February 11, 2009 at 11:50 pm
I feel a bonus is what it says it is ie there for if you do well.
Most of the bankers have cost thousands if not millions of people their jobs and yet they want to be rewarded for this.
What do you think? I really cant believe the governments of the world bailed them out with out any restrictions of what they could do with the money.
I work for a bank that is been bailed-out with government money only to be closed down and the people here still want a bonus. To me it does not make any sense.
How about to you?
T
February 12, 2009 at 4:06 am
I agree. It makes no sense and I strongly disagree that any money given by the governments should be used for bonus handouts. This should have been a clause from the governments.
February 12, 2009 at 6:12 am
About the same as the way I feel about the "tax cuts" going to people who paid no taxes.
----------------------------------------------------The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood... Theodore RooseveltThe Scary DBAAuthor of: SQL Server 2017 Query Performance Tuning, 5th Edition and SQL Server Execution Plans, 3rd EditionProduct Evangelist for Red Gate Software
February 13, 2009 at 7:51 am
Clive Strong (2/12/2009)
I agree. It makes no sense and I strongly disagree that any money given by the governments should be used for bonus handouts. This should have been a clause from the governments.
Without outlawing all bonuses, no way to do that. There are probably some people that deserve some bonuses. In a perfect world, the Boards/Shareholders would look at the performance of the important (C-level) officers and whether they were indulging in the clueless, risky and/or questionably legal practices and require bonus refunds as appropriate.
Not terribly likely, since they'd need to sue, and they'd be setting a bad precedent that would limit the value of future compensation packages depending on bonuses. Exec would require more base salary. Performance bonuses can work. They'll be a pullback to more reasoned usages due to the stock price and PR hits from this.
My preference would have been to get the core issue (the mortgages) of the books somehow. Perhaps having the Fed take over the defaulting morts (maybe at full price, maybe at discount), and start to collect rent or sell the properties. The number's I've seen price this at less than the total bailout.
February 13, 2009 at 9:24 am
This, although revolting, is due to the sense of entitlement on the part of administrators and officers of a company.
The car auto executives who paraded in front of a Senate committee demanding money are another instance. Even though they had their hand out for handouts, they saw nothing wrong with the perks of each using a private corporate plane to travel. It had to be beaten in to them they were not in a position to enjoy luxury.
There was also a failing financial institution that was going to use taxpayers' money to buy a new corporate plane. Because the execs did not want to lose the pre-payment they had already made. It also had to be beaten in to them they were not in a position to enjoy luxury. Even after the car czars were shown to be dead wrong.
I believed that the 90's were the decade of greed.
Now I see the current decade as the decade of contempt.
February 13, 2009 at 11:17 am
On one hand I know there are lots of people that work hard and haven't made bad decisions or been the reason that the banks are in trouble. Do they deserve bonuses? If you worked all year in IT, did a great job, kept those systems up, etc., would you want your bonus cut because the execs made bad decisions?
Probably not, but you'd probably not get a bonus. I think that there shouldn't be bonuses at these companies. Regardless of the people that worked hard and feel they deserve one, if the company isn't doing well, you don't get one. It doesn't matter about your performance or your division's performance. If the company isn't doing well, then everyone should suffer there.
If the CEOs want to leave (or any officer), I'll help you carry your stuff to the door.
On the plane, that's a hard one. Those items might make sense if they save the company other costs, like moving large groups of people to other locations, but it looks bad. To me that's one where you just write off the pre-payment and live with it. Personally I'd like to see most companies lose their planes. Maybe they'd travel less, which might be a good thing.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
February 13, 2009 at 11:23 am
I agree that for a team, a private jet MIGHT be justified, provided the the plane has the capacity for this. But, typically, this rarely happens.
Having said this, in the balance hangs the industry that makes the planes. Yes, this might destroy an industry, but the question remains that if taxpayers have to subsidize directly or indirectly such an industry, how far should this go...
February 13, 2009 at 11:54 am
The real problem is not the bonuses. The real problem was (as it is in any bubble) that all the "adults" who are supposed to be in charge didn't control it. There had been rumblings of problems back at least to 2003, and nothing was done.
Everyone took the short term view and hoped to cash out before the fall. The music stopped, and the current execs (and Pols) are without any chairs. Everyone who was supposed to keep things like this from happening failed. Both Business and Political leadership tanked. Too many "regular" people got on the "flip this house" bandwagon. Everyone played Pollyanna.
Same thing happened in high tech in 2000. Within 10 years it'll happen again. We are making a mistake writing big checks too these companies, regardless of the strings we attach.
February 13, 2009 at 1:10 pm
SHOOT 'EM !
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
February 13, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I'll believe it when I see the dried ink on paper, but that loophole is supposedly getting closed by Obama. The capping of executives salary @ 500G (supposed to be some kind of exedcutive order out any time) for any org requesting bailout funds would be a big step in the right direction.
Good decisions or not, bonuses are tied to performance, and in the case of the execs, the performance of the overall corporation. You took the hot seat, so stand up and dance to the music. If the company does poorly, then you didn't "earn" your bonus. If the bad performance isn't due solely to your actions, then you get lucky and get to keep your job.....
I have a hard time feeling sorry for folks making upwards of multiple millions a year. They took the big jobs knowing full well what they were getting into. Most of them could retire today and live off of what they've already owned, so I will truly cry that they need to get rid of that 10th house in Malibu....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
February 13, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Heh... I have a hard time with a bank executive of a bank in trouble getting 500G to begin with. I'm with Rudy... "Pork chops awaaaaaaayyyyy!"
--Jeff Moden
February 13, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Forget the planes and bonuses. Why exactly should there be any subsidy of companies that are failing at all? Isn’t the whole theory of a market economy that the market decides who is successful and who isn’t?
If you can’t sell a product that people want to buy at a price that allows you to make a profit, then the market is sending you a clear message: “We don’t want you! You aren’t needed! Find something else to do!”
How will it help the economy in the long run to divert resources from taxpayers who have been smart enough to make money to enterprises that have failed to make money?
If we subsidize car companies that can’t make cars people want to buy, why shouldn’t we subsidize database consultants that no one wants to hire because they are incompetent?
February 14, 2009 at 12:21 am
I'm with you on this one. If it's "too big to fail" time to tear it right the f' down now.
----------------------------------------------------The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood... Theodore RooseveltThe Scary DBAAuthor of: SQL Server 2017 Query Performance Tuning, 5th Edition and SQL Server Execution Plans, 3rd EditionProduct Evangelist for Red Gate Software
February 16, 2009 at 9:55 pm
I'd like to be with you, but I'd also hate to see a big crash. Don't forget the guys with 6 or 7 zeros in their pockets don't suffer. It's often the little people that have jobs that lose, and depositors that have to wait to get their insurance from the FDIC.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
February 17, 2009 at 7:34 am
Steve Jones - Editor (2/16/2009)
I'd like to be with you, but I'd also hate to see a big crash. Don't forget the guys with 6 or 7 zeros in their pockets don't suffer. It's often the little people that have jobs that lose, and depositors that have to wait to get their insurance from the FDIC.
That's the big conundrum. In the long run, it would be better to have the companies fold or contract. In the short run, there will be real human suffering. What is the best way to mitigate the suffering? I'm (with some reservation) with the people who'd say if a company is too big to fail, it should be broken up. That was to some extent what the anti-monopoly system was implemented for. But in truth, none of these companies individually are too big to fail. Isn't GM reponsible for ~ 100,000 US employees?
The problem isn't one of the companies, it's several. All business sector work somewhat like heard mentality. If company X appears to be succeeding by doing something, every one will emulate it. If that practice is faulty, when it crashes, they'll all crash.
In a perfect world, Company A would fail, Company B would contract, Company C would expand to take up the slack. That may yet happen in the Auto industry, casting them as Chrysler, GM, and Ford, for my guess. Some of that has already happened in the Finance industry.
Finance, however, may be the killer. By it's nature, it runs on a fairly thin margin of equity to capital. The equity shrank catastrophically, and they can't carry their obligations. In my opinion, fixing that will help more than anything.
This has a great bearing on the auto industry, since the financing has existed to subsidize the manufacture for a a while. The cars have actually been at break-even or a loss, particularly the smaller cars.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply