Why they are stil bonuses on wall street???

you have no idea what you're talking about.

Some of the banks were healthy enough to say "we don't need it" to the Fed. But in in order for the weak ones not to show prominently (causing a run on the banks potentially), the Fed basically made all the banks take the money. They told them that it was their "patriotic duty" to do it. And if you were a bank, you do what the Fed tells you because you need the Fed more than they need you.

And keep in mind, a financial firms profits come directly from the performance of their employee. So if the company makes money, it is because of their staff. Hence, the payout. You don't want to lose these employees because if they leave so does your business.

Big apple, yes you are right, companies should rewards their employers. But if the company have failed the clients (like most of the hedge funds), fired some but rewards all the others employee? I am sorry I don't get that.

ccdevi, very deep answer!

i meant should reward their employees..

switel, the thing most people don't understand (and that has been discussed on other threads), is that for most ibankers, hedge fund employees, private equity employees, etc., the "bonus" is most of their compensation. It's not really a "bonus", it's just salary paid at the end of the year, instead of monthly. As is, compensation for many/most is slashed 20-50% compared to last year, more in some extreme cases. Deservedly so.

Example: 30-year old ibanker, at associate or VP level in, say, M&A, might have a base salary of $120K. He/she worked their ass off to get to where they are, probably still worked 100+ hour weeks in 2008, and certainly has no direct responsibility for any of the mortgage bubble/meltdown, or the credit bubble/crisis. Last year that person probably got a bonus of $300K or maybe even $400K. This year, the bonus will be somewhere in the $100-$200K range. A huge hit in compensation. Totally fair, no one is being asked to shed any tears for them.

You're suggesting the bonus should be zero. That would be a compensation hit of 70-75%. In what other industry, under what circumstances, would you be calling for across-the-board compensation reductions of 70-75%?

The story with PE firms and hedge funds is more complicated, but (with the possible exception of Cerberus), they did not get any government help, and can pay whomever they want, whatever they want, if they can find the money somewhere.

"You don't want to lose these employees because if they leave so does your business."

Who in their right mind is going to quit a Wall St. job in this economy? What are they going to do, get a job elsewhere?

"Who in their right mind is going to quit a Wall St. job in this economy? What are they going to do, get a job elsewhere?"

The answer's a little like my grandfathers underwear: Depends. If a guy is TOO closely tied to the industry - too tied up in back-office regulatory filings etc, then yes probably he or she isn't going to be able to find a job elsewhere. Ditto those people whose jobs just don't exist beyond Wall St or London or Tokyo. But, there's also a lot of folks - senior executives, IT people, marketing people, etc who CAN make the jump to industry b/c they have a functional, rather than an industry, skill. And if they are good, and well educated, there are jobs out there. It's the over-specialized, or the average schmoes with uninspiring credentials, who aren't going to main street.

Admiral is right.

At the extreme end, if you really want to pay wall-street midlevels $100-120K (which is a little over half that after-taxes), I bet more than one with a well-earning spouse will say - "screw these 100+ hour weeks and the stress, I'm going to take 1-2 years off, stay home with the kid(s). I'll fire the nanny who probably costs me $40K year after-tax, so the financial hit is pretty small."

Yeah, what they said.

"But, there's also a lot of folks - senior executives, IT people, marketing people, etc who CAN make the jump to industry b/c they have a functional, rather than an industry, skill. "

Not in this climate. You think guys who have been wall street all their lives are going to get jobs at Procter & Gamble? Doing marketing at ogilvy?

Thats quite a stretch. These folks would have trouble moving over in good years - outside of direct parallels, like CFO offices or other financial firms - but now... forget it.

Wall Street can still make money. Maybe not in mortgages now or ever again, but in other areas. So if people make money for their companies they should make money themselves.

Did you notice that Wall Street lost, uh, billions? Agreed, if folks make their companies money, they should make money. But Wall Street has now lost years of bonuses. Meaning there isn't going to be a lot of money to share...

"outside of direct parallels, like CFO offices or other financial firms - but now... forget it."

That's actually what I was thinking about - CFO's, Controllers, IT people, etc. And yes, they can jump quite easily back and forth between Wall St. and Main St. because their skills are functional, not industry-based. I know because I've done it. Now, all this assumes there are jobs on main street, and of course those are suffering now too. But, a firm will still always need exactly one CIO, one Controller, one CFO, etc. So in some ways, jobs like this have a bit of a constant demand.

Goldman Sachs is still giving out billions in bonuses to all employees. They had the nerve to take TARP money. WTF?

well, they did pay like 20% of the taxes of america... they should get some back.

"Wall Street" isn't some guy... it's almost like saying "whites" or "latinos", or [insert ignorant generalization here]. There are actually many Wall Street firms doing very well; I know of some having a record year. Those don't make the news, though (and, it's probably better that way). It's funny how little some people know about a particular subject, yet feel compelled to discuss it, as though they know it well. That seems to happen A LOT on SE.

Yes, we're saved... because the entire bulge bracket and more, representing, what, 90% of the jobs is tanking, but 5 firms representing .03% of jobs are doing great!

We're saved... why didn't you tell me before!?!?!?

> It's funny how little some people know about a particular subject, yet feel compelled to discuss
> it, as though they know it well.

Sounds like you to a "t"...

"Wall Street" isn't some guy... it's almost like saying "whites" or "latinos", or [insert ignorant generalization here]. There are actually many Wall Street firms doing very well; I know of some having a record year. Those don't make the news, though (and, it's probably better that way). It's funny how little some people know about a particular subject, yet feel compelled to discuss it, as though they know it well. That seems to happen A LOT on SE.

I bet they were all invested with Madoff.................

> "Wall Street" isn't some guy... it's almost like saying "whites" or "latinos",

No, it isn't. You're talking about making generalizations about races.

We're talking about folks who work in a specific industry and made specific choices. Some of them are black, and some are latino.