Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 11:28AM

"Key people". Uh huh. Sure. Yep.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 11:29AM

Yeah the job market on Wall Street is so strong right now I am sure that all of the employees not getting 100k+ bonuses are heading for the exits.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 11:31AM

@1- care to name them? there was one in the headline that was corrected. the other 29 are what, exactly?

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 11:33AM

My heart bleeds....

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 11:37AM

I believe @1 may have seriously underestimated the problem and his/her report is not a true indication of the true magnitude of the significant shortfall.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 11:43AM

Mack: We are losing key people right now.

Jones: Who?

Mack: Key........People........

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 11:46AM

Yes, I've would like to get paid on the heads I win, tails taxpayers lose pay scale also. GTH Mack.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 11:47AM

@1 - Yeah, where are they?

-Biology major, with a minor in Swiss-Ukrainian Visual Arts

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 11:51AM

when did MS buy Key Bank?

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 12:04PM

I dunno, A_L, their "stupid sh!t" consisted greatly of mispricing risk and overbidding assets, which likely smothered a great many competitors who took less-aggressive postures. The "safety net" in this case makes them appear quasi-governmental going forward, which didn't work well in the case of FMN, FRE, etc.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 12:10PM

Where does this guy get his balls from? Im more and more convinced with the passsage of time that Mack is a retard. You run your firm into the ground and now you bitch and moan that you cant overpay people who are responsible for it? What am i missing??

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 12:19PM

@7 my favorite scene from the movie. The the camera pans back and you see the guy wheeling the box into the warehouse with 1,000's of the same box. So good.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 12:19PM

How about the guy who brought the pharma deals to MS? the team must've brought a couple of hundred mills.. How much do you think he should pay them?

$100K?

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 12:28PM

Someone needs to remind Mack that if he hadn't of bet the ranch on subprime shit then his company would not have had to be bailed out by taxpayers and then he could pay people whatever he wants.

Also remind him that if not for the taxpayers he, and the other 43,000 employees of MS would be pounding sand right now! They're lucky to have a job now, forget the bonus.

That goes for the coke addicted Pharma lads as well....

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 12:35PM

MS is too big to fail. they *need* to lose key people and gradually shut down.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 12:37PM

@15 Nothing, My Man, you hit the nail right on the head. Retard is the right word.....

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 1:06PM

Doesnt matter 21 and 22, the firm as a whole is basically insolvent, doesnt matter if the pharma ib made money for the firm. The firm as a whole is beholden to the taxpayers now due to the general incompetence of all involved. That person is SOFL, as thge saying goes. If they are so talented, they are free to leave and pursue pay elsewhere. Back to the mailroom for you now...

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 1:25PM

@7/16

Here it is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy4_h7Pb3M&feature=related

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 1:27PM

@7/16

Here it is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy4_h7Pb3M&feature=related

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 1:39PM

I am an unemploye banker and will work for cheap - John please give me a job.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 1:42PM

23 - why wouldn't the taxpayers want to maximize the return on their investment by keeping key revenue-generators on board?

MS is by no means "basically insolvent."

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 1:44PM

@22 Listen Moron, this is like the Ford guy saying that he only worked on the F150 line that was profitable every single year so why should he not get a bonus.

It is about Firm achievement!!!! Not some individual prima-donna!!!!

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 1:54PM

29,

The Ford guy doesn't because he is unionized moron and his union bosses dictate what everyone makes regardless of performance.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 2:33PM

@Cluzo

Your posts are usually on point but I have to disagree.

The bankers rely on the desk to get the product out the door. Mortgage products may be unique in that they're structured at the desk, but leveraged loan losses have exceeded the fees earned by the bankers arranging them.

You only have to compare the deals done by public IB's vs private IB's to see the significance of shareholder capital in getting a large deal done.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 2:59PM

#33, no kidding but it all comes down to the bottom line. They blew the place up, MS is a disaster much along the same lines as UBS. MS hasnt scratched the surface of their commercial losses yet and this tool Mack is gonna wwhine that he cant retain "talent". What talent? Whats next, he wants to give all of his risk guys 100% raises for a job well done? Makes no sense. I like 29's point, hits it on the head.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 3:07PM

Okay, okay, let's rethink things here... Mack is a great CEO. Second best on Wall Street. Admittedly, JPM is being run pretty well these days.

Yes, the firm has suffered the blow of bad timing...very bad timing. But Mack has represented the firm very well at every step. For the skeptics, here's a list of why I love Mack.

1) He got the Mitsubishi deal done (despite the aggressive actions of several competitors and hedge funds) to ensure the firm was well capitalized BEFORE Hank made him take TARP $$$.
2) He was quick to identify who's decisions caused the melt-down and clean house; like ditching the Cruz-missile.
3) He's clearly communicating with his employees, proactively working with the government (gracefully answering questions when giving testamony), and is rigourously honest about how assets are marked as evidenced by the generous amount of information that is disclosed in MS's financial statements.

There is a lot at MS that is being done correctly and Mack should be commended for it. The worst thing that Mack has done in the past 3 months is to limit the amount of risk the firm is willing to take - clearly that had an impact on the recent earnings announcement. However, I'm not sure that is equivalent to bad management.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 3:12PM

no offense 34, but saying hes the second best is like saying hes the 2nd best serial killer out there. Whos left, and when everyone is blowing up is 2nd best something to be proud of? He had to do the Mitsubishi deal because he was desperate to partner up with ANYONE. Zoe Cruz was a fall guy for the whole thing as well, she fell on a sword.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 3:14PM

Let's spin it another way. Mack wanted to be like GS so he instructed the desks to leverage up their risk positions. Or do you believe Zoe was a rogue operator? She did nothing Mack didn't order her to do. MS's risk group was such a mess that Mack couldn't tell a $3.7B loss one week (Nothing to see here, Zoe is next in line to CEO!) to an $11B loss the next (Get out of my company you dumb Bitch!!!). Oh, and for testimony, he mostly avoids it. Google "Gary Aguirre" for a good case study!

Just because Schumer runs interference for you with the SEC doesn't make you a good manager you know?

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 3:14PM

Don't think that people leaving these firms is not an issue. Moreover, don't think that MS is the only place where this is going on.

This has the potential to be a reverse May Day, with lots of new firms springing up.

Senior management will stay because of their stock-based compensation, but the firms will basically become zombies and the taxpayers will be screwed.

Meanwhile, the reat of Wall Street will be working at new, private boutiques and will be paying themselves as much as they want.

This populist rhetoric is killing me. A lot of people on Wall Street are self-made. Isn't that the American dream? Why are we punishing these people? They work hard and they take a commission for what they do.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 3:17PM

Don't think that people leaving these firms is not an issue. Moreover, don't think that MS is the only place where this is going on.

This has the potential to be a reverse May Day, with lots of new firms springing up.

Senior management will stay because of their stock-based compensation, but the firms will basically become zombies and the taxpayers will be screwed.

Meanwhile, the reat of Wall Street will be working at new, private boutiques and will be paying themselves as much as they want.

This populist rhetoric is killing me. A lot of people on Wall Street are self-made. Isn't that the American dream? Why are we punishing these people? They work hard and they take a commission for what they do.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 3:26PM

Let's spin it another way. Mack wanted to be like GS so he instructed the desks to leverage up their risk positions. Or do you believe Zoe was a rogue operator? She did nothing Mack didn't order her to do. MS's risk group was such a mess that Mack couldn't tell a $3.7B loss one week (Nothing to see here, Zoe is next in line to CEO!) to an $11B loss the next (Get out of my company you dumb Bitch!!!). Oh, and for testimony, he mostly avoids it. Google "Gary Aguirre" for a good case study!

Just because Schumer runs interference for you with the SEC doesn't make you a good manager you know?

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 3:27PM

@36 Zoe was no victim, she was a disaster with anger management issues. The firm had done everything they could to support her rise. There was a very real reason that she was fired and Neal Shear was demoted.

Regarding the mitsubishi deal, yes, they needed the money. So did Goldman. I'm not sure MS was unique in that need. The fact the deal got done is a huge accomplishment.

@38 I agree with you on one point: MS wanted the trading revenues and hired all of those (now fired) SUPER-Traders to get it. From a strategy point of view, I'm not sure that expanding prop trading was a bad decision. It was, however, bad timing. No, Zoe wasn't a rogue operator, but she definitely condoned some bad trades by those aforementioned prop traders. Neal Shear, who reported to Zoe, actually advocated against those trades on the grounds that you cite. Unfortunately, Zoe in her *graceful* way wouldn't let that information get to Mack. Hence the firing of Zoe and the demotion of Neal.

With regard to the testimony - some people talk to much... Paying it close to the chest is a good thing in my opinion

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 3:38PM

Oh yeah, right. Zoe hid the data from Mack? For what purpose, numnuts? Oh, and there's the smoking gun of Mack bragging that unlike Purcell, he would rachet up risk AND leverage. No, MS from top to bottom knew what they were doing. Hell, they fired Risk people who brought up the subject to senior management!

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 3:51PM

@cluzo

"it could help win some assignments"?

The last 5+ years of M&A was dominated by financial acquisitions. Most PE firms couldn't care less what their banker though was a good idea. They chose the bank that would give them the most attractive terms (i.e. the best syndication desk).

You need capital to play. Fairness opinions don't bring in the big dollars.

My point is that shareholders' capital is the difference between advising a $5M deal and a $5B deal.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2009 4:37PM

@cluzo

I'm not sure where Greenhill placed in the league tables but they are a public company.

Re FIG deals: Most I've seen lately have been financed (on the cheap) with the gentle hand of Uncle Sam.

In any case, neither of these examples are the norm. Maybe the industry should take a closer look at Greenhill's model. Given the transformation of i-banks becoming commercial banks, it might be a move in the right direction.