Forum Post: Real Facts on Wall Street Compensation
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 13, 2011, 3:09 a.m. EST by fixwallstreetnow
(42)
from San Francisco, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Bankers and Wall Street live in a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” system rewarding themselves and putting the burden on the taxpayer. The Financial Crisis cost each US Taxpayer nearly $47,000, while bonuses are at record levels and Finance is almost 40% of corporate profits.
Some Facts About Wall Street Compensation
In 2008, the same year of “TARP” companies were paying 97% of revenues to their Bankers. Over $18Billion was given to New York Bankers in December bonuses alone. At nine U.S. banks, 4,793 bankers were paid over $1Million in 2008, the same year they took over $700 Billion from the US Govt.
In 2009 ONE YEAR AFTER THE CRISIS Goldman Sachs paid their $498,246 in average compensation
In 2007 US-based managing directors in exotic credit trading at the six largest banks earned on average 200,000 salary and 2.78 million in bonuses
In the first 3 quarters of 2010, 8 of Wall Street’s largest banks set aside $130 billion for total compensation
Merrill Lynch doled out $15 billion in executive compensation for 2008, only 6% less than it did in 2007. This is the same Merrill that reported $42 billion in operating losses that year. BofA, their acquirer, took $20 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to cover these losses.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., In the first nine months of 2010,allocated $21.55 billion for compensation
Historically, investment banks have paid their Investment Bankers about 56 cents for every dollar of revenue. No other corporation could survive such a weak retention of profits.
Wall Street Culture:_ Why $2M a year is “not enough to survive” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html
As THE WALL STREET JOURNAL reported, a 2008 study found that the top .01% — or 14,000 American families — hold 22.2% of wealth.
2010 Hedge Fund PERSONAL INCOME Top 5 earnings (Only one year of income!) : John Paulson made $4.5 Billion, Ray Dalio $3.1Billion, James Simons $2.5 Billion, David Tepper $2.2Billion, etc. All paid less than 16% tax rates on their income, none of them built anything. The list goes on and on. (source: forbes)
Oh! My God！
Okay, that's some big numbers you've thrown out there. But what exactly are you trying to get across there?
I can throw out big numbers too: The national debt is above $14 Trillion (14000000000000) dollars. The cost of World War II is estimated at about $4.66 Trillion (4660000000000) dollars.
Now we have two things to be mad about. But to what end?
How about this? Instead of throwing out huge figures to make everyone believe we're smart, we just say it this way: big money is going to the wrong places.
There, now that we've got that out of the way, we now have time to do much more constructive things, like propose a solution.
Here's a plan: get some of the protesters to run as political candidates, running on an incorruptibility platform. Get them elected and have them change things from the inside out. Let the system... which would still work alright if people used it right... do what it's supposed to and get things done.
I don't see how this contributes to the dialogue other than stirring up class warfare.
The point I get is these bonuses were still paid as the failed banks got bailed out. The banks are in reality insolvent. They suspended fasb 157, mark to market on their accounting. If assets were truly priced, it wouldn't be pretty.
Banks arent even lending. They get the near 0% money and buy risk free treasuries (lend it back to us) and pocket the easy money. Why take risks with mortgages and small business loans?
These bankers who caused the meltdown, didn't go to jail, they got handed a check and were told to fix it.
We should all be outraged.
Class warfare has been conducted by the rich for decades. Hell, Reagan even did his part while he was president and most of the political spectrum never even realized it, despite the vast majority being a part of the class that was targeted. I find it ironic that whenever someone happens to point out the effects of this warfare, they are the ones immediately accused of stirring up class warfare.
Acknowledging that such an unequal distribution of wealth is a symptom of an economic system that has ceased to function properly isn't radical. It's economics.
It's odd that when the rich use this unequal distribution of wealth to enact policies that favor them further at the continued expense of another, that's all well and good. But when the class that realizes it's being royally screwed suggests doing something to protect itself, we start hearing shouts of class warfare. And always from the same people.