We kicked your teeth in yesterday with the news that both BarcLehs and American Express were canceling their holiday parties. Now for the crowbar to your ribs--Morgan Stanley has announced that there will be no company-sponsored petting come December this year. Sayeth MS:
"As you know, in terms of the global economy, it now appears that the environment will remain challenging for the foreseeable future. In times like these, as difficult as it may seem for people in our industry, it is the charities and nonprofits that depend explicitly on donations, many from the financial services sector, that will come under the most pressure in the coming months.To help ease that pressure, we have asked all divisions to forego their Firm-sponsored holiday parties this year and instead help us apply those designated funds toward helping those most in need. Employees who are personally funding their own holiday events are still free to do so; this request is strictly with regard to Firm-sponsored employee events for the holidays."
Not included in the note though circulated through the ranks yesterday was the tip that layoffs are a' coming. Think two or so weeks from now, across the board.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:37AM
First.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:39AM
Mistake? Does this mean MS have killed Steve Jobs?
Posted by Lowly Assistant , Oct 31, 2008 10:39AM
You're a mean one, Mr. Mack.
Posted by MarshallStack , Oct 31, 2008 10:40AM
Any word on JPM?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:42AM
Mistake? Does this mean MS have killed Steve Jobs?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:42AM
I wonder what those tools at MS are thinking right now, the ones who were giving Mack the standing O after his "triumphant" return to MS.
Guy is a hack
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:45AM
Could be worse, they could have gotten that walking turd Thain
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:45AM
How can Morgan Stanley donate any $$ to charities when they themselves have become a charity accepting money from the US government and Mitsubishi??
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:46AM
buddy of mine says JPM holiday party is at Tao (Fixed income S&T)
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:46AM
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!! tools
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:47AM
So Bess where is the holiday party list anyway??? For those few firms actually having them this year...
for those who aren't count yourselves lucky or just crash one of the others!
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:48AM
A gift in your name has been made to the Human Fund
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:49AM
A gift in your name has been made to the bonus pool.
Thats what they told the Fed.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:49AM
buddy of mine says JPM holiday party is at Tao (Fixed income S&T)
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:50AM
I wonder to what extent these cancellations of holiday parties (w/ a contribution of some part of the cost to a charity) will exarcebate economic problems in NYC. After all, lots of restaurants/catering halls depend on the holiday season, and the staff of these establishments probably depends on the income and overtime that the holiday season provides for them. It seems more efficient to distribute cash to the middle/working classes of our city through a holiday party, than to dump it in a charity which may or may not distribute the funds.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:50AM
wow this is like Christmas Carol, the 3 ghosts Subprime, CDS and Leverage have made an honest man out of Morgan Scroogly! Hurray!
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:52AM
I hear that the MS bonus will be a jar of Hellmanns Mayo
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:53AM
@15
The only charity Morgan Stanley will be dumping money into is the firm's bonus pool. And that will only be redistributed to a select few.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 10:56AM
@17
In all seriousness wny the hell should any of the IBs that have taken government funds to stay afloat be permitted to pay bonuses to any employees?
Bonuses are a function of the firm's performance. If the firm is teetering on bankruptcy and need to beg the federal government for funding, why on earth sdhould they be permitted to dole out rediculous amounts of cash to the lack of talent among their rank and file employees???
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:00AM
@17 Who let Cuomo in here?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:01AM
@19 Who let Cuomo in here?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:03AM
@ 20/21
The truth hurts.
Posted by american bandersnatch , Oct 31, 2008 11:04AM
@19. Bonuses are partly a function of the firm's performance. They're also partly a function of an individual and department's performance. At many firms, such as mine, an employee is told to expect a certain bonus range and how much of that is dependent on the firm's performance. To the employee, such as me, the expected bonus is part of his essential compensation and part of the agreement for working there.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:07AM
without holiday parties how would MDs fuck analysts?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:07AM
+ What's the difference between an investment banker and a large pizza?
A large pizza can feed a family of four.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:08AM
@19, prefer another bailout next year after all the income producers walk? or thousands of risk managers pissed off at their own firm?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:08AM
But if the company is broke and begging the US Government and even foreign governments for a bailout how can you justify taking government funds and then paying employee bonuses as if the firm is ok???
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:10AM
The problem with the bonus structure is that some portion of it is almost implied that it is guaranteed. So instead of increasing base salaries they keep them low and give huge bonuses. The simple way to fix this is increase the base salary and truly make the bonus discretionary.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:11AM
@26
Let them all walk, where the hell are they going to go??? Apparently they were producing bogus income based on bogus products that imploded to fuck everybody anyway. They are the reason we needed a bailout to begin with...if they walk it might ensure that a bailout will not be necessary next year.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:12AM
@ 28
Agreed...if they can't justify paying someone the higher base salary then maybe these guys just aren't worth this much to begin with.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:13AM
23)another part of your agreement for working there is the firm being in business, which it would not be save for the 'generosity' of the taxpaya. so STFU!
26) Risk managers at IB??? BWAHAHAHAHA stop it. We wouldnt want them to be mad otherwise they might not do a good job!! Hilarious comment
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:14AM
@29, those people have already been laid off. banks are bigger than cds & mtg derivatives
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:15AM
@27, are you slow?
although they are still called "bonuses", they have essentially become part of one's base salary, with an expected/estimated amount each year.
Would you rather all the banks just cancel "bonuses" and instead double/triple/whatever everyone's "base"?
It's all the same thing.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:16AM
I love the employee pays model of holiday parties. Cause bankers don't spend enough time with their coworkers, what they really want is to pay to spend more time with them. They did this at Alex. Brown back in 2002 and we got stuck with a $200 bill per person for a party that no one wanted to be at.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:17AM
gee I guess the Lehman guys had an implied guarantee of their bonuses as well...that got them very far without a government bailout.
How about this make the choice...government bailout and stay in business or get your bonus and pack your boxes. Seems fair to me.
And yes @31 wouldn"t it be terrible if the risk managers were angry and didn't do their job well? I guess it could lead to ummm well INVESTMENT BANKS RUNNING AMUCK IN THEIR OWN BULLSHIT PRODUCT...oh wait we already have that going on don't we.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:18AM
what are associate numbers?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:19AM
31 comment to 26. not all banks taking money had and ib. step away from the box.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:22AM
@35 The way bonuses usually work are one part is for how the firm does, another part id for how your group does and the third is how you performed. So if you were at the top of your class and your group actually made money this year (and some have) then you should get a bonus, albeit a smaller one from last year due to the firms performance.
But since you probably work the back office where $10k is a huge bonus you wouldn't know anything about that.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:23AM
So the company gives employees permission to pay for their own parties? That's nice of them. Do they give them permission to breathe too?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:23AM
@23 "employee is told to expect a certain bonus range and how much of that is dependent on the firm's performance"
i know this has been said, but let's just do it again for shits and giggles:
if the firm's performance leads to bankruptcy, and said firm has to be bailed out by taxpayers, you are not going to get that "certain bonus range." you are not going to receive anything, other than a slap on the back and a there's always next year.
you guys are clinging to a reality that no longer exists. wise the fuck up. it's over.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:23AM
So the company gives employees permission to pay for their own parties? That's nice of them. Do they give them permission to scratch their backsides too?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:24AM
37 first of all that isnt english.
second every remaining IB took money, so whats the point? if im wrong pls edumacate
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:25AM
@ 33
Yes lets pay them their full comp in "base" salary. Clearly the IBs cannot afford to do this and that will solve the compensation issue on Wall Street.
Here's a simple equation to use:
If the IB can't afford to make good on it's payroll it must either:
a) reduce costs to allow for continued operations
b) reduce payroll expenses to allow for continued operations
c) reduce headcount
d) find other revenue streams
e) GO BANKRUPT if none of options a - d don't pan out.
None of these options include begging the gove
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:27AM
Also, anyone with the argument "then go find another job if you don't get a bonus"...they will. There are plenty of investment firms hiring. So if a bank has a top performer they need to keep that person happy so when the markets do turn he is still there to help the firm make money.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:27AM
38 those personal attacks give me the impression you must be upset about something. i wonder what that could be?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:29AM
@45 you're right...now I'm going to have to ask your mother to cut her rate because I can't afford her anymore
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:29AM
@ 19, I agree with you 100%. I used the Mayo reference as a metaphor to represent lack of understanding between the banks and the treasury as to how the bail out money is to be used. Distribution should be spread around like the way mayo is spread on a large sandwich.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:30AM
Want the answer?
Directors down get 50% of last year.
ED's up get nothing.
Finito.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:31AM
Anybody know what the associate numbers are like at Chuck E Cheese?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:32AM
good luck with your job search 46. i wish you the best.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:32AM
these fuckers gave up the right for bonuses once they got into bed with uncle Sam. Fuck that shit. It's this kind of shit that brought down the house that Hellman's built.
Posted by cy , Oct 31, 2008 11:32AM
Hmm...
Unless you have something in writing, your bonus is "discretionary," no matter how strong that "implicit guarantee" feels. This means they can blank you, and you'd have no legal recourse. Similary, you are probably an "at-will" employee--meaning that the bank can terinate you at any time without reason. (On the other hand, you can also bounce at any time you'd like--without reason or notice or whatever.)
The bonus system is in place to incentivize performance. And while your division might have had a regular year, if your firm has seen more cash flow out than in it must borrow in order to make up the difference. (Whether the outflows are in the form of bonuses, base pay, black cars, office furniture, or lap dances makes no difference) If there are private investors willing to lend the firm the difference, all is well: the firm can continue to use its money any way it would like. Unfortunately, we enter a gray area when that lender making up the difference is the government. But ultimately, the government is allowed to whatever it wants. FOR EXAMPLE, if the gov't of Dubai (or whereever) made a loan to a bank and the bank paid bonuses to its employees, no one would be too upset, even though gov't funds had been used to compensate wall street employees. There is really no difference when the US government does the same thing. You can argue, however, that you don't want your government investing in businesses, especially when we don't have any capital reserves to invest in the first place. In that case, you need to elect a government that pledges to stop doing things like that. Unfortunately, neither BO nor JMcC have shown any indication that they are going to stomp out interventionalist policies.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:33AM
@47 You are dead on with the mayo reference. Excellent job. Are you a professor at Harvard?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:33AM
@44: OK, I'll bite. To which "plenty of investment firms hiring" are you referring? Aside from Paulson and maybe a couple of others, HFs are taking a beating, and the PE firms aren't doing anything much.
You can't say "my group did well, so we should get a bonus". If your QB throws an interception during the Super Bowl, but the defensive line did an excellent job, the line doesn't get Super Bowl rings. Team effort.
It's one thing when you didn't take money from Uncle Sam. But once the company did - doesn't matter what group you're in. Your group got to make money because it did business as part of a bigger entity. That bigger entity ran into trouble.
The headlines won't read: "Groups that made money within Morgan Stanley get paid bonuses". They'll scream "MORGAN STANLEY PAID BONUSES AFTER ACCEPTING BAILOUT". MS would be stupid to pay them in cash. Maybe you'll get deferred comp, or stock, or something. It won't be cash this year IMO.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:35AM
Keep crying about your bonuses but the fact of the matter is that you don't deserve them for this year. You lost money and screwed a ton of people in the process. Deal with it. You want to talk about how you deserve it cause your salary is low then get smart and depend a bigger salary. Have fun crying yourself to sleep when you have to move into astoria next year.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:37AM
Just tried calling Charlie Gasparino, and no one answered his phone!
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:38AM
@ 55
Astoria is probably still too pricey for these jerks...East New York seems to be the new domain for impoverished Investment Bankers lacking bonuses this year.
No more town car pick ups to go to work you will be riding the IRT with the baboons.
Muffie won't fare well in this atmpsphere at all!
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:39AM
after incentifying thier employees to make bad decisions through a bonus structure that rewarded high risk investments, credibility is pretty low for these companies when it comes to compensation needs. I don't doubt there are people who deserve a bonus, but it simply isn't going to fly with the pitchfork and torches mob. Come on guys, look how pissed the mob is right now that there haven't been more perp walks (being lousy with money is a crime?), best to look magnanimous for one year and let it blow over.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:40AM
@55...what if you actually made money for the firm...what if you are a trader and can explicitly show that you made the firm $XX million for the firm net. Don't you deserve something for that even though other people screwed up everything?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:42AM
@54, you get new QB, and if you want a shot at next year, you pay your defense. The ring argument is short sighted
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:42AM
@59 sure, you probably deserve a bonus. does that mean you're going to get one? not at all.
read @54s post. great football analogy.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:43AM
@59: I'll say it again. You made money for the firm because you were PART of that firm, and that firm enabled you to have the capital/credibility to make it.
There's no "partial credit here". You may have hit a home run, but your team lost so you're not Series Champs, sorry about that Tampa.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:44AM
@ 59
Unfortunately the answer is NO. Just as firm positions are netted out and fund performance is netted out I would have to say that employee performance firm wide has been netted out and it is sub standard thus not qualifying for bonus compensation.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:45AM
@63, i bet you're a blast at parties
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:46AM
@64: being a realist is a lot better than living in fantasyland, assuming you're going to get paid and not preparing for tough times to come, if they're not here already. Semper paratus.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:47AM
only my penis got her pregnant, not the rest of my body. why should i have to be responsible for this kid!?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:50AM
@66: Exactly.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:54AM
The sports analogy doesn't work here because that is a zero sum game...either you win or lose..there is no in between. If that was true everyone at the same level would always get the same bonus...that is not the case...this is a lot more gray (or grey depending what side of the pond you are on). You still need to keep your best employees because you still need to payback uncle sam. Why would they want all the "talent" to leave and have a bunch of c-students left. Then they run the risk of place either fully imploding or having to put even more money into them.
Posted by MarshallStack , Oct 31, 2008 11:55AM
I love these guys basing their argument for personal bonuses on deficit spending.
The firm lost a ton of money. There is no money for bonuses. None. Account is empty. Check bounced. Credit card was declined. Don't like it? Start your own firm.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 11:56AM
@69 ok...if you give me the seed money
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:00PM
@68
i get it. you borrowed money, to pay the employees now, so that you didn't have to borrow money later to pay the employees.
it is a zero sum game. either your firm borrowed money from taxpayers, or it didn't. they were about to "implode" so gov't stepped in and saved them. am i missing something here?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:01PM
@68: first of all, there's really no place for them to go. You don't have to pay them cash to stay. Give them phantom stock rights, options, whatever.
And it's a zero-sum game now. It wasn't when the government wasn't involved. But Treasury, Congress, Cuomo et al are not looking at banks department-by-department. They are looking at it firm-wide. The hit was too big and the money paid to your firm too great.
They're thinking: WITHOUT OUR MONEY YOU WOULD HAVE NO JOB AND NO COMPANY. OUR MONEY WAS PAID SO YOUR COMPANY WOULDN'T GO BANKRUPT. IF IT WAS BAD ENOUGH TO COME TO PAPA, IT IS BAD ENOUGH THAT YOU DON'T GET PAID.
If I went to my parents and asked for money because I invested in Bear and Lehman, and otherwise I'd have to file for personal bankruptcy, and then they saw my significant other buying a new car (hey - they weren't involved: they had a job but the money didn't come close to making up what I lost in LEH and BSC) - they'd throw a fit. That is what this is about.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:01PM
@ 71 yes, but if you're not smart enough to figure it out I'm not telling you.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:07PM
@73 Ha ha. Well, why don't you enlighten the rest of us then?
You sound like "Joe the Plumper," when he said, "I'm going to leave it to the American public to decide what I meant by what I said."
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:08PM
There are no other jobs to walk to.
700,000 jobs are likely to come out of the finance sector, or $100 billion in total compensation.
Do you really think you have any leverage at all?
Pull the other one.
http://epicureandealmaker.blogspot.com/2008/10/ring-ring-its-cluephone-for-you.html
TED
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:19PM
I guess IBankaz only understand leverage in the context of their deals or the firms balance sheet, not as it applies to a negotiation for, say, employment
Posted by cy , Oct 31, 2008 12:19PM
Two points-
Whether in the form of base pay or bonus, employee compensation is simply compensation. Economically, it makes no difference if its given out in bi-weekly paychecks, or in one lump sum at the end of the year. It is still a transfer of resources from the firm to its employees. If you argue that banks shouldn't be allowed to pay bonuses, you should also be argueing that banks are not allowed to pay out any type of compensation whatsoever (ie. regular paychecks). No one makes this arguement, so logically you cannot stand by a "no bonuses" argument.
Second-- We need to move away from this idea that people "deserve" to be paid certain amounts. Whether this be a wall streeter arguing that he "deserves" his bonus, or a rust-belt resident demanding that he "deserves" a certain wage. You only deserve to be paid what someone else is willing to pay you. If you are a trader who does a certain amount of revenue a year, you only "deserve" to be paid a portion of that if it would be too costly (or impossible) for the employer to get the same results by training someone else. (Or if you have a legal agreement in place.) If certain people are truly irreplacable, then a firm should pay to retain them, regardless if they borrow from the gov't or not.
Posted by MarshallStack , Oct 31, 2008 12:21PM
@75 -
Are you implying that a collapsing asset bubble should effect compensation?
That there is a return to the mean?
That your compensation is based on the ability of your firm to pay you - which is based on its value added?
Bubble don't matter. We get paid either way. Or we run out and fill all those opening in uppre management in all those booming sectors of the US economy. Just watch!
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:24PM
@ 77, cy, shut the fuck up. no one wants to hear what you have to say. Next time save it for your right hand.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:26PM
What have you got?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:26PM
does anyone know who runs their natural gas trading desk??
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:28PM
Not me, thankfully.
~Jimmy Crack Korn
East Texas Natural Gas Trader
Posted by cy , Oct 31, 2008 12:31PM
79-
Then don't ready my comments, douche. Continue operating under the assumption that someone else is going to solve all your problems.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:31PM
can the wall st that paid billions in taxes in years past vote to end compensation for barney frank for his stellar work in housing?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:32PM
@78 agreed. Wall Street execs will spread the disease of greed, cronyism and ego-driven selfish desire to other sectors of American industry, which will inflate and deflate as well.
But for the 95% of Wall Street employees who just sit in a chair and do what they're told. All you empty suit and skirts are just sitting around collecting paychecks. You and the chimp on the other side of the screen, well you get nothing and like it. Go beg your former Dept Head for a job when he's working for the bailout fund.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:33PM
I am the CEO of a hedge fund. What is a trading desk?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:37PM
Hey cy, looks like your right hand was busy satisfying your boyfriend, because you can't type
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:39PM
CY you sound like an annoying lil creep. Go fuck yourself, and stay off thread. pickle kissing freak.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:40PM
Someone please name me a sector that isn't contracting at the moment. Everybody is feeling it.
Nobody is going from Wall Street to any safe havens.
Posted by cy , Oct 31, 2008 12:42PM
88- what do you find annoying?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:44PM
cy is begging for a spanking
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:45PM
Cy, I find you and your stupid fucking commie, left wing, comments annoying
Posted by cy , Oct 31, 2008 12:46PM
Please point out exactly what you've misinterpreted to be commie or left wing.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:47PM
You silly rabbits. Semantics are for kids. Salesmen earn commissions on sales, it's part of the game. I-Banker is fancy blueblood term for salesman (it's glorified sales after all).
Posted by american bandersnatch , Oct 31, 2008 12:49PM
Actually I kinda like the idea of no bonuses if a company took money from the government. Because my firm is hiring in several front, middle and back office groups, we'll be able to pick up some even better quality people who are now being paid below market.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:49PM
@86 - I am a fan- ty.
-Moneygrip Wisdom
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:50PM
we all know Cy is the 'gay guy from HR'
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:56PM
Cy your entire rant @ 77 is dripping of communist propaganda, Marx and Lenin would have been proud.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:56PM
News that wasn't good enough for DB to announce:
Lazard has also cut their Xmas party...
Sorry guys...
Posted by american bandersnatch , Oct 31, 2008 12:57PM
A lot of ad hominem, homophobic attacks on Cy. Clearly demonstrating they have no substantive rebuttals.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:58PM
@ 100, go fuck Cy in the ass
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 12:58PM
guys how is the job market? anyone know of anyone who was given an offer in last 4 weeks? I dont know of any and I have about 30 friends looking for job
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:07PM
you're too cy,cy hush-hush eye to eye.
Posted by cy , Oct 31, 2008 1:07PM
Thank you, ab.
98-
I am forced to conclude...
1. You did not read my post.
or
2. You do not understand marxism.
or
3. Both 1. and 2.
The second point of my post was that no one deserves to be paid any certain amount by birthright. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what a marxist would argue. I'm saying you only deserve what you earn, (which is what someone else, in the private market, is willing to pay.) Or, if you are self-employed, you "deserve" as much as you can earn.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:11PM
you're too cy,cy hush-hush eye to eye.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:12PM
Question is which bank is still having a Xmas party and how do I join?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:13PM
this is clearly CY having a convo with himself.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:14PM
Mahnahmahnah!
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:14PM
Cy, since you are such a fucking expert on communism, then perhaps you could explain marxism to everyone on DB!
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:19PM
Cy go Jack off on your copy of the Communist Manifesto that you just finished reading for your Freshaman PoliSci class..douchebag.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:21PM
You can sum up Marxism in one sentence: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. Although some will change the forst part to read "from each according to their commitment" - to spur activism in the global anticapitalist struggle... just sayin
-Moneygrip Wisdom
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:21PM
Too many Yahoos. Didn't care.
Posted by whatelseisgoingon , Oct 31, 2008 1:22PM
The govt didn't bail out wall street. It made an investment in the banks by buying some of their crappy assets. if the banks do well, those assets become worth more. They are similar to stock holders because they want the banks to do well. Stockholders have no problem paying bonuses, so the govt shouldn't either. The money that was used for the bail out is not just cash handed over. The govt expects the money back. so to think that the taxpayers paid for wall street bonuses is ridiculous. If you don't pay bonuses and the talent walks, which you say is ok, who will be there to revive the banking system so those assets you the taxpayer own don't become low quality toilet paper?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:22PM
I am Barack Obama.
What is a mulatto?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:23PM
CY stands for Communist Youth.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:23PM
cy is clearly a nomiker for COMMIE YENTA.
Posted by cy , Oct 31, 2008 1:24PM
I have yet to hear exactly what I've said that could in any way be construed as communist.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:31PM
Cy just like Lenin said, if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people begin to believe it. This applies to you and your attempt to deny your commie viewpoint.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:32PM
@ 100, you must be Cy's boyfriend.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:36PM
CY ONCE YOU EXPLAIN YOURSELF YOU ADMIT GUILT.SSHHH!!!
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:48PM
Save your money. Buy Jack Daniels.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 1:50PM
JPM is butchering WM people...MACHETTE Mo'fos!!!!!
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 2:04PM
@122: where? what dept?
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 2:54PM
compliance...probably
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 3:20PM
@113 - Seriously?
The government bailed out the banks with taxpayer dollars through direct injections of capital.
As of October 22, 2008 Bank writedowns and credit losses equaled $659B.
As of October 22, 2008 Banks had raised $638B. They raised $400B on their own and then the Fed injected $240B.
In the absence of Fed capital injections many of the financial instiutions were technically insolvent.
As for talent walking in the absence of large bonus's - newsflash: they are going to walk anyway. The real talent is going to break away and start their own private firms. Far, far away from government regulation.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 3:34PM
@125...word.
Should've let'em fail...serve'em right.
Banking Darwinism.
Posted by guest , Oct 31, 2008 4:02PM
Boneus this year.
Posted by guest , Nov 01, 2008 2:53AM
Donny you're out of your element
Posted by Young_Skeptic , Nov 02, 2008 10:20AM
Who cares about a holiday party? As long as people jobs are not affected...
How credible are the comments at the bottom of the article about lay-offs?
Posted by guest , Nov 03, 2008 4:15AM
Breaking news: Deutsche STILL having divisional parties.
Bonuses down 70% (at least)
Still alive and no Gov't cash...
What it must be like to go from IB to Govt employee... capitalism to marxism in one fail blunder...
Posted by guest , Nov 03, 2008 12:58PM
Hello
Posted by bondguy007 , Nov 04, 2008 9:26AM
Decision was made by a Barack Attack Obama-knight.
Posted by guest , Nov 05, 2008 5:35PM
Mr. Schwab cancelled Christmas also. We never had bonuses anyway. Soup for everyone at Christmas.
Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 10:21AM
For those of you advocating zero bonuses - might as well warm up the bankruptcy filings for NY State, NJ and NYC.
Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 10:41AM
NJ? Correct me if I'm wrong (I know you will), but taxes on the bonus earned in NYC are captured by NYC/NY State and deducted from NJ taxes due. NJ benefits only to the extent that it drives up your marginal rate and therefore increases NJ taxes on other household income.
Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 10:46AM
NJ tax at the top rate is higher than NY so you would pay the diff to NJ (as a resident). Also, many bankers travel significantly so if you are not working in NY you may aportion a significant portion of NJ to your residence. But you are right - NJ is third in line.
Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 12:31PM
On top of all this, goldman just laid off a big piece of its energy desk, 16 I think. They are pulling in reins on all of their businesses that use leverage. SURPRISE!!
Posted by guest , Nov 10, 2008 3:01PM
http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2008/11/another_round_of_bank_layoffs.php
CNBC is reporting that Morgan Stanley could lay off 15% of its work force
Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Posted by guest , Nov 12, 2008 10:56PM
call me a cynic, but aren't donations to charity tax deductible, while holiday parties are not?! I think this is just another way to play to their strength, while doing some good PR. it's a win win for MS, well, sorta
Posted by guest , Nov 14, 2008 8:30AM
Hey just let them take a small percentage of everyone's bonus and use it to pay for the holiday (can't say Christmas anymore) parties.Problem solved. After all it could be some peoples last Holiday Party before they jump ship to go somewhere else or start thier own firms.
Posted by guest , Nov 15, 2008 11:27AM
40,54,55,62,63 and others,
"Keep crying about your bonuses but the fact of the matter is that you don't deserve them for this year. You lost money and screwed a ton of people in the process."
The thread is about MS. MS has yet to post a loss, let alone come close to bankruptcy. If a firm of that size can continue to make money in these markets, that tells me there must be some talented people that could work pretty much anywhere.
Posted by guest , Nov 22, 2008 1:04PM
141
What is the 10 Billion TARP money for if you are doing so well? Why did you change from IB to a regulated bank?
How is your stock doing?
Posted by guest , Nov 25, 2008 3:19PM
@141 Are you kidding me? Not close to bankruptcy? Had Mitsubishi pulled out of the deal the firm would have been in Chapter 11 in a NY Minute... Not to mention the $10 Billion we've all ponied up to keep their sorry asses in their seats! No bonuses for nobody!!!! As for smart people there...if they were so smart why are they so totally screwed!!!??? And don't say everyone is...there are a number of banks that are doing just fine because they didn't run their companies like casinos!
Posted by guest , Nov 26, 2008 11:24AM
141
Your understanding of your company's finances is proof that there is no talent at MS.
Posted by guest , Nov 29, 2008 10:55AM
Bonus - didn't you grasshoppers save for winter? Shame on you.