bailouts of last year and the paying of 100 cents on the dollar on FMN and FRE debt and credit default swaps (i.e. AIG) because even Goldman can’t handle its losses, the financial sector welfare continues. Present welfare to the financial sector is in the form cost of capital, set by the FED and subsidized by all of us, in the neighborhood of 1%. This is of course where all the present profitability is coming from, the basis for the new round of lavish bonuses. We all look forward to paying for this present financial welfare as inflation down the road. Dogma should be thanking his fellow Americans for every FED-subsidized paycheck.

Sure, capital allocation is crucial in the economy, but so are the utilities, the food production sectors, oil and much else. I don’t see those sectors gutting themselves of capital through astronomical pay during good times and then requiring massive taxpayer help when things go south.

By: Griff

Griff — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:28:02 +0000

What about those institutional investors that own shares or senior credit…should they not also have a say in the incentive plans? It is their capital to risk as well.

I don’t care if bankers get paid…Intermediation of capital / risk should be a well-compensated profession that attracts the best. The ones that are exceptional earn their keep…it’s the average to below-average firms that don’t deserve it (yes sometimes those do fail, but in better times they do not)

PS: what about know-nothings that just peddle shit to institutional investors, investors who lack the wherewithal to truly understand what they have bought? And by shit, I mean auction-rate securities, for an example. Buyer beware, yes….what about sellers beware.

By: Dogma

Dogma — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:22:55 +0000

@Dan, Yeah what I get is every time I log onto Reuters finance, I get this free market hating socialist crap. I know every time you people here the work tax you get a warm and fuzzy, but those of us that work in building capital and providing capital to grow the economy cant stand these parasite bloggers.

By: Dollared

Dollared — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:31:47 +0000

Bravo, Felix!

While Mao was indiscriminate, lumping college professors in with the bankers, he too had a methodology for dealing with an infestation of financial intermediaries – and in eliminating the infestation the People’s Republic also got some well-dug ditches and properly terraced rice paddies out of the process.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:35:15 +0000

Don’t be a hater, Dogma! You must be getting something that brings you to this blog!

By: Dogma

Dogma — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:40:31 +0000

I would add bloggers to that list. Since they add nothing productive or of real value to the economy.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:22:24 +0000

Well, now we know why there needed to be a reformation (which was already under way at that time)