Tony Auth by Tony Auth

?fh=4a031e75addd1b3df36094ab22173009

Comments (8) Jump to Comments Form

  1. LLeRay

    LLeRayGenius_badge said, 8 months ago

    Blind, angry populism can be a problem.

  2. cdward

    cdward said, 8 months ago

    I think the whole bonus issue was simply the insult of it all, not the actual amount. In the midst of pain, it felt like a slap in the face to have the execs walking off with millions.

  3. etocme

    etocme said, 8 months ago

    I agree, CD. I would much rather recieve a performance based bonus then a contractual bonus. Gives me a reason to excel

  4. oldlegodad

    oldlegodadGenius_badge said, 8 months ago

    Insurance agency owner told me that “contractual bonus’ ” are tied to specific target performance. They must have made the goal or they wouldn’t have gotten the the money. BTW, I posted my new avatar, a picture from my mis spent youth.

  5. longtimecomicsfan

    longtimecomicsfan said, 8 months ago

    Old lego- that’s the curse of being short-sighted. If contractual bonuses are based on, say, hitting revenue targets in the current fiscal year, and revenue is generated by increasing derivative holdings, then the bonus is payable even though the entire company collapses in the subsequent year…the pain comes from knowing that the derivatives helped collapse the company and good chunk of the economy.

  6. cdward

    cdward said, 8 months ago

    These contractual bonuses were retention bonuses. What that means is they agreed to stay a certain amount of time to receive the bonus. Apparently, each of them stayed the requisite length of time and thus received the bonus. Of course, we could have said those bonuses could not come out of bail out funds, but in the end, it all comes out of the same pile. Again, it’s the insult factor, not the actual money.

  7. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, 8 months ago

    Oldlego, your misspent youth? like the new avatar and the older red suit with beard too

  8. claudermilk

    claudermilk said, 8 months ago

    From what I heard the contracts locked in the bonuses at what they got for 2007–so even if any targets got missed (how could they not?) they were getting the money anyway. Kind of defeats the whole point of a “bonus”–now it’s just additional salary under a different name, which happens to be guaranteed to tick everyone else off.

    In any case, it was a stupid contract to agree to.