J-150 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Should bonuses be based on how the company performs or how the individual performs? obviously the individual. but the company needs to be making some money for that to happen. I would also suggest that many of these C-level managers signed off on the high risk loans to hit their targets. Hardly deserving of a bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 It makes me sick, the bonuses these high up execs get! I heard one on TV the other day saying if they didnt give huge bonuses they wouldnt be able to keep these guys! which is a joke. there are many, many people out there just as qualified that would work for 1/2 as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 (edited) Oh yeah? The realtors pushed the overpriced house because of the giant bonus/commissions they were making. The mortgage brokers ignored any ability of the borrower to pay back loans because of the wonderful commssions they were making. The debt rating agencies all made great commissions by delicately ignoring the real value on the secured assets. They must of known it was doomed like any pyramid scheme, but based their ratings on 'history' - that is the pyramid scheme was still growing and working to date... Wall Street bought, sliced, diced, and resold the toxic waste loans as AAA grade because of the giant megabucks in commissions and bonuses they were making. Surely any intelligent player worthy of a commission knew the game and eventual result, but they used the IBG principle (I'll Be Gone with my M$ by the time it all comes due). If anything, the grossly excessive bonuses and overpaid commissions are probably the biggest cause of the current housing/credit/financial bubble, with the resultant collapse and depression, via encouragement of irresponsible and criminal short sited greed among all parties. And now we get to see the same greedy jerks that caused this mess grab our tax dollars by saying they're too important to fail. They say we need to give them some more bonuses. As for Mulally, he definitely works for his money and makes great decisions that may well save Ford and make the company prosper. Even still, I think he and many other executives of large companies are way overpaid and they've found ways to rationalize their salary. As much as I like Mulally, I cringed when he told Congress that he thought his salary was fine where it was. It sadly showed he was also out of touch. You're right about the I'll be gone with my money part, Larry. The originators were only concerned about the quantity of what they sold not the quality. Edited January 31, 2009 by Mark B. Morrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 You cannot blame one part of the "scheme," without blaming the other part equally. Everyone had a hand in it, and everyone profited from it. The mortgage originators could not have originated, and closed the loans, if the guidelines were not met. The guidelines were set by the wholesale mortgage companies, and banks. These same banks, and wholesale lenders, who profited by packaging these mortgages and selling them to the investment firms, etc. The same investment firms that were demanding more and more of these "high profit/margin" investments, to put their customers money into. These same customers who were demanding a higher return on their money, not really caring about where it came from. Everyone was involved, and everyone profited.................. thus, everyone is to blame. However, the biggest blame should be put on the insurance companies, and guaranteers of these investments. It is their job to ACCURATELY predict the risk/safety of investments. If they wouldn't have guaranteed them, the investment companies would not have invested in them, the lenders would not have made as many of them and packaged them for sale, and the originator would not have pushed them. To blame the bottom of the ladder, for the idiot who thought the top of the ladder would support the same weight, is stupid. In the whole process, the main "victim" was the home buyer. The one who went to his bank, to see what he could qualify for, so he could buy a home. You know, the guy who knows nothing about the mortgage business.............. who depended on the "expert" to tell him what he could do. The mortgage industry has always fluctuated from "loose" lending to "tight" lending. The difference this time, were the braniacs on Wall Street, who figured out a new "scheme" to make billions of dollars.............. to hell with the consequences. I was a mortgage loan officer for 7 years, and got out in '05. I did not put people into loans they could not afford................ or loans that they did not understand (I explained, in plain english, every paper that was signed). You cannot blame the home buyer, as they truly know NOTHING about the industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I agree with you completely Extreme 4X4. Don't forget the appraisers who inflated the values of some homes to justify higher loans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.