Goldman Sachs to pay £7bn in bonuses this year, after taking £6bn of taxpayers' money

LookingFor

I didn't know what forum to put this in, considered Economics, but I'm not sure if that was suitable or not..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1081624/Goldman-Sachs-ready-hand-7BILLION-salary-bonus-package--6bn-bail-out.html

Goldman Sachs is on course to pay its top City bankers multimillion-pound bonuses - despite asking the U.S. government for an emergency bail-out.

The struggling Wall Street bank has set aside £7billion for salaries and 2008 year-end bonuses, it emerged yesterday.

Each of the firm's 443 partners is on course to pocket an average Christmas bonus of more than £3million.

The size of the pay pool comfortably dwarfs the £6.1billion lifeline which the U.S. government is throwing to Goldman as part of its £430billion bail-out.

I know it's the Daily Mail...but Christ, that's some cheek!

Wealth redistribution indeed...if something like this happened here, I'd start organising an en masse refusal to pay taxes!

edit - the £7bn is actually for bonuses and salaries..but the 2008 year end bonus for partners alone is over £1.3bn going by the figures in the article.

legends.

yawnstretch

They should cancel all bonuses in the entire financial sector globally. Here too

javaboy

What is with the Daily Mail and Sachs lately?

SimpleSam06

That tears it, I'm starting my own bank.

Quazzie

Considering it's Sachs should we not just get Ross and Brand to give them a call. That should draw plenty of attention to it.

LookingFor

yawnstretch wrote: »

They should cancel all bonuses in the entire financial sector globally. Here too

Unfortunately that's what it would take..because if Goldman, for example, decided not to pay bonuses, or to pay sub-par bonuses, they'd risk losing employees to other banks still paying bonuses, potentially making things much worse for them.

I don't think we can rely on the capacity of people like this to realise the company as a whole has kind of messed things up a bit, to take a share of the responsibility for that, and to quietly accept no bonus. They would just go looking for somewhere that will give them a bonus.

I agree that ideally no company that has taken a tax payer bailout should be giving any bonuses until the money is repayed, and with a premium too as a "thanks and sorry". But unfortunately, thinking about it more, I don't know how realistic that is, because people will still think they're entitled to them (despite the company's performance), and go elsewhere for them (i.e. to banks who didn't take a bailout..and for those banks, of course, they're going to say "why should we be barred from giving bonuses?")

Of course, this leads us all back to square one, and whether the government should have intervened at all with taxpayers' money, knowing the banks would have to continue to act like they were in a free market in order to remain competitive (in this instance, competitive in human resources).

edit - but then on the other hand, you would think the state of the financial system at the moment would mean that anyone working at a bank like goldman would be happy to have 'just' their base salary..and thus wouldn't start looking for greener pastures if a bonus wasn't forthcoming. Also, those greener pastures may not exist right now, I doubt banks are doing too much hiring.

Toiletroll

Its not just sachs... From what I have read & found out... Only about 50B of the bailout will actually go into bailing anything out if lucky!

The rest is going to the bigger financial organizations who are then buying out the smaller ones.

Which leads to...

javaboy

Toiletroll wrote: »

Its not just sachs... From what I have read & found out... Only about 50B of the bailout will actually go into bailing anything out if lucky!

The rest is going to the bigger financial organizations who are then buying out the smaller ones.

Which leads to...

...the smaller ones being bailed out?

EuFatCat

do you lot not realise that the whole financial collapse was manufactured?

javaboy

EuFatCat wrote: »

do you lot not realise that the whole financial collapse was manufactured?

Let me guess. The pesky NWO?

PeakOutput

im quite suprised that they describe goldman sachs as a struggling bank

buffett(billionaire businessman in the states) just invested a few billion in them a few weeks ago he would NOT do this if he thought the company was at risk of collapse

Charlie

javaboy wrote: »

Let me guess. The pesky NWO?

I always suspected as much.

Time Magazine

Goldmans have several independent divisions. If I make the company €1m, and that guy in the other division loses €2m, am I not entitled to a bonus?

Charlie

The Economist wrote: »

Goldmans have several independent divisions. If I make the company €1m, and that guy in the other division loses €2m, am I not entitled to a bonus?

No. The other bloke should get the sack, and you should pick up your monthly paycheck for actually doing your job. That's what pissess me off about this bonus lark. Are these guys not already making good money? And then they expect more for actually doing what they are paid to do?

Adamcp898

Who's up for starting a bank, complaining we're about to fall to pieces, get a load of bailout dosh, take it and run the bank to the wall while we conviently vanish?

Time Magazine

charlie mchugh wrote: »

No. The other bloke should get the sack, and you should pick up your monthly paycheck for actually doing your job. That's what pissess me off about this bonus lark. Are these guys not already making good money? And then they expect more for actually doing what they are paid to do?

They're not on very good money.

A friend of mine works in Goldmans. He got firsts all the way through Trinity, so he's a very smart guy. In fact he did so well in exams that he got a scholarship, so Trinity paid for his fees, his food and his room on campus for up to five years. Added to this he has remarkable inter-personal skills and all that lark. He's in work at 6.30am every morning and is lucky to leave before 10pm. His basic salary is about €50,000 - around €10 per hour. He could easily make the firm a couple million a year though.

It's all about the bonuses.

The Economist is right..

These guys work long hard stressful hours. They're not working in a shop or building site where they are shown what to do and that's all they need to do.

They're work comes down to the person and if they're good at their job, they'll make the company money and if they're bad, they'll lose the company money. The bonus is the incentive to do well. Otherwise they wouldn't care.

My job has a bonus system and it makes me a way better worker anyway...

PeakOutput

The Economist wrote: »

They're not on very good money.

A friend of mine works in Goldmans. He got firsts all the way through Trinity, so he's a very smart guy. In fact he did so well in exams that he got a scholarship, so Trinity paid for his fees, his food and his room on campus for up to five years. Added to this he has remarkable inter-personal skills and all that lark. He's in work at 6.30am every morning and is lucky to leave before 10pm. His basic salary is about €50,000 - around €10 per hour. He could easily make the firm a couple million a year though.

It's all about the bonuses.

straight out of college thats almost double the average starting salary

the advantage of working for sachs is that after a few years he can choose were he works and for how much its not just the bonuses

in fact i imagine his possible bonus's are at MAX 20K his reward is the 200k he will be on in 5 years time if he plays his cards right

a couple of million is not a big deal to goldman sachs its not even a big deal to a company half their size its their job its what he is expected to do

i know someone who saved their irish company around 30million euro this year and still didnt get a bonus or raise due to the economic climate and they dont feel 'entitled' to it either you know why? because thats what they get paid their salary to do

SimpleSam06

PeakOutput wrote: »

im quite suprised that they describe goldman sachs as a struggling bank

buffett(billionaire businessman in the states) just invested a few billion in them a few weeks ago he would NOT do this if he thought the company was at risk of collapse

He was advised by the federal government that if he put his money into it, it would be guaranteed. He said so himself. It was a bit of sleight of hand that was designed to help restore confidence. Unfortunately it looks like some people bought it.

The banks feel they can do whatever they like because they have the taxpayers to pay for their gambling, or they'll destroy the world's economy. The whole operation is completely out of control. If the current crop is bailed out, they'll do it again and again, and each time its going to be you and me paying their bonuses.

Call their bluff. Let it fall now, and change the structure completely, take the money supply out of the hands of those that stand to profit from it, or we'll be hit harder next time.

PeakOutput

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

He was advised by the federal government that if he put his money into it, it would be guaranteed. He said so himself. It was a bit of sleight of hand that was designed to help restore confidence. Unfortunately it looks like some people bought it.

didnt know that i was told that goldman sachs shares were extremely undervalued and that as they are the biggest company in the world they are fairly well insulated against collapse and thats why he invested the money

SimpleSam06

PeakOutput wrote: »

didnt know that

Well, now you do.

utick

funny how they never mentioned this before the 700 billion bail out was passed

i like the tags for this thread more than the actual thread...

Time Magazine

PeakOutput wrote: »

straight out of college thats almost double the average starting salary

And per hour a hell of a lot less than what I was on during the summer. Also, GS employees aren't "average".

the advantage of working for sachs is that after a few years he can choose were he works and for how much its not just the bonuses

They let go between 5-10% of the worst performing staff each year. It's all about bonuses.

in fact i imagine his possible bonus's are at MAX 20K his reward is the 200k he will be on in 5 years time if he plays his cards right

Imagine all you like . Bonuses can well exceed £20k, they have been known to exceed £20m. I will be very surprised if his gross pay is less than £250k in 5 years.

a couple of million is not a big deal to goldman sachs its not even a big deal to a company half their size its their job its what he is expected to do

I know a couple of million isn't a big deal to GS. It's enough to get your bonus, though.

i know someone who saved their irish company around 30million euro this year and still didnt get a bonus or raise due to the economic climate and they dont feel 'entitled' to it either you know why? because thats what they get paid their salary to do

I'm fairly certain your friend's salary exceeds €10 per hour, though.

PeakOutput

The Economist wrote: »

Imagine all you like . Bonuses can well exceed £20k, they have been known to exceed £20m. I will be very surprised if his gross pay is less than £250k in 5 years.

i meant your friends bonus's at his level in thecompany

I'm fairly certain your friend's salary exceeds €10 per hour, though.

he sure didnthe first couple of years he was working there 30 years ago