News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009). Parent comment

Re:Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009) by ScottBurson on Monday February 09, 2015 @02:24PM (#9023083)
It would make some sense, perhaps, if employees with no responsibility for the catastrophic losses still received some bonuses -- though the company's ability to pay the full bonus ought to be factored in.

What doesn't make sense is that anyone involved with the losses or in the management chain of anyone who was should still get any bonus at all. That, obviously, includes the CEO. If the CEOs of these companies still received large bonuses -- and my impression is that they did -- that is fucked up.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Banks Paid $32.6B in Bonuses Amid U.S. Bailout (2009) by lucozade on Tuesday February 10, 2015 @06:33AM (#9026545)
I believe that most, if not all, of the CEOs of the worst affected companies lost their jobs. Having said that, there would have been a fair few golden handshakes so your point is valid.

To my mind the worst of those was Stan O'Neill. He got kicked out when it was just a disaster but not yet a catastrophe (when the mortgage losses were known but before the liquidity crunch) so he walked away with something heinous like $160mm.

[ Parent | on HN ]