Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21
  1. #1
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,061
    BG Level
    10

    Goldman Sachs takes a Dump on its shareholders.

    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle7046050.ece



    Goldman Sachs has refused shareholders’ demands for an investigation into the levels of pay received by its bankers, the investment bank revealed in its annual report.

    The report, filed yesterday with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, said that shareholders also wanted the bank to claw back “excessive compensation” paid in previous years. “After considering the demand letters, [Goldman’s] board of directors rejected the demands,” the report said.

    Shareholders filed legal claims in December, accusing Goldman’s board of breaching its fiduciary duties in setting compensation in 2009, when $16.9 billion in pay and benefits was distributed between 31,700 staff. Most of the claims have been dropped.

    Since 2007 shareholders have brought a number of legal actions against the bank, accusing it of undervaluing stock options given to executives. The actions were dismissed by the courts.

    Goldman Sachs, which has borne the brunt of outrage over Wall Street’s return to bumper pay, cut the net revenue it set aside for compensation last year to 36 per cent, despite a record $13.4 billion net profit.

    It has paid an average of 46 per cent of net revenue in compensation since listing in 1999.
    This is huge in that its not a surprise but in that they would have the balls to do it in this political climate.

    Go on continue thinking you can reign in the banks with any sort of legislation. Keep thinking that as a shareholder your vote means dick whether its 1 share or 10,000 shares. This is a big slap in the face to you free market morons who get hard on deregulation.

    This isn't the first time this has happen either. But go ahead keep the fed intact just remember theres 8 lobbyist for every member of congress to make sure the plutocracy stays in place and its knee on our "democracy" neck and making sure you have no say in what happens.


    User was infracted for this post.

  2. #2
    Ridill Ninja Lotter
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,546
    BG Level
    8
    FFXIV Character
    Lol Drg
    FFXIV Server
    Sargatanas
    WoW Realm
    Lightning's Blade

    ib4 leif.

  3. #3
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,061
    BG Level
    10

    qb was moron really the best substitute you had for that word? God they're getting off easy.

  4. #4
    okay guy I guess
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    24,231
    BG Level
    10

    it was just the quickest I thought of. If you have a better substitute that isn't typically used as a slur then go for it.

  5. #5
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,061
    BG Level
    10

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...NewsCollection

    WASHINGTON–Key senators were close to a deal on legislation to overhaul financial regulations, people familiar with the matter said, bringing the U.S. a step closer to sweeping changes to the way banks interact with consumers and the markets alike.

    Top senators from each party were near a breakthrough agreement to create a new consumer-protection division within the Federal Reserve. This has been a contentious point due to heavy criticism of the Fed's past handling of its consumer-protection powers.

    Senators Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) and Bob Corker (R. Tenn.) were conferring with other members of their parties last night in an effort to sell that agreement to them, Senate aides said.

    The two senators have also reached a deal that would let the federal government break up large, failing financial companies.

    That plan tackles one of the most politically thorny flashpoints of the economic crisis: What powers should the government have to break up firms so it doesn't have to resort to taxpayer-funded bailouts?

    Agreements on these details are expected to shape a bill that Sen. Dodd, chairman of the Banking Committee, plans to introduce in the Senate. The House of Representatives passed a bill overhauling financial-market rules in December. Differences between the two packages would have to be reconciled before any final agreement could be signed into law by President Barack Obama.

    It is unclear whether White House officials would accept the idea to create a new consumer-regulation unit within the Fed. "The president remains strongly committed to an independent agency whose singular focus is advocacy for consumers," an administration official said.

    The deals are the closest the bitterly divided Senate has come to an agreement on new financial rules. Mr. Dodd will likely have to make a hard sell on any plan to give the Fed new powers to police the way mortgages and other products are offered to consumers. He has been one of the Fed's biggest critics and routinely blasted the central bank for failing to enforce the consumer-protection powers it already has.

    "Senator Dodd is keeping members informed on how things are progressing as he has throughout this process," his spokeswoman said. "We do not have an agreement yet. He hopes to have a consensus bill in the coming days."

    If lawmakers feel they have enough agreement, Mr. Dodd could introduce his bill later this week and potentially hold a vote in his committee later in the month. If other lawmakers balk at agreements between Messrs. Dodd and Corker, it could make it tougher for them to pass legislation this year.

    Democrats and Republicans have remained bitterly divided over how best to rework consumer-protection rules.

    President Obama has called for the creation of an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which would write and enforce rules for any financial product, from mortgages to credit cards to payday loans.

    Many Republicans criticized that idea, saying it would freeze up access to credit and create an unwieldy bureaucracy. Many Republicans said new consumer rules would be best placed within the regulator that oversees nationally chartered banks.

    Mr. Dodd, in an effort to get a deal, last week suggested the creation of a new division within the Treasury Department, but Mr. Corker rejected that.

    Instead, he proposed creating a new division within the Fed. The division would be led by a White House appointee, have the ability to write and enforce rules, and have a separate budget. It would also give the Fed a more direct mandate to focus on consumer-protection issues.

    This could dramatically reshape the focus of the Federal Reserve. For years, it has primarily been focused on monetary policy over bank supervision and often made consumer protection an afterthought.

    Republicans might be more supportive of the Fed option because they might see having Fed officials involved could lead to more bank-friendly policies than an independent regulator.

    But it could also reignite an anti-Fed sentiment that has rocked the central bank in the past year, at one point threatening the reconfirmation of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

    While the consumer-protection piece has been the most divisive for Senate lawmakers, creating powers within the government to take over and break up failing firms is seen as a vital piece to White House and Treasury officials.

    They have complained that the government was handcuffed during the 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the near-collapse of American International Group Inc. Existing law lets the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. take over failing banks, but its powers don't extend to other types of financial companies.

    Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.) and Sen. Corker agreed to details of that arrangement on Feb. 23 after months of meetings, but details of the deal hadn't been announced.

    The new arrangement, if adopted into law, would create a type of bankruptcy process for failing financial companies that aren't banks, such as bank-holding companies or bank subsidiaries that don't have insured deposits. Regulators would have the option to force any financial company into a FDIC-controlled dissolution if they believed market chaos required such an extreme step.

    Under the proposal, this step could take place only after the agreement of the Federal Reserve's board, a council of regulators, and the Treasury secretary, in consultation with the president.

    Messrs. Warner and Corker have said they wanted to create a process that was so painful for investors and management that no one would intentionally steer their company toward such a break-up and the government wouldn't be seen as a fail-safe for reckless behavior.

    The new deal would wipe out shareholders and give the FDIC the power to remove management. Creditors would be guaranteed only the liquidation value of their claims in bankruptcy, though they could receive more under some circumstances.

    Lawmakers debated for months how to pay for such a system. Treasury officials argued the government should be able to provide a bridge loan to unwind the company. Critics of that arrangement said it equated to a taxpayer-funded bailout
    Congress placating the American public while simultaneously jerking off their Fed masters.

    ps. it will never happen

  6. #6
    Canada
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,482
    BG Level
    6
    FFXIV Character
    Mlle Skjie
    FFXIV Server
    Hyperion
    FFXI Server
    Sylph
    WoW Realm
    Madoran

    Just like with Hockey, if only America could be more like their better neighbour.

  7. #7
    Sea Torques
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    661
    BG Level
    5

    Wait. You campaigned for Obama and hoped he could change Goldman eh? Too funny.

  8. #8
    Yoshi P
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    5,360
    BG Level
    8
    WoW Realm
    Arthas

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhinox View Post
    Go on continue thinking you can reign in the banks with any sort of legislation. Keep thinking that as a shareholder your vote means dick whether its 1 share or 10,000 shares. This is a big slap in the face to you free market morons who get hard on deregulation.
    Wouldn't the "free market morons" not have bailed out banks such as this in the first place?

  9. #9
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,061
    BG Level
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by eunhye View Post
    Wait. You campaigned for Obama and hoped he could change Goldman eh? Too funny.
    Wrong. I campaigned for him before I found out he just recycled Bush's economic team along with some of the people responsible for this mess like Tim Geithner and larry summers. Naive? sure but lesson learned.

    Quote Originally Posted by fantasticdan View Post
    Wouldn't the "free market morons" not have bailed out banks such as this in the first place?
    Principled ones that are from the Friedman school of economics sure. But I'll challenge you to find me enough that would have cockblock Tarp as there is today doing the same to healthcare reform.

    Look at how many actually voted against their own fucking platform of small government and limiting government spending.

  10. #10
    Oh, you've got green eyes.
    Oh, you've got blue eyes.
    Oh, you've got grey eyes.

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,821
    BG Level
    6

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhinox View Post
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...NewsCollection

    Congress placating the American public while simultaneously jerking off their Fed masters.

    ps. it will never happen
    could you bold the interesting parts? because I really don't care

  11. #11
    Black Belt
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,799
    BG Level
    8

    I'm pretty sure Friedmanites are monetarists, so while they might try to curb the fed they do support a central bank.

    also calling Friedmanites principled is kinda lolzy in premise.

  12. #12
    Chram
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,739
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Bahamut
    WoW Realm
    Aegwynn

    Neither would FDR, as much as he'd jump at the opportunity to

  13. #13
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,061
    BG Level
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by Beckwin View Post
    I'm pretty sure Friedmanites are monetarists, so while they might try to curb the fed they do support a central bank.

    also calling Friedmanites principled is kinda lolzy in premise.
    thinking about it you're absolutely correct. Friedman would have done the exact same thing not sure what I was thinking. Think I was just using Milton as a generic fit all for free market advocates.

    However point still stands the measure wouldn't have passed if so called 'principled' conservatives actually you know... stood up for their 'principles'.

  14. #14
    Bring on the Revolution
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    21,061
    BG Level
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    could you bold the interesting parts? because I really don't care
    ok

    WASHINGTON–Key senators were close to a deal on legislation to overhaul financial regulations, people familiar with the matter said, bringing the U.S. a step closer to sweeping changes to the way banks interact with consumers and the markets alike.

    Top senators from each party were near a breakthrough agreement to create a new consumer-protection division within the Federal Reserve. This has been a contentious point due to heavy criticism of the Fed's past handling of its consumer-protection powers.

    Senators Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) and Bob Corker (R. Tenn.) were conferring with other members of their parties last night in an effort to sell that agreement to them, Senate aides said.

    The two senators have also reached a deal that would let the federal government break up large, failing financial companies.

    That plan tackles one of the most politically thorny flashpoints of the economic crisis: What powers should the government have to break up firms so it doesn't have to resort to taxpayer-funded bailouts?

    Agreements on these details are expected to shape a bill that Sen. Dodd, chairman of the Banking Committee, plans to introduce in the Senate. The House of Representatives passed a bill overhauling financial-market rules in December. Differences between the two packages would have to be reconciled before any final agreement could be signed into law by President Barack Obama.

    It is unclear whether White House officials would accept the idea to create a new consumer-regulation unit within the Fed. "The president remains strongly committed to an independent agency whose singular focus is advocacy for consumers," an administration official said.

    The deals are the closest the bitterly divided Senate has come to an agreement on new financial rules. Mr. Dodd will likely have to make a hard sell on any plan to give the Fed new powers to police the way mortgages and other products are offered to consumers. He has been one of the Fed's biggest critics and routinely blasted the central bank for failing to enforce the consumer-protection powers it already has.

    "Senator Dodd is keeping members informed on how things are progressing as he has throughout this process," his spokeswoman said. "We do not have an agreement yet. He hopes to have a consensus bill in the coming days."

    If lawmakers feel they have enough agreement, Mr. Dodd could introduce his bill later this week and potentially hold a vote in his committee later in the month. If other lawmakers balk at agreements between Messrs. Dodd and Corker, it could make it tougher for them to pass legislation this year.

    Democrats and Republicans have remained bitterly divided over how best to rework consumer-protection rules.

    President Obama has called for the creation of an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which would write and enforce rules for any financial product, from mortgages to credit cards to payday loans.

    Many Republicans criticized that idea, saying it would freeze up access to credit and create an unwieldy bureaucracy. Many Republicans said new consumer rules would be best placed within the regulator that oversees nationally chartered banks.

    Mr. Dodd, in an effort to get a deal, last week suggested the creation of a new division within the Treasury Department, but Mr. Corker rejected that.

    Instead, he proposed creating a new division within the Fed. The division would be led by a White House appointee, have the ability to write and enforce rules, and have a separate budget. It would also give the Fed a more direct mandate to focus on consumer-protection issues.

    This could dramatically reshape the focus of the Federal Reserve. For years, it has primarily been focused on monetary policy over bank supervision and often made consumer protection an afterthought.

    Republicans might be more supportive of the Fed option because they might see having Fed officials involved could lead to more bank-friendly policies than an independent regulator.

    But it could also reignite an anti-Fed sentiment that has rocked the central bank in the past year, at one point threatening the reconfirmation of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

    While the consumer-protection piece has been the most divisive for Senate lawmakers, creating powers within the government to take over and break up failing firms is seen as a vital piece to White House and Treasury officials.

    They have complained that the government was handcuffed during the 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the near-collapse of American International Group Inc. Existing law lets the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. take over failing banks, but its powers don't extend to other types of financial companies.

    Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.) and Sen. Corker agreed to details of that arrangement on Feb. 23 after months of meetings, but details of the deal hadn't been announced.

    The new arrangement, if adopted into law, would create a type of bankruptcy process for failing financial companies that aren't banks, such as bank-holding companies or bank subsidiaries that don't have insured deposits. Regulators would have the option to force any financial company into a FDIC-controlled dissolution if they believed market chaos required such an extreme step.

    Under the proposal, this step could take place only after the agreement of the Federal Reserve's board, a council of regulators, and the Treasury secretary, in consultation with the president.

    Messrs. Warner and Corker have said they wanted to create a process that was so painful for investors and management that no one would intentionally steer their company toward such a break-up and the government wouldn't be seen as a fail-safe for reckless behavior.

    The new deal would wipe out shareholders and give the FDIC the power to remove management. Creditors would be guaranteed only the liquidation value of their claims in bankruptcy, though they could receive more under some circumstances.

    Lawmakers debated for months how to pay for such a system. Treasury officials argued the government should be able to provide a bridge loan to unwind the company. Critics of that arrangement said it equated to a taxpayer-funded bailout

  15. #15
    I'm almost as bad as Mazmaz
    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    25,999
    BG Level
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by Zealot View Post
    I hope that was a joke about him being crippled, otherwise I laughed for nothing.
    ^

  16. #16
    Oh, you've got green eyes.
    Oh, you've got blue eyes.
    Oh, you've got grey eyes.

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,821
    BG Level
    6

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhinox View Post
    ok
    well played asshole, lol

  17. #17
    New Merits
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    249
    BG Level
    4
    FFXI Server
    Gilgamesh
    WoW Realm
    Dunemaul

    I'm pretty sure Friedmanites are monetarists, so while they might try to curb the fed they do support a central bank

    Friedman for the most part was Libertarian, he actually wanted to abolish the Fed. He wanted a system that increased the money supply at some fixed rate rather than a central bank that conducted policy. That being said, I have no idea how his followers' views may have evolved over the years.

  18. #18
    The Defense is ready, Your Honor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    20,630
    BG Level
    10
    FFXIV Character
    Lord Longhaft
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Cerberus
    WoW Realm
    Mug'thol

    Where -is- Leif? Someone flash the sandy Ann Coultier vag sign and get him in here.

  19. #19
    I'm not safe on my island
    Nikkei will still get me.

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    20,043
    BG Level
    10

    It won't be long before the banks are back to the same kind of behaviour that lead to the financial crisis in the first place. So prepare to rage ever harder at Goldman Sachs in a few years. Who knows, maybe the ensuing chaos will teach Americans to take responsability for once.

  20. #20
    A. Body
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,224
    BG Level
    7

    Quote Originally Posted by Kuya View Post
    It won't be long before the banks are back to the same kind of behaviour that lead to the financial crisis in the first place. So prepare to rage ever harder at Goldman Sachs in a few years. Who knows, maybe the ensuing chaos will teach Americans to take responsability for once.
    Either that, or folks are going to be sticking a lot more money under their mattress.

    Seriously, this shit is beginning to make me wish we'd never gone off the fucking gold standard. The more we see financial institiutions making "money" off nothing more than paperwork and speculation of the this-turd-is-gold-really-honest kind, the weaker the economic foundation of the nation becomes.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Website with every episode of the Simpsons on it
    By Lbelle in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 2006-09-26, 17:52
  2. Dont count on it
    By SugarCat in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2006-08-27, 19:15
  3. what is this (JP website with some of our names on it)
    By Zigma in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2004-10-07, 17:51