Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Citigroup considering $100 million bonus


Pumpkin Eater

Recommended Posts

how about the $45 billion bailout citigroup got?

 

this guy would not even have a job if it weren't for the taxpayers bailing their ass out.

 

Of course an energy trader made money... they ran up oil prices.

 

If your company couldn't pay you anymore they would let you go. Citigroup shouldn't be paying $100 million bonuses before thye pay back our tax dollars. let this guy go. no one is worth that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how about the $45 billion bailout citigroup got?

 

this guy would not even have a job if it weren't for the taxpayers bailing their ass out.

 

Of course an energy trader made money... they ran up oil prices.

 

If your company couldn't pay you anymore they would let you go. Citigroup shouldn't be paying $100 million bonuses before thye pay back our tax dollars. let this guy go. no one is worth that.

 

 

I guess a deal's a deal.

If he did something illegal bust him for it.

 

Football players that don't win superbowls get bonuses every season.

WSS

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how about the $45 billion bailout citigroup got?

 

this guy would not even have a job if it weren't for the taxpayers bailing their ass out.

 

Of course an energy trader made money... they ran up oil prices.

 

If your company couldn't pay you anymore they would let you go. Citigroup shouldn't be paying $100 million bonuses before thye pay back our tax dollars. let this guy go. no one is worth that.

 

Whether he is let go or not, I imagine he 'earned' the bonus.

 

I don't believe the government should get in the business of voiding contracts negotiated in good faith (as much as I might agree that contracts like this stink).

 

I have no problem with fims that received Government $ being given certain provisions until the money is paid back - that is looking forward. Unfortunately all the feces of the past are what they are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Partisan bickering about healthcare and birth certificates only distracts from real travesties like this. PE

*******************************

 

No, this isn't true. It's just another thread, and in real life, it's just another example of

 

corp America gone off the greedy deep end.

 

But apparently not illegal.

 

"We libs don't think it's fair" doesn't warrant government control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is advocating government control? And on that notion, if a company had to get taxpayer's money to stay alive, why shouldn't there be temporary restrictions on their stupidity?

 

If this guy made so much money for Citigroup, then why did they need a bailout? Obviously he did not make anough money for them to be profitbale. Obviously something is going on here. Citgroup either can't afford this guy OR they didn't really need to be bailed out or they should not have been bailed out because of their own stupidity.

 

 

Citigroup can burn in hell and I wish they would have been left to do just that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, whatever really stupid contracts the bigwigs have, apparently are legal contracts.

 

To void those would require government control, like a Chavez or Selaya, or Fidel or eh... Obama

 

in takeovers.

 

It IS a stupid deal, and those companies should be allowed to go bankrupt to start over, then they

 

will learn their lessons on how to be successful next time.

 

But the bailouts just "enabled" the irresponsibility. Going bankrupt would have been a mechanism to

 

have prevented the bailouts. So, the bailouts indeed, enabled this stupid bonus biz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One theory is that the bailouts were just a ruse to bail out citigroup alone.

 

 

 

From the book Bailout Nation (Barry Ritholtz)

 

". . . a giant ruse, a Hank Paulson engineered scam to cover up the simple fact that CitiGroup © was teetering on the brink of implosion. A loan just to Citi alone would have been problematic, went this line of brilliant reasoning, so instead, we gave money to all the big banks . . .

 

"As of October 2008, the other banks, while somewhat worse for wear, neither wanted nor needed the capital injection. None of them were in the same trouble as Citi. Even Bank of America’s problems via Merrill Lynch wouldn’t become acute until December 2008. Washington Mutual, the most troubled on the list, had already been put into FDIC receivership the month before.26 JPMorgan bought WaMu from the FDIC for under $2 billion, and Wachovia was swept up by Wells Fargo for about $15 billion. Thanks to a change in the tax law, Wells Fargo got to shelter $74 billion in profits from taxation. Instead of the FDIC absorbing a few billion in losses from Wachovia’s bad assets, the taxpayers lost 35 times that amount."

 

. . . The hurry to repay this cheap cash confirms that the fix was in. If these banks were really in the bad shape Paulson suggested, they would hold onto this cheap source of credit. Instead, they want to throw the yoke of government monies off as soon as possible. The desire to return to their old compensation packages for executives cannot be the only factor . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citigroup keeps fukcing up over and over again.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451329364796775.html

 

"It happens that we have a test-case at hand in Citigroup. Regulators remain at odds over how much trouble Citi is in. But this spring's stress tests revealed Citi to have a $63 billion hole in its balance sheet, which the feds papered over by giving the bank credit for converting its government-owned preferred into common shares, a move that will put no new money into the bank. Citi has also been slow to raise private capital since the stress-test results were revealed, even as the capital markets have opened up to its competitors. More broadly, Citi has proven itself unmanageable by having already failed three times since the 1980s, requiring government bailouts in one form or another during the sovereign debt crisis in the '80s, the 1990s real-estate bust and again, twice, during the panic of 2008. Its turnaround plan has also been less than impressively executed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether he is let go or not, I imagine he 'earned' the bonus.

 

I don't believe the government should get in the business of voiding contracts negotiated in good faith (as much as I might agree that contracts like this stink).

 

I have no problem with fims that received Government $ being given certain provisions until the money is paid back - that is looking forward. Unfortunately all the feces of the past are what they are.

 

I can see it from that perspective too and i did wonder what the right thing to do would be. Giving money to him would be the right thing to do if the company was well, if the company was broke and bankrupt then the contract would be null and void and if u look at this case, we can conclude that the company is bankrupt and is kept alive by the govt only. So unless Citi has made enough money to repay the loan for this year and pay him i do not think a 100 million bonus is justified.

 

In fact im surprised how such details were not even looked at before the bailout began. For all you know he could be the first of many ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citigroup can burn in hell and I wish they would have been left to do just that.

 

Seethe if you must.

I guess the financial wizards could have easily written a provision to take all bonuses or any other compensation away from employess should the company accept bailout money.

But they didn't.

 

Lest anyone be shocked they did decide to hose the GM stockholders.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100,000,000/45,000,000,000 = 2.2222e-4 x100 = 0.02%

 

 

holy xxxxing shit!

 

 

Not sure what your point is. One hundred million is a shit load of money for a company to be paying someone when they had to borrow the tax payer's money to stay alive. It doesn't matter what percentage of the money they borrowed it is.

 

Unless you think the one hundred million dollars isn't all that much money.

 

Redistribution of wealth from the american taxpayers to citigroup executives.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...