eFinancialCareers

Send Print

Comments (11)

• Oldest first
• Latest first
• Recommended
• Comments 1 - 10 of 11

• I would give it back. Even if I made a killing last year...what happened to the fact that I am working in a firm that is bleeding money. The point is, without the government bail out, would my firm had survived? and if not would we be really discussing this issue? Are Wstreet folks that incensitive to what is happening around them?

  memabeye 23 Mar 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• In my last position working for a major bank, bonuses were not granted merely for doing a good job.  There was a baseline for bonuses that all were given which according to HR was considered part of the salary, and if you did really good, you got over and above that baseline for your effort.  If congress wants to punish us and take back our  bonuses, shouldn't they also be punished for their incompentence?  I was one of the ones producing mortgage reports for the gov, reports that only reported on zipcode and race and amounts.  What good is a report on the amount of loans made that doesn't include any financial data on the borrowers?  Worthless just like the congress that dictated we do so or get hauled into court for discrimnatory lending.

  Frank 23 Mar 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• memabeye: So, do you work for a TARP firm, and did you get a bonus that might be clawed back? If not, then you had no business posting on this thread merely to vent at other people whom you feel are overpaid. It's true we invited financial professionals potentially affected by the clawback tax to post anonymously. However, anyone who answers a question like this who is not affected personally, but only to vent about someone else's bonus - to metaphorically stick their hand in someone else's pocket - is simply a coward.
  
  Frank: Your answer contains some interesting information. But you didn't answer the question, either.
  
  --Jon Jacobs, eFinancialCareers News staff

  Jon Jacobs 23 Mar 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• Jon, memabeye is actually in line with the majority of people's thinking. And you come across as the insensitive person memabeye describes.
  Your analogy to sticking your hand in someone else's pocket might be a good, but not to your point.
  
  Neither did YOU answer the question that was asked. Memabeye actually addressed it. Frank's comment was actually informative.
  As a news staffer for the website, you should keep your words to yourself, and let people comment as they wish.
  
  Frank and memabeye, thank you at least for your thoughtful comments. No question we know who the coward is in the bunch.
  
  Hopefully this will be the last of this. People, you are free to comment as you wish.

  James 23 Mar 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 1 time | Alert Moderator

• James, there is no question that "memabeye is actually in line with the majority of people's thinking" - if by "people," you mean the general public (who don't work in finance).
  
  That is precisely the problem. We have people voting (i.e. influencing their elected representatives to vote) to curb other people's compensation, while having no skin in the game themselves. What do you call that if not cowardly?  And based on most of what I see in the media, the average voter/taxpayer seems to feel, "Anyone who makes much more than I do must be overpaid, and is therefore fair game."
  
  The intent of this Debate question, on the other hand, is to elicit  first-hand testimony from individuals who do work for institutions affected by the clawback tax, about how their personal financial lives would be affected if that tax were to hit them.
  
  It is tiresome to see such attempts at honest inquiry get shouted down by the same indiscriminate bash-Wall-Street crowd that already dominates the airwaves, blogs and reader comment threads at other publications, including the reader comments beneath Wall Street Journal articles.  --Jon Jacobs, eFinancialCareers News staff

  Jon Jacobs 23 Mar 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• Just for clarifiaction purposes.  The 250K theshold amount is for "married joint filers" therfore 125k is the threshold for "single" filers
  Is this thinking correct???

  get the details 24 Mar 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• The measure that passed the House of Representatives last week sets the same $250K threshold both for married joint filers AND single filers. The reduced threshold of $125K would apply only for a married person filing separately from their spouse. 
  
  Two related observations:
  
  1) Both the Senate and the White House have since indicated they won't go along with this House version of the clawback tax. (However, that doesn't mean they won't enact their own version.)
  
  2) Well-known personal finance author Jonathan Clements published a guest column in Monday's Wall Street Journal describing how the House clawback tax would affect his life. Clements was a long-time WSJ columnist who left the paper a year ago to join Citi. To read his essay, click here.
  
  --Jon Jacobs, eFinancialCareers News staff

  Jon Jacobs 24 Mar 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• I received a bonus of less than $20k, and a week later I was laid off by my company (a TARP recipient) with a big 10 week's worth of salary in my severance package.  My husband allone earns in excess of the $250k threshold.  We have two mortgages, etc.  Job prospects for me a non-existent at this time, like anyone looking for a job in the financial industry.    We need the bonus money to keep ourselves financially afloat, and avoid foreclosures.  The prospect of paying any of my bonus back is mind blowing and could cause us serious financial problems.  Why should we be punished?  Doesn't anyone understand that folks making $250,000 are not millionaires and it's us that are trying to keep the economy moving?

  Sue 25 Mar 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• The U.S. used to a country governed by the rule of law.  Article 1 of the U.S. constitution prohibits bills of attainder which is what the recent actions by congress amount ot regardless of how they try to spin it.  They have no legal or moral right to interfere in contracts between parties.
  
  If my employer tried to take it back i'd do 2 things: get a lawyer and leave asap.
  
  The financial industry has always had low base salaries and paid for performance.  Would there have been this ruckus if the AIG folks received the same amount of money but it was called base wages and not a bonus?  I think not.
  
  One should be careful before unleashing a resentful mob.  Remember Robespierre?  He did it and they eventually turned on him and sent him to the guillotine.

  Jim Mulcahy 25 Mar 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator

• Hi.
  I worked for a major TARP bank. We were not the creators of any CDS or destructive swaptions; we did have some significant issues in a number of areas as holders of these instruments and had counter-party risk with other "affected" institutions.  I was a sales guy on the buy side. (if you follow me).
  
  As i heard the story, late last year, when they first handed out TARP money, it wasn't exactly a choice -- CEOS of these banks weren't allowed to say "no".  So, it seems dreadfully unfair that now, we employees are hostage to the vagaries of congress.
  
  As a person who did get a big chunk of dough (and then laid off) -- yea, i do have a problem with forking any of it over to the gov't after the fact.
  
  Who does congress think they're playing with?  Wallstreeters INVENTED finance and crafty structures. Hypothetically, couldn't x-wallstreeters withdraw money from untapped HELOCs and then let 2nd (3rd) homes be foreclosed? In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if people are consulting with lawyers to put homes into Homesteads and other propty into realty trusts and/or insurance wraps right now, if they don't already have asset protection plans!  Litigate away !!

  pauloesco 26 Mar 2009

  RECOMMEND Recommended 0 times | Alert Moderator