wall street bonuses to be paid out of bailout money

[tradergirl]

To me, it's pretty straightforward.

If your firm made money for its investors, groovy, compensate everyone. That would eliminate about 95% of them this year.

Any Wall Street investment bank whose stock has declined over about 10-15% shouldn't be paying anyone a dime in bonuses. I have heard all the BS about keeping the top talent. You know what? All of them have made obscene amounts of bonus money over the past 3-5 years. We're talking bonuses of $1-50M. Is there a reason they haven't held onto it and can't live without a bonus this year? What a lot of BS. What I was seeing last year and in '06 was the 30 year old "trader" taking his bonus and swapping the $6M pad for a $20M one, more in keeping with his stature as a Master of the Universe. Most of them are probably pounding the pavement right now. They made outsized returns using extreme leverage and OPM, including money such as pension fund money which they had no business risking like that but that cuts both ways. My mailbox is full of email from suicidal trading friends who have lost everthing this year. I wish I could empathize more. A little common sense would have gone a long way for all of them.

I had a hell of a year because I'm a short seller. Last year was good too. In 2003, I barely kept the lights on and didn't pay myself anything.

 

[AprilBaby]

My husband worked hard and worked overtime and all he got this year was laid off.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 11/15/2008 7:04:03 PM
Author: stone_seeker
Look, the reality is if you dont pay wall street people bonuses, they have no incentive to work there. 2/3 of their money is in their bonus. If these people leave, any major company around the world that needs money wont be able to get it. you wont be able to invest in markets, earn money on your money, etc. Then everyone loses.

There have been massive job losses in financial services and compensation will be lower this year and probably for a few more years in the future. but saying the bailout money shouldnt go toward paying any salaries is ludicrous. Why dont you forgo all your comp this year and next and work for free in the name of taking one for the team of society? The average american who bought too much house is just as culpable as the wall street banker who sold him the mortgage.

So I say, keep paying them if those people can help resurrect the economy.

1) That''s a load of crap. People out in the real world work without bonuses all day long. They have the same incentive we all have when it comes right down to it: survival. Somehow I think Wallstreet will survive without riduculously high salaries.

2) Before we''re all done with this, I suspect many, possibly right here on this board, will be NOT working for NO comp and "taking one for the team" because of unbridled greed and unrealistic assumptions in the financial sector. And the average American is NOT as culpable as the unscrupulous companies guided by unscrupulous individuals, who made loans they knew, (being the possessors of more knowledge of finance, loans, and the normal, time-tested rules of making them), that these people could not ever pay back. They KNEW they were making crap loans and made them anyway, and then unloaded them as fast as they could. Defending predatory I''ve-got-mine-screw-you capitalism by trying to pass the blame to the average person won''t fly. No pass, sorry.

The people who will ultimately resurrect this economy are those who actually PRODUCE SOMETHING, and companies that actually do something. Juggling money doesn''t qualify. Financial markets provide a service true, but they are NOT a PRODUCT. Bad money drives out good.

 

[purrfectpear]

People leaving Wall St. jobs means we won''t be able to invest, etc.? Puhleeze. Wall St. was still functioning after the crash of ''29. I''m pretty sure it will survive some workers who think there''s a greener pasture with bonuses. While I''m not one to say they shouldn''t have had the bonuses of the past, when times are tough, all corporations cut back. Welcome to reality. If those people want to walk away from perfectly good careers with salaries (excluding bonuses) that pay in excess of $100K a year, all I can say is whatev

Good luck on that job hunt there.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 11/15/2008 7:04:03 PM
Author: stone_seeker
The average american who bought too much house is just as culpable as the wall street banker who sold him the mortgage. So I say, keep paying them if those people can help resurrect the economy.

Hmmm. Equally culpable huh? Then why is one living in a refrigerator box on the street after the bank took his house back .. and the other one is getting his bonus as usual courtesy of the Federal Gov't?? LAUGHABLE!

Not to mention ... um ... why are we trusting the boobs that made this mess to be the ones to "resurrect" the economy? Let them pout, quit & go screw up some other industry. Hopefully in another country.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 11/15/2008 1:12:11 AM
Author: Demelza

Date: 11/14/2008 2:53:44 PM
Author: Harriet
A number of firms that were bailed out did accrue earnings and profits. Since money is fungible, we can't tell whether the bonuses are being paid out of e&p or bailout money. I agree that bonuses should not be paid out of the latter, but we can't jump to conclusions that that is indeed the case.

With all due respect, this argument doesn't make sense to me. If they've got enough money from their earnings and profits to be paying out bonuses, why were they given bailout money? The bailout wasn't a reward. These companies should be tightening their belts just like the rest of us and it's outrageous the government isn't holding them accountable for how they're spending OUR money.

Yes, the government should have regulated the use of the bailout money. However, so as not to stigmatise certain firms, a number of firms were pressured into receiving it. Witness Wells Fargo.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 11/15/2008 7:04:03 PM
Author: stone_seeker
Look, the reality is if you dont pay wall street people bonuses, they have no incentive to work there. 2/3 of their money is in their bonus. If these people leave, any major company around the world that needs money wont be able to get it. you wont be able to invest in markets, earn money on your money, etc. Then everyone loses.

There have been massive job losses in financial services and compensation will be lower this year and probably for a few more years in the future. but saying the bailout money shouldnt go toward paying any salaries is ludicrous. Why dont you forgo all your comp this year and next and work for free in the name of taking one for the team of society? The average american who bought too much house is just as culpable as the wall street banker who sold him the mortgage.

So I say, keep paying them if those people can help resurrect the economy.

Touche.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 11/15/2008 8:10:12 PM
Author: tradergirl
To me, it's pretty straightforward.

If your firm made money for its investors, groovy, compensate everyone. That would eliminate about 95% of them this year.

Any Wall Street investment bank whose stock has declined over about 10-15% shouldn't be paying anyone a dime in bonuses. I have heard all the BS about keeping the top talent. You know what? All of them have made obscene amounts of bonus money over the past 3-5 years. We're talking bonuses of $1-50M. Is there a reason they haven't held onto it and can't live without a bonus this year? What a lot of BS. What I was seeing last year and in '06 was the 30 year old 'trader' taking his bonus and swapping the $6M pad for a $20M one, more in keeping with his stature as a Master of the Universe. Most of them are probably pounding the pavement right now. They made outsized returns using extreme leverage and OPM, including money such as pension fund money which they had no business risking like that but that cuts both ways. My mailbox is full of email from suicidal trading friends who have lost everthing this year. I wish I could empathize more. A little common sense would have gone a long way for all of them.

I had a hell of a year because I'm a short seller. Last year was good too. In 2003, I barely kept the lights on and didn't pay myself anything.

If this crisis has been good for one thing, it has been good for separating the weed from the chaff.

We know, we know. Please try to empathise with those who can barely keep their lights on and aren't getting paid.

 

[Beacon]

Certainly we need and deserve more transparency regarding where the "bailout" money is going.

Harriet is totally correct in that some firms were forced to take TARP money who did not need it, specifically Wells Fargo who has made a steady profit and anyone can check that out - they were doing just fine and never were in the subprime business to start with. They should be able to compensate however they wish.

Within a bank like Goldman Sachs, it is more complex. I am pretty sure Lloyd Blankfein (CEO) won''t take a bonus this year. However, let''s say one part of the company generated a huge profit and the other part generated a large loss. The people who made the profitable business want their bonus and they have earned it. Whether they will get it is debatable. Overall their firm lost money and how can a bonus be paid in a loss position? Certainly employees who worked for the money losing side of the business should NOT get a bonus.

The bigger issue is the nature of the compensation itself, which tends to encourage outsize risk taking. This does need to be looked at and knocked back. Way too many times this has happened where a person chasing a tanker sized bonus blows himself up (and maybe the firm too) on a crazy trade or business, hoping to hit a homerun. I don''t care if they do lose and do blow the firm up, but if it poses systemic risk, as some of these monster postiions have, incentives need to be reviewed.

This is happening in real time now.

 

[tradergirl]

Harriet, no I really don''t have a lot of empathy. As I said most of them made outrageous amounts of money in 2004-2007. More than any normal person would ever need in their lifetimes. Why couldn''t they hold onto any of it and now need sympathy?

Take these private equity outfits like FIG or Blackstone. Choose your reason for contempt: they "buy" public companies with borrowed money, extract unconscionable "fees" for themselves after closing, dump employees of these companies out on the street and if that weren''t enough, then they sell their crappy stock to the public in IPOs. Oh, did I mention that anyone who bought the IPOs of Fortress or Blackstone has seen their money go down the toilet? But don''t worry, I doubt any of the insiders there are eating Tender Vittles for dinner. How about Henry Paulson selling 200M or so of Goldman stock tax free? Yes, I know he is now "serving his country" (sarcasm off).

And then pick up an issue of Architectural Digest and see the latest multimillion dollar pied-a-terre or weeked home of a "young financier." We won''t ask the price as it would cause most ordinary people to faint dead away.

All of these people need to get a reality check.

 

[tradergirl]

Karen Singer: you are absolutely right. With all due respect the person to whom you replied, Wall Street people are the problem, not the solution and to say they will resurrect the economy is a farce. Who knew you could laugh at 6 a.m.?

Some of us have been in the game long enough to see this type of cycle come and go. This one is a doozy though and will take many more years than people want to believe to work its way out. The good news is that once all of this gross excess is washed out of the system, a phoenix will arise from the ashes. But I think anyone who is looking for some government quick fix to beam us back to 2005 is just dreaming.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 11/16/2008 7:45:40 AM
Author: tradergirl
Karen Singer: you are absolutely right. With all due respect the person to whom you replied, Wall Street people are the problem, not the solution and to say they will resurrect the economy is a farce. Who knew you could laugh at 6 a.m.?

Some of us have been in the game long enough to see this type of cycle come and go. This one is a doozy though and will take many more years than people want to believe to work its way out. The good news is that once all of this gross excess is washed out of the system, a phoenix will arise from the ashes. But I think anyone who is looking for some government quick fix to beam us back to 2005 is just dreaming.

Well, you can certainly see on this board, the disconnect between those in financial services and those who are not. You guys are debating minutiae of who was "legal" or how much someone should get as a bonus because their "shareholders" are happy or unhappy. All the rest of us can see is that "shareholders" aren''t us and don''t have anyone''s interests but their own at heart. Not ours, and certainly not the larger world that is the United States economy. I and many others are just plain disgusted at the entire financial system and have zero sympathy for the "travails" of those in it. Defenses of and excuses for lack of regulation, predatory practices, rampant speculation, and competition levels that made the industry play fast and loose with much much more than THEIR money, just piss the rest of us completely off. The whole thing just stinks to high heaven. I''d say that our recent form of "free market" capitalism is pretty firmly dead for the next 50 years or so....until the players now are dead and people forget what went before...again, and the cries of "We can self-regulate" begin again.

And it''s a pity Spitzer''s more outre predilections forced him from public life. I think he nails the situation pretty firmly on the head with this little piece at the Washington Post.

How to Ground The Street

 

[tradergirl]

Karen: shareholders ARE the rest of you if you have a mutual fund in your 401k, a pension plan or are a municipality. I could go on and on about the role of hedge funds and asset managers making unsustainable promises to pension fund managers and municipalities and all the sleazy stuff that went on there. These guys were looking for 20-30% which everyone knows can't be done. Actually it can be done with small, nimble funds but not the behemoths like Calpers and others.

I personally am not in that business. I manage my own and a few other small accounts and for that reason, am able to turn the ship around quickly if it is warranted. I also did not have access to the custom derivatives these guys were writing and selling. I agree with you that an economy can't be sustained which consists of nothing but people selling overpriced assets to each other (that includes houses and those who think they're going to see former prices anytime in the next 10-15 years). It's going to take a few years of tough love though to get everyone off the easy money crack.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/16/2008 8:31:16 AM
Author: ksinger
Well, you can certainly see on this board, the disconnect between those in financial services and those who are not.

Very very true.
The anger level is far less here than several other boards I am on that have a different economic mix.
People are scared and angry on main street, Wall Street and to large extent Washington just don't get how angry they are.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 11/16/2008 7:27:44 AM
Author: tradergirl
Harriet, no I really don't have a lot of empathy. As I said most of them made outrageous amounts of money in 2004-2007. More than any normal person would ever need in their lifetimes. Why couldn't they hold onto any of it and now need sympathy?

Take these private equity outfits like FIG or Blackstone. Choose your reason for contempt: they 'buy' public companies with borrowed money, extract unconscionable 'fees' for themselves after closing, dump employees of these companies out on the street and if that weren't enough, then they sell their crappy stock to the public in IPOs. Oh, did I mention that anyone who bought the IPOs of Fortress or Blackstone has seen their money go down the toilet? But don't worry, I doubt any of the insiders there are eating Tender Vittles for dinner. How about Henry Paulson selling 200M or so of Goldman stock tax free? Yes, I know he is now 'serving his country' (sarcasm off).

And then pick up an issue of Architectural Digest and see the latest multimillion dollar pied-a-terre or weeked home of a 'young financier.' We won't ask the price as it would cause most ordinary people to faint dead away.

All of these people need to get a reality check.

I'd be hard-pressed to empathise with the masters of the universe. I'm referring to the PS members who are jobless or have family members in the same situation.

I'm with you on certain PE outfits, though.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 11/16/2008 8:49:14 AM
Author: tradergirl

I personally am not in that business. I manage my own and a few other small accounts and for that reason, am able to turn the ship around quickly if it is warranted. I also did not have access to the custom derivatives these guys were writing and selling. I agree with you that an economy can''t be sustained which consists of nothing but people selling overpriced assets to each other (that includes houses and those who think they''re going to see former prices anytime in the next 10-15 years). It''s going to take a few years of tough love though to get everyone off the easy money crack.

i agree...at least not out here in Ca.

 

[Beacon]

I think the original question was not whether wall street people are paid too much, but about the ethics of bonuses being paid out of TARP funds.

Since any individutal Wall Street house has many different businesses within it, I think that those who lost money should not get a bonus at all. They should get fired and probably will. As for those portions of the business that did make money, they should get a bonus. However if the overall firm is not profitable for the year then the executive staff, who are overseeing the entire entity, should not get bonuses.

I do not revile wall street for getting paid too much. There are many businesses where people get paid too much: venture capital, tech execs, cardiac surgeons, actors (successful), clothing designers, professional athletes, even minor celebrities.

I don''t get mad at the world because some professions pay better than others.

But for sure, if they are to be paid for failing, with taxpayer money, this is a sham. BTW, on that basis we do need to fire all of FEMA, an agency whose incompetence is mind boggling yet still receives hundreds of millions of tax dollars.

 

[Harriet]

I couldn''t agree more.

 

[stone_seeker]

i guess the issue is calling it a bonus which implies reward. On wall street, bonus is 90% of compensation in many cases. So call it something else and make people happy. I recognize there is anger that this group of people got paid so much but many have lost their jobs and most, if not all, will be making less.

But I stand firm in my position that Wall Street employees will need to be paid if we want their services. They are not 10 people in line willing to work 200 hour weeks for $35K a year. Not in New York. They may seem like they add little value to some folks but you are witnessing a world where capital is not being allocated to anyone and its not good. The only provider of capital now is the government and no surprise, they''re screwing it up. So if some minor piece of bailout money is set aside to compensate the men and women who will get the cogs moving again, then I say pay them more so they can get it done faster.

and NO, i dont work for one of these banks.

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/15/2008 10:12:33 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 11/15/2008 7:04:03 PM

Author: stone_seeker

Look, the reality is if you dont pay wall street people bonuses, they have no incentive to work there. 2/3 of their money is in their bonus. If these people leave, any major company around the world that needs money wont be able to get it. you wont be able to invest in markets, earn money on your money, etc. Then everyone loses.


There have been massive job losses in financial services and compensation will be lower this year and probably for a few more years in the future. but saying the bailout money shouldnt go toward paying any salaries is ludicrous. Why dont you forgo all your comp this year and next and work for free in the name of taking one for the team of society? The average american who bought too much house is just as culpable as the wall street banker who sold him the mortgage.



So I say, keep paying them if those people can help resurrect the economy.

1) That''s a load of crap. People out in the real world work without bonuses all day long. They have the same incentive we all have when it comes right down to it: survival. Somehow I think Wallstreet will survive without riduculously high salaries.


2) Before we''re all done with this, I suspect many, possibly right here on this board, will be NOT working for NO comp and ''taking one for the team'' because of unbridled greed and unrealistic assumptions in the financial sector. And the average American is NOT as culpable as the unscrupulous companies guided by unscrupulous individuals, who made loans they knew, (being the possessors of more knowledge of finance, loans, and the normal, time-tested rules of making them), that these people could not ever pay back. They KNEW they were making crap loans and made them anyway, and then unloaded them as fast as they could. Defending predatory I''ve-got-mine-screw-you capitalism by trying to pass the blame to the average person won''t fly. No pass, sorry.


The people who will ultimately resurrect this economy are those who actually PRODUCE SOMETHING, and companies that actually do something. Juggling money doesn''t qualify. Financial markets provide a service true, but they are NOT a PRODUCT. Bad money drives out good.

I think your post is a load of crap, with all due respect. Name me one company that has a product that can produce it without money. If wall street had no value, then its collapse should not have the impact its having now. Wall Street didnt force the guy making $15K a year to buy a million dollar home. Congress (democratic leadership) wanted wall street to loosen lending standards and wall street foolishly complied. They profited from it, but they were doing fine before subprime loans started being made.

The term predatory lending is such BS. I got offered hundreds of these no-money down, get paid to buy a home type of deals. Yes, they were enticing and I would have loved to buy a mansion with one - but I said NO. Blaming wall street for the stupidity and greed of a select few is a cop out. But I guess its easier to blame the "evil money stealers" on wall street than look in the mirror.

 

[tradergirl]

It was all out there several years ago if you wanted to listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

 

[tradergirl]

Harriet: I''d rather be jobless having banked five year of Wall Street type profits than the average Joe who is being laid off. After all, you can always take the money and leave New York.

Unless you pissed it all away which is the elephant in the living room.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 11/16/2008 4:44:22 PM
Author: tradergirl
Harriet: I''d rather be jobless having banked five year of Wall Street type profits than the average Joe who is being laid off. After all, you can always take the money and leave New York.

Unless you pissed it all away which is the elephant in the living room.

No empathy from me there, either.

 

[Skippy123]

KimberlyH posted this in the Good News Thread; I thought I would repost it here. Karl I hope you don't mind but this story made me think there are good people out there. I know it is a different situation but it somewhat inspiring and quite admirable during these times. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6506288&rss=rss-wabc-article-6506288

 

[crown1]

Date: 11/16/2008 4:41:27 PM
Author: tradergirl
It was all out there several years ago if you wanted to listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

thanks for this link! schiff knows his stuff.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 11/16/2008 4:16:23 PM
Author: stone_seeker

Date: 11/15/2008 10:12:33 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 11/15/2008 7:04:03 PM

Author: stone_seeker

Look, the reality is if you dont pay wall street people bonuses, they have no incentive to work there. 2/3 of their money is in their bonus. If these people leave, any major company around the world that needs money wont be able to get it. you wont be able to invest in markets, earn money on your money, etc. Then everyone loses.


There have been massive job losses in financial services and compensation will be lower this year and probably for a few more years in the future. but saying the bailout money shouldnt go toward paying any salaries is ludicrous. Why dont you forgo all your comp this year and next and work for free in the name of taking one for the team of society? The average american who bought too much house is just as culpable as the wall street banker who sold him the mortgage.



So I say, keep paying them if those people can help resurrect the economy.

1) That''s a load of crap. People out in the real world work without bonuses all day long. They have the same incentive we all have when it comes right down to it: survival. Somehow I think Wallstreet will survive without riduculously high salaries.


2) Before we''re all done with this, I suspect many, possibly right here on this board, will be NOT working for NO comp and ''taking one for the team'' because of unbridled greed and unrealistic assumptions in the financial sector. And the average American is NOT as culpable as the unscrupulous companies guided by unscrupulous individuals, who made loans they knew, (being the possessors of more knowledge of finance, loans, and the normal, time-tested rules of making them), that these people could not ever pay back. They KNEW they were making crap loans and made them anyway, and then unloaded them as fast as they could. Defending predatory I''ve-got-mine-screw-you capitalism by trying to pass the blame to the average person won''t fly. No pass, sorry.


The people who will ultimately resurrect this economy are those who actually PRODUCE SOMETHING, and companies that actually do something. Juggling money doesn''t qualify. Financial markets provide a service true, but they are NOT a PRODUCT. Bad money drives out good.

I think your post is a load of crap, with all due respect. Name me one company that has a product that can produce it without money. If wall street had no value, then its collapse should not have the impact its having now. Wall Street didnt force the guy making $15K a year to buy a million dollar home. Congress (democratic leadership) wanted wall street to loosen lending standards and wall street foolishly complied. They profited from it, but they were doing fine before subprime loans started being made.

The term predatory lending is such BS. I got offered hundreds of these no-money down, get paid to buy a home type of deals. Yes, they were enticing and I would have loved to buy a mansion with one - but I said NO. Blaming wall street for the stupidity and greed of a select few is a cop out. But I guess its easier to blame the ''evil money stealers'' on wall street than look in the mirror.

Dope pedler says: It''s not my fault that people buy dope....hey man, I just sell it to them. It they''re so stupid as to buy something like heroin that any reasonable person knows is bad for them, well, I''m just the supplying a demand.

 

[tradergirl]

and one more video for those who think Obama is going to waltz in and fix everything. Slide the pointer to 9:50 so you don't have to watch the whole 11 minute clip (although it's interesting)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP_aJ7LcAAA

 

[stone_seeker]

Date: 11/16/2008 6:58:04 PM
Author: ksinger

Date: 11/16/2008 4:16:23 PM

Author: stone_seeker

Date: 11/15/2008 10:12:33 PM

Author: ksinger

Date: 11/15/2008 7:04:03 PM


Author: stone_seeker


Look, the reality is if you dont pay wall street people bonuses, they have no incentive to work there. 2/3 of their money is in their bonus. If these people leave, any major company around the world that needs money wont be able to get it. you wont be able to invest in markets, earn money on your money, etc. Then everyone loses.



There have been massive job losses in financial services and compensation will be lower this year and probably for a few more years in the future. but saying the bailout money shouldnt go toward paying any salaries is ludicrous. Why dont you forgo all your comp this year and next and work for free in the name of taking one for the team of society? The average american who bought too much house is just as culpable as the wall street banker who sold him the mortgage.





So I say, keep paying them if those people can help resurrect the economy.

1) That''s a load of crap. People out in the real world work without bonuses all day long. They have the same incentive we all have when it comes right down to it: survival. Somehow I think Wallstreet will survive without riduculously high salaries.



2) Before we''re all done with this, I suspect many, possibly right here on this board, will be NOT working for NO comp and ''taking one for the team'' because of unbridled greed and unrealistic assumptions in the financial sector. And the average American is NOT as culpable as the unscrupulous companies guided by unscrupulous individuals, who made loans they knew, (being the possessors of more knowledge of finance, loans, and the normal, time-tested rules of making them), that these people could not ever pay back. They KNEW they were making crap loans and made them anyway, and then unloaded them as fast as they could. Defending predatory I''ve-got-mine-screw-you capitalism by trying to pass the blame to the average person won''t fly. No pass, sorry.



The people who will ultimately resurrect this economy are those who actually PRODUCE SOMETHING, and companies that actually do something. Juggling money doesn''t qualify. Financial markets provide a service true, but they are NOT a PRODUCT. Bad money drives out good.

I think your post is a load of crap, with all due respect. Name me one company that has a product that can produce it without money. If wall street had no value, then its collapse should not have the impact its having now. Wall Street didnt force the guy making $15K a year to buy a million dollar home. Congress (democratic leadership) wanted wall street to loosen lending standards and wall street foolishly complied. They profited from it, but they were doing fine before subprime loans started being made.


The term predatory lending is such BS. I got offered hundreds of these no-money down, get paid to buy a home type of deals. Yes, they were enticing and I would have loved to buy a mansion with one - but I said NO. Blaming wall street for the stupidity and greed of a select few is a cop out. But I guess its easier to blame the ''evil money stealers'' on wall street than look in the mirror.

Dope pedler says: It''s not my fault that people buy dope....hey man, I just sell it to them. It they''re so stupid as to buy something like heroin that any reasonable person knows is bad for them, well, I''m just the supplying a demand.

dont get the analogy. dope peddling = illegal. Democratic leadership pushed subprime lending. Banks didnt want to lend to people who couldnt afford it and congress said that was unfair to minorities and lower income people. A bit different no?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/16/2008 7:46:34 PM
Author: stone_seeker



dont get the analogy. dope peddling = illegal. Democratic leadership pushed subprime lending. Banks didnt want to lend to people who couldnt afford it and congress said that was unfair to minorities and lower income people. A bit different no?

Banks didn''t care because it wasn''t their money.
Wall Street got in the banking business with no clue and it blew up and took the economy with it.

 

[tradergirl]

Karl: you''ll find this amusing

http://clusterstock.alleyinsider.com/2008/11/wall-street-explained-2-