Banker bonuses

[DanS]

I think that a lot of people in Washington remember the S&L crisis. Everybody involved in the cleanup that I have talked to was disgusted with the process (even though they made out well in the whole deal).

[Ben Kenobi]

I still don't see why shareholders should be ****ed over by nationalisation. If I've invested my money in a bank, why shouldn't I be compensated for my share? How am I responsible for the garbage that the CEO indulges himself in?

If the CEO and the board have shares, get rid of those.

[chequita guevara]

I still don't see why shareholders should be ****ed over by nationalisation. If I've invested my money in a bank, why shouldn't I be compensated for my share? How am I responsible for the garbage that the CEO indulges himself in?

Because you invested your money with them, dumb ****.

[Darius871]

How am I responsible for the garbage that the CEO indulges himself in?

Do you have the first clue how corporations work? As a shareholder you're supposed to exert control over the CEO's by way of electing directors. Regardless of whether you were A) an apathetic shareholder or B) an active shareholder on the wrong side of an issue, in either case you're "responsible" for the loss of your investment. This **** has been going on for years so you can't pretend there was never an opportunity to raise a proxy fight on lending standards at annual board elections; in reality you just didn't care so long as hefty dividends came in. Even if you're C) an active shareholder on the right side of an issue but your side nonetheless lost, you still had the alternative of selling your share on the open market afterward, so if you declined to, then you consciously assumed the risk that the policy you unsuccessfully opposed might make your share worthless, and so must accept the consequences.

If you want to just put in money and expect returns back with no responsibilities on your part, then buy bonds instead. AFAIK the fixed return on pre-existing bonds wouldn't even be affected by Swede-style nationalization.

[chequita guevara]

Frankly, I don't think corporations should limit liability only to the amount invested by the shareholder. Rather, investors should share in the liability to the extent of their investment. Right now, you can only lose the amount you invested. Investors should be fair game as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you have the first clue how corporations work? As a shareholder you're supposed to exert control over the CEO's by way of electing directors.

There are voting and non-voting shares. Non-voting shares have no control whatsoever.

Regardless of whether you were A) an apathetic shareholder or B) an active shareholder on the wrong side of an issue, in either case you're "responsible" for the loss of your investment.

Not if the government takes over the business. I completely understand the problem with risk. If the business goes bankrupt then I lose the value of the share. If the government wants to take over the business, then they have to compensate me for the value of my property. They just can't take it.

Even if you're C) an active shareholder on the right side of an issue but your side nonetheless lost, you still had the alternative of selling your share afterward, so if you declined to, then you assumed the risk that the policy you unsuccessfully opposed might make your share worthless.

So what you are saying is anyone who owns shares in any bank that has TARP funds should immediately sell to avoid the risk of nationalisation? Oh, that's really helpful. I'm sure that's what the government wants, to have struggling banks go completely broke.

If you want to just put in money and expect returns back with no responsibilities on your part, then buy bonds instead. AFAIK the fixed return on pre-existing bonds wouldn't even be affected by Swede-style nationalization.

The shareholders ought to be compensated, or at least have the choice of selling before the government takes over.

[Ben Kenobi]

Frankly, I don't think corporations should limit liability only to the amount invested by the shareholder. Rather, investors should share in the liability to the extent of their investment. Right now, you can only lose the amount you invested. Investors should be fair game as well.

What's next, seizing the assets of everyone who owned stock in the company?

Glad to see this is all about screwing the common man.

[DanS]

Frankly, I don't think corporations should limit liability only to the amount invested by the shareholder. Rather, investors should share in the liability to the extent of their investment. Right now, you can only lose the amount you invested. Investors should be fair game as well.

Under some select circumstances, shareholders are on the hook. However, we couldn't get any business done with widespread liability like this.

[Ben Kenobi]

However, we couldn't get any business done with widespread liability like this.

Exactly. Somehow I don't think the folks calling for seizing assets from investors have any interest in keeping businesses running.

[chequita guevara]

What's next, seizing the assets of everyone who owned stock in the company?

Glad to see this is all about screwing the common man.

Right, cuz the common man owns so much stock? moron.

If I was part owner in a company and the company hurt someone, I'd be liable, up to everything I owned. Why should owning stock be different?

[chequita guevara]

Under some select circumstances, shareholders are on the hook. However, we couldn't get any business done with widespread liability like this.

Why couldn't you get things done? Corporations would just have to be a lot more careful and ethical. The whole point of the joint stock corporation is to shield investors from the liabilities their investments cause. That's ****ed up.

[Darius871]

[moved since ignored]

[notyoueither]

Under some select circumstances, shareholders are on the hook. However, we couldn't get any business done with widespread liability like this.

When does that happen?

[Arrian]

I still don't see why shareholders should be ****ed over by nationalisation. If I've invested my money in a bank, why shouldn't I be compensated for my share? How am I responsible for the garbage that the CEO indulges himself in?

If the CEO and the board have shares, get rid of those.

You made the wrong bet. Dude, that's how it works!

Hey, I've lost a decent chunk of change on Citi. Nothing backbreaking, but enough to be kinda annoyed. But hey, thems the breaks. Investing is not a risk-less endeavor.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Right, cuz the common man owns so much stock? moron.

Shareholders are all these richie rich types? I'm talking Mutual funds, etc. Most people probably aren't aware of exactly what stocks they are invested in let alone having the time to go in and sit in on the meetings, and fly to wherever they are being held.

There's a big difference between common stock and voting stock.

If I was part owner in a company and the company hurt someone, I'd be liable, up to everything I owned. Why should owning stock be different?

Because you don't get to make the decisions as to how the company operates. I don't think you can be liable for an investment decision that may have been made 20 years ago under different leadership. The only ones who should be responsible is the board and the ceo, for the decisions that they made.