FlightMan

Says it all really:

Kevin Mc

Excellent

Jaybird-UK

This is just plain disgusting


Wall Street's five biggest firms paid more than $3 billion in the last five years to their top executives, while they presided over the packaging and sale of loans that helped bring down the investment-banking system.

Bloomberg.com: Fat cat payouts

MickeyTake

The whole thing stinks!!

When Bradford and Bingley get Nationalised on Monday their executives will walk away with multi-million pound golden handshakes ........ it makes my blood boil!!

Gordo

Course it's nothing to do with the thick ***** that thought it was ok to borrow >=100% of their property value. Or thought it was ok to borrow heavily against their property without thinking about how they'd ever pay it back.

"Wall Street's five biggest firms paid more than $3 billion in the last five years to their top executives"

marvellous - have you any concept how big the 5 biggest firms are in the biggest economy in the world, or how small this is against the value in tax / economic benefit they brought to that economy?

easy to blame the so called fat cats with no personal responsibility or understanding of the culpability of individuals and governments in it all.

are the majority of people on here daily mail readers???!!!

MickeyTake

The fat cats should have known better ..... a newly 'property rich' house owner does NOT know better!!

So, when they saw offers to release value tied up in their home to buy that BMW X5 and Foreign Holiday they believed that they could without risk!!

Yes, the individual needs to be taught a lesson - but the fat cats who knew what they were doing ought to be strung up by their genitals!!

mrtheedge2u2

I know plenty of people who have borrowed more than 100% of the properties value and will have absolutely no issue with paying it back.

Of course you will get some people who do not think things through.... but these people need to be protected (for their own good) by adequate banking rules......

FlightMan

Bollox. Joe Public isn't clued up on the financial markets. He's a plumber, mechanic, office worker. Joe got sucker punched by financial wizzkids selling him cheap money to buy expensive homes. Joe bought one, why not EVERYONE else was and the finance guys said it was fine. Now, some people like Joe will loose their home.

The top bankers, the people inside the system, the regulators and Govt, however are supposed to know this stuff, inside out, back to front and upside down. They didn't did they? They screwed up, they destroyed their companies. And what do they loose? Well, their jobs, but they ( the fat cats ) walk away with a $,000,000 bonus. Joe looses his house.

And how do they propose to save the markets, and us?
They want Joe to give them his tax dollars, so they can start it all again! Bail out the banks, kick start the housing market, and price out those who have saved and waited for a crash to buy a property at a properly affordable cost, without having to resort for the sort of crooked mortgage deal that started this.

I'm amazed that "in the land of the free" they're just leafleting Wall St. If it was me, I'd be on a roof with a sniperscope!

mrtheedge2u2

FM.... you will probs find that Paulson et al will realise that the buck has to stop with the bad-practice-people of the financial sector......

The only way that the companies will be punished or held accountable is if the government buy the bad debt at a fraction of the value and sell it back to the companies at full value........ not pretty but the only way the companies will be punished.

Gordo

"some people like Joe will loose their home"

sigh.

angrynorth

I prefer the "DO A FLIP" sign that appeared in the NY Times last week.

Excellent, simply because of the Futurama reference.

I don't want any of these people to jump by the way, no matter how much they fücked up it's not good to wish people dead.

Suresh

I borrowed 125% by the way. I didn't and don't need to be protected.


I believe the issue in the US is that if you have taken out a huge mortgage loan and subsequently find that you can't repay, you can just hand in the keys and that's it. If the property market tanks, then the banks and those investors who have bought securitised mortgage bonds end up with the losses, which they can't possibly absorb of course, as we have seen.

So who are the idiots who caused all of this then?
1. The socialists who think everyone should have a right to buy
2. People who borrowed money they couldn't possibly afford to repay
3. The banks who made the loans in the first place.
4. The ratings agencies who rated the securitised mortgage bonds as AAA high quality assets
5. The investment bankers who couldn't value this rubbish correctly.
6. The investment banks who kept their credit and market risk control separate and so never noticed what junk was sitting on their balance sheet.
7. The accountants who have been taking fees and signing off annual reports that contained all these mis-priced assets (and continue to do so)

Unfortunately because of points 4-7 all trust has been lost in financial institutions and we're on a downward spiral with no end in sight.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

They have f*cked up due to greed and stupidity, hopefully now they will be regulated into sustainable investment practices, just because you work with money doesn't mean you should have access to the money you work with.

The finance industry has shot itself in the foot big style and is now going to be under massive scrutiny so it cant **** up like that again.

I personally think nobody deserves million pound bonuses, its ridiculous, and before anyone says they need that to attract the talented, guess what, the "Talented" seem to have buggered it up big style, how difficult can it be, I am sure I could **** it up for a few million quid.

Some more of this needs to happen,

Trading Places - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leslie

I agree with J4CKO. How hypocritical to pay them those bonuses for the results of their greed and reckless behaviour.

Les

lozgti

Re the 125% borrowing.

Why didn't people save up the deposit,only borrow 75%, and get a smaller house?

Was it because they believe the 'American Dream' was their right? £100k house on 10k income

In fact,what is this American Dream?

EddScott

All valid points IMO.

mrtheedge2u2

Regarding the 125% which Suresh was mentioning..... over here in Holland it is not uncommon due to the large initial tax the government impose on the property at purchase.

Luan Pra bang

I find it comical that the so called financial experts have managed to do nothing other than follow the herd, make money when the markets went up and loose money when the markets go down. Surely anyone can do that ? I thaught the point of being paid loads was that you could beat the market which none of the so called big banks have done. It is simply comical that the bankers who have been paid tens of millions leading the world into a financial crisis are still being paid millions now.

Klaatu

It's all about making money, stupid. Remeber the UK crash in the 80's? Thanks Nige!

I wonder how much of this US$700Bil will end up in Bush's, Condalesa's and Cheney's bank accounts. Lot's me thinks, just like with the increase in the cost of oil. When there is a Bush in power, oil is expensive.

Clarebabes

FFS, it's lose, not LOOSE!

lozgti

Aye.

I always think of a hangman stringing someone up using a nose

Leslie

Les

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

hehe

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

We work with a building society that was doing 125% of the house value. However, it was tailored to the person's salary. The mortgage 'product' was aimed at executive types getting divorced. They have a lifestyle and friends they don't want to give up but no furniture and because of the legal proceedings no deposit but they do have a good salary and would be good for the repayments.

The issue here isn't about the level of lending (125% would allow them to buy furniture etc) it is about whether it was responsible lending and that is down to the banks themselves (and some dubious advisors as several have been prosecuted for inflating their client's earnings to get mortgage's through.)

5t.

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

Fine these things happen, it is part of the game but....... why the f**k did'nt one of these tossers even think about using the market experience over these last 80 years to avoid this? Well that question has been answered: greed!

1929 is a year that comes to mind.................................

This could have also been avoided by not allowing something that happens all too often nowadays, and something that I personally hate: Mega-mergers.
Talk about putting all your turds in the same basket.

Merge, fire workers, up the CEO's payouts, reduce quality and so on......

"Humans" never learn................

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Sounds just like HP!!

HP buys Compaq, **** loads of people get fired, CEO gets a bonus

HP buys some other company, **** loads of people get fired, CEO gets a bonus.

CEO leaves and gets a wacking golden handshake and a learjet.

New CEO gets a wacking great signing bonus and huge annual salary, **** loads of people get fired in streamlining.

HP buys EDS, **** loads of people get fired, CEO gets a bonus!

Work gets outsourced to cheaper countries, **** loads of people get fired, CEO gets a bonus.

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

I know a lot of people who got a raw deal with HP. Tossers!

Luan Pra bang

The trouble is that when these companies get too big they start to get far to much say in political affairs and then they start to tell governemnts what their policy is. They also get too big to fail so when they go under the government has to bail them out.

PeteBrant

I agree broadly with what you wrote, except this bit.

The right to buy was not a socialist ideal. It was absolutely the opposite. Look at the sale of council homes brought in by the Thatchers Government in the 80's. (Which has to have some knock on affect to the price rises we saw).


Thatcher was many things, but a socialist was not one of them.