OT: Big bonuses for Merrill executives

[fiamme red]

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/02/11/2009-02-11_cuomo_reveals_4_top_merrill_lynch_execs_.html

Four of the top executives at Merrill Lynch pocketed $121 million in bonuses just before taxpayers helped finance a takeover of the failing firm, the Daily News has learned...

In all, Merrill doled out $3.6 billion in bonuses just days before Bank of America finalized its deal to buy the collapsing firm - with the help of $45 billion in taxpayer money...

One beneficiary was Peter Kraus, a Thain hire who started at Merrill in mid-September and quit Dec. 18, the day Bank of America took over.

He walked away with a $24.9 million bonus for those three months of work, which figures to about $249,000 a day. The day he quit, his wife closed on a $36 million luxury Park Ave. co-op, records show.

[Viper]

How about this one...GM just invested $1B in Brazil:

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=12396&ArticleId=320909

:rolleyes:

[William]

If they took bail-out money...
FRAK EM!!! GITMO FOR ALL!!! :butt:

[Ahneida Ride]

They practice fractional reserve. 10+ people own the same frn ...

Imagine 10 people owning the same deed to the same house simultaneously?

What do you expect with this type of duplicity ?

[fiamme red]

1centaur, I'll assume that this is nothing other than "normal employee retention behavior." :rolleyes:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=633085&postcount=43

[Tobias]

As absurd as these bonuses are, I see nothing wrong with them as long as they are paid willingly by the shareholders of the companies. If they want to be total morons and give their money away, so be it. Who are we to tell them otherwise? It’s not my money, so why should I care?

It becomes a problem only when taxpayers are forced into the mess. That’s why I think we should never commingle government and business. It is a horrendous idea without end. Government should set the rules and step away as the game is played.

[johnnymossville]

As absurd as these bonuses are, I see nothing wrong with them as long as they are paid willingly by the shareholders of the companies. If they want to be total morons and give their money away, so be it. Who are we to tell them otherwise? It’s not my money, so why should I care?

It becomes a problem only when taxpayers are forced into the mess. That’s why I think we should never commingle government and business. It is a horrendous idea without end. Government should set the rules and step away as the game is played.

Exactly. Now we are sharing in the risk these companies take, just as we are now going to share the price of bailing out failed people (fannie mae) and companies (banks, car companies). Govt. telling people how to run their business is what got us in this mess and now the "fix" is even more govt. control? I don't think so.

[Kirk007]

As absurd as these bonuses are, I see nothing wrong with them as long as they are paid willingly by the shareholders of the companies. If they want to be total morons and give their money away, so be it. Who are we to tell them otherwise? It’s not my money, so why should I care?


It would be interesting to poll every shareholder of Merrill and see what the shareholders really think about this

[goonster]

Govt. telling people how to run their business is what got us in this mess

Ummm . . . . no.

Where did you hear that?

[johnnymossville]

Ummm . . . . no.

Where did you hear that?

Ummm uhhhhh, here for one.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers not based on purely economic criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

They told banks to make loans, FHA and Fannie Mae (A govt funded and controlled company backed those loans) and now the results of the home inflation, bubble and defaulting is in all of our hands. Bank makes the loans, government (you and me) take the risk.

Wonderful!

[1centaur]

1centaur, I'll assume that this is nothing other than "normal employee retention behavior." :rolleyes:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=633085&postcount=43

Good thing I actually chose to read this thread.

I believe the WSJ ran a story at some point showing that these bonuses were widely distributed up and down the ranks, all the way to secretaries. I have no idea what that guy's contract said when he was hired about guaranteed bonuses and the circumstances surrounding such guarantees. I also said I did not know the specifics of the Merrill numbers when I posted. The mere existence of a big bonus to a guy that was not there long tells me nothing, though I share your apparent guess that he was overpaid

[RPS]

It would be interesting to poll every shareholder of Merrill and see what the shareholders really think about thisWhy would you want to know unless there is something else you can or should do about it? If you are -- or were -- a Merrill Lynch owner didn’t you get a chance to vote? And if not, then why care at all?

I for one probably owned some ML stock in mutual funds like most on this forum that saved in 401k and the like. We should be pissed that our savings were being squandered but who do we blame? The board? The CEO? The other ML owners who didn’t vote, or voted for that particular board who empowered those executives who then approved bonuses?

I understand the anger – trust me on this. I don’t like inefficiency any more than the next guy -- particularly if it involves misspending my personal savings however little they may be compared to these guys’ salaries.

However, I’m not going to jump from the frying pan into the fire based on anger. Pardon my French, but this shouldn’t become a pissing contest to determine what is worse: greed or envy.

Ideologically these bonuses are absurd. Limiting free market compensation is equally absurd and destructive. The middle ground is to let companies function independently so the owners (me, you, and everyone else who owns a tiny fraction of one) share in the rewards “and” failures.

I don’t get why we make it more complicated.

[1centaur]

It would be interesting to poll every shareholder of Merrill and see what the shareholders really think about this

This to me is a key point. While theoretically the shareholder/owners approve these paydays, in reality most owners are too busy to really care about pay, especially if their stock is going up. It makes no sense to me that a CEO makes hundreds of millions because the stock of his company goes up and there are hundreds of millions of shares so the effect for each shareholders is too small to matter. I'd like to see greater shareholder transparency and comparisons made so that we could have more effective voting on managers and directors. I'd be okay with a best practices convention that institutional shareholders could vote on that said the top guys cannot make more than $5MM a year all in. Where else will they go for that kind of money, regardless of their talent?

The combo of a little piece from everyone in a huge group can be very lucrative.

[Pete Serotta]

Blame the leaders of M&L for giving him the "legal" contract. Granted that law suits could be filed against him but the contract is the contract.

And yes, even down to the admin/secretary gets bonuses...quite often this is a major item on their salary. (and we are not talking 100K bonus for them. Also the brokers and others pay is based on their performance. THEY were not the ones buying all this crap . The firm was and those should get zilch - yeah I would not bet against them not getting it. Stanley O was was CEO and got them into this walked away with over 150MILLION for taking a firm and destroying,

just my 2 cents.

Why would you want to know unless there is something else you can or should do about it? If you are -- or were -- a Merrill Lynch owner didn’t you get a chance to vote? And if not, then why care at all?

I for one probably owned some ML stock in mutual funds like most on this forum that saved in 401k and the like. We should be pissed that our savings were being squandered but who do we blame? The board? The CEO? The other ML owners who didn’t vote, or voted for that particular board who empowered those executives who then approved bonuses?

I understand the anger – trust me on this. I don’t like inefficiency any more than the next guy -- particularly if it involves misspending my personal savings however little they may be compared to these guys’ salaries.

However, I’m not going to jump from the frying pan into the fire based on anger. Pardon my French, but this shouldn’t become a pissing contest to determine what is worse: greed or envy.

Ideologically these bonuses are absurd. Limiting free market compensation is equally absurd and destructive. The middle ground is to let companies function independently so the owners (me, you, and everyone else who owns a tiny fraction of one) share in the rewards “and” failures.

I don’t get why we make it more complicated.

[Kirk007]

Why would you want to know unless there is something else you can or should do about it? .

Well, I guess had I been a shareholder I'd be pissed enough to be talking to a securities/business lawyer about a shareholder derivative suit. I don't think bonuses like the one to the guy who was there for three months (or as Pete point's out the assumed contract that required it) passes the straight face test. It's been twenty years since I has my securities law and corporate law classes but I seem to recall a concept of fiduciary duty. Who knows, I may well be a shareholder sorta through my retirement mutual funds. And who is getting screwed while the fat cats by their Park Avenue condos - all of us.

This is one of the reasons that i choke on the concept that tax cuts to corporations are incentives for growth, employment etc. We've had tax cuts for the last eight years and what I read about is Execs getting richer and payrolls getting smaller. And its another reason that I think an SEC etc. that actually regulated and enforced our laws would be a good thing.

[Kevan]

if you as a company didn't get a bail out, how would you have addressed bonuses then?

I understand the need for bonuses. I understand the trickle they generate. I just think someone should have invited prudence to attend these meetings when we started considering all of this.

[SamIAm]

This to me is a key point. While theoretically the shareholder/owners approve these paydays, in reality most owners are too busy to really care about pay, especially if their stock is going up. It makes no sense to me that a CEO makes hundreds of millions because the stock of his company goes up and there are hundreds of millions of shares so the effect for each shareholders is too small to matter. I'd like to see greater shareholder transparency and comparisons made so that we could have more effective voting on managers and directors. I'd be okay with a best practices convention that institutional shareholders could vote on that said the top guys cannot make more than $5MM a year all in. Where else will they go for that kind of money, regardless of their talent?

The combo of a little piece from everyone in a huge group can be very lucrative.

I am not sure I understand this logic. Let's say we have Company A and Company B. Both of them Fortune 100 companies. It is very likely they would both be making the max $5MM. Now let's say Company A is outperforming the market and Company B is market perform. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the stockholders in Company B to lure away the CEO of company A? How would they do it if no incentives exist?

Now all this assumes that CEO's can make profound differences in the fortunes of a company.

[EDS]

Well, I guess had I been a shareholder I'd be pissed enough to be talking to a securities/business lawyer about a shareholder derivative suit. I don't think bonuses like the one to the guy who was there for three months (or as Pete point's out the assumed contract that required it) passes the straight face test. It's been twenty years since I has my securities law and corporate law classes but I seem to recall a concept of fiduciary duty. Who knows, I may well be a shareholder sorta through my retirement mutual funds. And who is getting screwed while the fat cats by their Park Avenue condos - all of us.

This is one of the reasons that i choke on the concept that tax cuts to corporations are incentives for growth, employment etc. We've had tax cuts for the last eight years and what I read about is Execs getting richer and payrolls getting smaller. And its another reason that I think an SEC etc. that actually regulated and enforced our laws would be a good thing.

The bonuses paid likely do not impact the previously negotiated price per share that BofA was paying, so I don't think a ML shareholder would have a viable claim.

[EDS]

I am not sure I understand this logic. Let's say we have Company A and Company B. Both of them Fortune 100 companies. It is very likely they would both be making the max $5MM. Now let's say Company A is outperforming the market and Company B is market perform. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the stockholders in Company B to lure away the CEO of company A? How would they do it if no incentives exist?

Now all this assumes that CEO's can make profound differences in the fortunes of a company.

Just to add to the devils advocate position, the compensation limits would only apply to public companies, so there is nothing to stop a private company from offering more.

Joe the Plumber can't buy shares of that private company, but private equity and hedge funds can. So if you make enough to invest in either of those investment vehicles great, but it means the average person potentially misses out on the best investments since the barriers to going public are higher now (i.e., greater difficulty recruiting talent, cost for disclosure, etc.).

[1centaur]

Private companies really DO have major shareholder scrutiny of executive comp, so no problem there.

Public shareholders can always say NO to a model citizenship pact if they think paying somebody a ton of money is really worth it. I bet most would say YES because it's only in recent years that these monster contracts have come into effect and the same geniuses were just as effective a few years before at much lower comp. I truly don't believe there's any expected difference between Mr. $100MM and Mr. $5MM. I think Mr. $100MM got into the right place at the right time, but there are plenty of lower paid execs who are a lot better. This is not the NBA. Executive talent is very nebulous and situation specific - there's way too much executive hero worship in the business press. Just about nobody is great year after year.

[michael white]

[QUOTE=
Now all this assumes that CEO's can make profound differences in the fortunes of a company.[/QUOTE]

do we detect a note of cynicism? ;)

[RPS]

Blame the leaders of M&L for giving him the "legal" contract. Granted that law suits could be filed against him but the contract is the contract.Pete, no doubt a contract must be honored.

From my perspective it’s ultimately my decision and I’m the one I blame most. No one forced me to buy Merrill Lynch versus GE versus Coke whether directly or indirectly.

As long as salaries and bonuses are transparent I should blame myself first, then others. In no way does this mean I don’t want reform, but pointing fingers in hindsight is not going to get me my 2 cents back.


BTW, the bashing of banking CEOs today in the House is shameful. It’s pure mindless theatre solely for show and is an indication of how low we have sunk as a nation. I just wish we the people could thrash the representatives in a similar manner. I’d start by asking them why they made a contract on our behalf and didn’t include provisions for how the money would be used. :rolleyes:

[bigman]

Can't imagine the boys at BOA were OK with this or that all was properly disclosed.

I run a business, if it was losing tons of money no frn would be available to pay bonuses of any size - how can they? Add to this the fact they are getting bailout bucks to "save the system" it should not be nor should it allowed to be business as usuall. Yes throwing governement into the mix is dangerous but that is where we are, I assume the companies could have banded together and refused the cash infusion.

[Richard]

"As long as salaries and bonuses are transparent ..." This is the issue. The ML bonuses were advanced by at least a month to avoid transparency and accountability. They were paid before the merger and before there could be control exerted. This is why the NYS Atty. Gen. is involved.

"The Merrill bonuses were paid in late December, just days before Bank of America Corp. completed its purchase of New York-based Merrill. The payments also came as Merrill was on the brink of reporting a more than $15 billion fourth-quarter loss as it has been among the hardest hit by the ongoing credit crisis.

Cuomo said in the letter that Bank of America was apparently complicit in the move to award bonuses before Merrill’s fourth quarter loss was announced.

Both Merrill and Bank of America could face charges of securities fraud in New York as the attorney general’s office investigation unfolds, according to a person familiar with the investigation who requested anonymity because of the ongoing nature of the matter. The person said Cuomo’s office is attempting to determine if proper disclosures were provided to investors about the timing and size of the bonuses as well as the “deteriorating health of Merrill.”

From AP story.

[Climb01742]

i have a small business too. when we make a profit, there are bonuses. when we don't, there aren't. i know for large corporations, with different P&Ls for different divisions and business units, it gets more complicated. but when a company has losses in the billions, as ML did in 08, any bonuses -- even within a culture, like wall street's, that is built on year-end bonuses -- seem disconnected from reality. we make money, you make money seems like a very good idea. we lose money, you make money anyway seems like a not so good idea.

[JeffS]

Ummm uhhhhh, here for one.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers not based on purely economic criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

They told banks to make loans, FHA and Fannie Mae (A govt funded and controlled company backed those loans) and now the results of the home inflation, bubble and defaulting is in all of our hands. Bank makes the loans, government (you and me) take the risk.

Wonderful!


If you'd actually done your research you would have found out that CRA loans actually have a lower-than-average forclosure rate. Simply put, this is not the source of the problem. It sounds like a good scapegoat for anyone eager to point the finger at the govt. or the poor though.

[Pete Serotta]

Thought it was a great buy in low 20s, just as I did GE>...shows how little I know.. :no: :no:

Pete, no doubt a contract must be honored.

From my perspective it’s ultimately my decision and I’m the one I blame most. No one forced me to buy Merrill Lynch versus GE versus Coke whether directly or indirectly.

As long as salaries and bonuses are transparent I should blame myself first, then others. In no way does this mean I don’t want reform, but pointing fingers in hindsight is not going to get me my 2 cents back.


BTW, the bashing of banking CEOs today in the House is shameful. It’s pure mindless theatre solely for show and is an indication of how low we have sunk as a nation. I just wish we the people could thrash the representatives in a similar manner. I’d start by asking them why they made a contract on our behalf and didn’t include provisions for how the money would be used. :rolleyes:

[1centaur]

i have a small business too. when we make a profit, there are bonuses. when we don't, there aren't. i know for large corporations, with different P&Ls for different divisions and business units, it gets more complicated. but when a company has losses in the billions, as ML did in 08, any bonuses -- even within a culture, like wall street's, that is built on year-end bonuses -- seem disconnected from reality. we make money, you make money seems like a very good idea. we lose money, you make money anyway seems like a not so good idea.

That's pretty much the way my employer works, and it's a good way to work if you want to send the message that we're all on one team with a common goal, AND if you make salaries the majority of the assumed cash comp.

Wall Street divisions do very often run separate P&Ls so they really are NOT in it together, AND their salary can be based on minimum subsistence (in NYC) with the bonus used to incentivize people to stick around for the year in a business that's highly mobile. If they tried using the low salary/high bonus model but you never get a bonus if enough of the other P&Ls do badly, they would not get talent. So the best way to fix Wall Street compensation in the public policy sense is to pay them HIGHER salaries and lower bonuses and then make the bonus a company profitability issue, and make sure the competition does that too, since rational talent would rather go with the current system given their ability to control their outcome better.

[DukeHorn]

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers not based on purely economic criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

They told banks to make loans, FHA and Fannie Mae (A govt funded and controlled company backed those loans) and now the results of the home inflation, bubble and defaulting is in all of our hands. Bank makes the loans, government (you and me) take the risk.

Wonderful!

Wow, talk about being totally disingenuous. (You and Me) only started taking the risks when banks were allowed to bundle the mortgages and put them out as investments. How did those AAA rated bundles end up being toxic? Not because of the 1977 Act, but because of the total lack of understanding (or deliberate ignorance) of Wall Street and the SEC in allowing these derivatives to go essentially unregulated in the past 5 years. Why aren't you haranguing about the speculators that drove up the market and are walking away from their properties?

Never mind that "we" all knew that real estate appraisers and the loan offices were helping each other in driving the prices up. The question is whether you're going to blame the "uneducated" who can't or don't understand the contract papers put in front of them or are you going to blame the predators that were pushing bad loans and repackaging them into the market. Whereas no one is entirely blameless, I'll analogize this to punishing kids or adults, I'd rather go for the "adults". The kids are underwater and losing their homes. Some of these adults have pocketed 8 figures. Hmmm, where's the equality?

This is your America. An America where the government protecting the poor and the less well educated is distasteful. It's always easy to blame the poor for their circumstances. Nice.

[Climb01742]

That's pretty much the way my employer works, and it's a good way to work if you want to send the message that we're all on one team with a common goal, AND if you make salaries the majority of the assumed cash comp.

(SNIPPED)...

So the best way to fix Wall Street compensation in the public policy sense is to pay them HIGHER salaries and lower bonuses and then make the bonus a company profitability issue, and make sure the competition does that too, since rational talent would rather go with the current system given their ability to control their outcome better.

i like your suggestion...and understand how hard it would be to put into practice. the culture shift would be enormous...but enormously useful perhaps. a higher base with a shared bonus pool based on company wide performance.

the analogy i'd draw would be to sports. if a player has a contract with individual performance bonuses -- home runs, RBIs, BA -- then his goals and the team's goals could be different. so he could "win" financially even if the team lost. this seems to be sort of what happens often on wall street, as individual traders win even if the company as a whole losses.

the more the mindset could be "we're all in this together" perhaps the better. i still see that as capitalism but with a shared goal, thus shared reward or loss.

[RPS]

the more the mindset could be "we're all in this together" perhaps the better. i still see that as capitalism but with a shared goal, thus shared reward or loss.Agree but only to a point.

I worked for a large corporation and our performance bonuses (albeit limited at a relatively small percent of salary) were determined in part by company, division, department, and individual performance. Of these individual contribution and company success were most important. If not for this, why would a great employee accept a transfer in the company’s best interest into a poor-performing division or department?

Shared loss if applied to workers won’t work IMHO. Owners reap the biggest part of gains, and must accept the financial loss. Besides, finding oneself unemployed is the ultimate “shared” loss. :rolleyes:

[bigman]

There is plenty of finger pointing and blame to go around, but what I am having such a hard time digesting is the size of the bonuses and contract payouts involved. 30 million for a few months work - crazy. How can responsible people agree to such terms when times are bad. Unconscionable when the entity is losing billions. As more weath gets concentrated into fewer hands the better the recipe for anarchy.

[Climb01742]

Shared loss if applied to workers won’t work IMHO. Owners reap the biggest part of gains, and must accept the financial loss. Besides, finding oneself unemployed is the ultimate “shared” loss. :rolleyes:

my bad. poor word choice on my part. certainly the losses would not be shared. i meant, in good times, the profit is shared. in lean times, everyone gets smaller bonuses, if at all. we've lived both at our company the last few years, so this isn't theory to me. what seems wrong to me is a few "winning" within a company while the majority are toughing it out.

[dsteady]

It would be interesting to poll every shareholder of Merrill and see what the shareholders really think about this

Companies generally make it very hard for shareholders to have a meaningful say on executive pay -- the compensation disclosure agreements of most large companies are like trying to read Aramaic. There has been a lot pressure lately from shareholders to get management to adopt a "say on pay" vote. This is a non-binding advisory vote. Non-binding means that even if 90% of the shareholders object to the executive compensation that year, the Board is not bound to do anything about it. It does, however, allow shareholders to register their dissatisfaction (or satisfaction, rare these days) with the compensation policies of management, and this often resonates out into the public domain and can put pressure on boards to make changes.

I have twice presented a Say on Pay resolution at Oxy (nee, Occidental Petroleum). The resolution was jointly filed by a number of institutional investors and foundations. Each time the resolution received 40+% favorable votes, which is high for this sort of thing. This year Oxy has agreed to implement a Say on Pay vote. I believe Intel and HP are going to as well, it is an idea that is gaining lot's of momentum.

daniel

[Joellogicman]

Ummm uhhhhh, here for one.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers not based on purely economic criteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

They told banks to make loans, FHA and Fannie Mae (A govt funded and controlled company backed those loans) and now the results of the home inflation, bubble and defaulting is in all of our hands. Bank makes the loans, government (you and me) take the risk.

Wonderful!

Did you read the article? The CRA makes minimal requirements on FDIC insured banks only.

The percentage CRA loans in any FDIC insured bank is around 5%. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy loans from banks. Many of the banks keep their CRA loans as they are part of the bank's overall public relations policy.

FDIC lending provisions are far more strict than those for non-FDIC insured institutions. These non-insured lenders were the kings of sub-prime.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae did buy up these sub-prime loans. But it had to do with their post spin off eye for profit, not for the CRA.

Blaming the working poor for the foreclosure crisis has legs in the remaining red states. It does not stand to critical scrutiny however.

[Joellogicman]

Agree but only to a point.

I worked for a large corporation and our performance bonuses (albeit limited at a relatively small percent of salary) were determined in part by company, division, department, and individual performance. Of these individual contribution and company success were most important. If not for this, why would a great employee accept a transfer in the company’s best interest into a poor-performing division or department?

Shared loss if applied to workers won’t work IMHO. Owners reap the biggest part of gains, and must accept the financial loss. Besides, finding oneself unemployed is the ultimate “shared” loss. :rolleyes:

Some of the former M&L employees left with millions, others with only the opportunity to draw unemployment compensation.

[Joellogicman]

Wow, talk about being totally disingenuous.

This quote is from the Wiki the OP cites:


"Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[67][35] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[68] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[69] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[70] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[71]"

[SamIAm]

Some of the former M&L employees left with millions, others with only the opportunity to draw unemployment compensation.


So what. Do you know with absolute certainty that the employees who left with millions didn't deserve it? I mean they probably didn't, but you don't have the facts, nor do I.

I get a significant bonus each year. This year my company did poorly, I still got my bonus because that is how I negotiated my employment agreement. I know my value and insist on getting it. There were others in my organization that were laid off this past year.

What exactly is one to do? Should my company have refused to honor their agreement with me? Should I have donated my bonus back to the company? Would either have saved my co-workers jobs?

[Viper]

We cannot reward Peter working at Peter's Principle Inc, when his company failed and it's America taxpayer's money involved.

For the first time ever, just a few nights ago in primetime, an American President said these words, "We will fire teachers." President Obama also told the NEA in 2007 that he suppports, "Merit pay...I think there should be ways for us to work with the NEA, with teachers' unions, to figure out a way to measure success."

A corporation accepting government/taxpayer's money when times are great...can get away with low wattage or poor results. Dandruff is most noticeable on a dark suit jacket and right now, it's Selsun Blue Season; the notion of rewarding failure and incompetence at the CEO level on Wall Street or at the first grade teacher on Main Street will no longer fly within this stormy economic time period.

While I believe in capitalism, free markets, but something must change where losers obtain gold medals through bonuses, buyouts or blantant porkfests. You know pornography when you see it and you know hypocrisy when you read it. A school board refused to fire this teacher:

http://www.winknews.com/news/local/30206949.html

And the boards of the Merrill Lynch's of America, moving forward, cannot reward failure. It's illogical and unAmerican.