Again: You've been Gangbanked

It's bonus time, or rather, past bonus time, and so what does one of the king jerkoffs of the world do? Why, he announces what his bonus is, as if saying "I'm not hiding anything, so see what a good person I am?"

Nah.

The element of this kind of pr that really chaps my ass is how insulting it is, obviously in blind hubris, but for the very fact that he puts it out at all. Because the assumption is that you'll buy it and go, "ok." And even if you don't buy it, wtf are you going to do? You're powerless; you aren't on tap at CNBC or Charlie Rose to give your 2 cents, much less write a NYT column. What are you going to do, blog about it fer gawd's sakes?

HO hum; Lotta good that'll do.

There's also a stupid side bar video; "FDIC: Bonus Culture Needs to Change." This is how stupid our Bizarro World is, what we've been reduced to.

Last, there's a link to this story:

BofA spends $4.4B on its Wall Street bankers

In it, the average comes out to $440k for 10,000 employees.

And at the end of that story is this gem:

AIG doling out $100 million more in bonuses

And yet, I really can't blame them. What they're doing is morally reprehensible, but illegal? Not the way Uncle Scam and they composed it. In fact, it's very logical that these shitheads are doing what they are; it's their economic imperative.

Who we absolutely can and should blame are:

1. Ben Bernanke
2. Hank Paulson
3. Tim Geithner
4. Chris Dodd
5. Barney Frank
6. Larry Summers

And then there're juniors, like Neel Kashkari, a former Goldmanite, instrumental in TARP under Paulson, and now landed in a plumb job with bond house PIMCO.

These are the men who acted on behalf of you and I... and sold us and future generations down the river.

Truth is the CRAs and their corrupt, conflict of interest relationship with the banks are a prime reason any of this crap got started. It smacks of fraud; basically, lying about the financial products the banks were flooding the market with as being investment grade AAA rated.

But it doesn't end there - the rest of the "refs" also bear responsibility, in this case the regulating bodies such as the SEC and the CFTC - the CFTC's Brooksley Born being an exception, and the industry analysts with the notable exception of those who I've mentioned who have had the courage to tell it like it is, among others; Nomi Prins, Gretchen Morgenson, Meredith Whitney, Catherine Austin Fitts (who I haven't written on yet, but plan on), Peter Schiff, William Black, Matt Taibbi, Michael Lewis, and David Cay Johnston. (see sidebar "EM08 Analysts to Trust")

It's also a perfect example of how this incarnation of a republic can catastrophically fail, because as you recall, the initial TARP vote failed due to immense public outcry.

Then in just a matter of a week or so, it "somehow" "miraculously" passed.

Who flipped and why? Don't you want to know?

=================

JPMorgan's Dimon scores $16M bonus
By David Ellis, staff writer
February 5, 2010: 11:22 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon will take home a nearly $16 million bonus in restricted stock and options for leading the bank to a big profit last year.

In a company filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission Friday, the New York City-based bank said Dimon would collect nearly 200,000 shares of restricted stock and more than a half million in options.

According to a source familiar with the matter, Dimon did not receive a cash bonus. Wall Street firms in general have migrated from paying their employees large cash bonuses to stock and options in response to public outcry over bonuses and in an effort to tie employee compensation to company performance.

Based on Thursday's closing price of $38.35 per share, Dimon's restricted stock payment would be worth about $7.5 million.

His significantly larger options payment however, would only translate into profits if JPMorgan Chase's (JPM, Fortune 500) stock price climbs above $43.20 per share.

Both payments are to be deferred over several years and are subject to so-called "clawback" provisions, which can reclaim pay from workers whose actions may damage the firm's long-term financial health.

Including the $1 million base salary Dimon received for the year, his total pay package for 2009 is nearly $17 million.

Dimon received no bonus in 2008 and a $28 million bonus in 2007.

In a year when the banking industry struggled due to massive mortgage and consumer loan losses, JPMorgan Chase fared relatively well compared to many of its peers.

Last month, the bank revealed it earned $11.73 billion in 2009, more than twice what it earned just a year earlier. That translated into a better year for JPMorgan workers, including the 25,000 employees working on Wall Street.

The company said it spent $9.33 billion to pay workers in its investment banking division, an increase of $1.6 billion from a year ago. That figure includes salaries as well as money set aside for bonuses and works out to an average annual compensation per employee of nearly $380,000.

All eyes are now focused on Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), which has yet to disclose its year-end bonuses for its top executives.

While members of Goldman's management committee declined to take cash bonuses for 2009, there is still speculation that its executives could collect a windfall in stock and options. The Times of London reported earlier this month that company CEO Lloyd Blankfein could receive a bonus payment of close to $100 million.

2 Words: "Oo" & "fah"

WOWeeee. This is no holds barred in your face by DEMOCRAPS, the party that some "liberals" still believe in. In light of everything that's happened with EM08, and in relation to derivatives, Brooksley Born, this is plain astonishing. The brazen manner in which these shitheads operate is jaw dropping.

If you can believe it, my bigger point is that this new proposed oversight committee, the "Financial Services Oversight Council," scares me to no end. Why?

Listen, my thing over the last year or so has been what I call "the refs," and there were plenty of them in the making of EM08. Simple logic tells us that creating another set of refs isn't the answer, let alone fighting over more or less regulation of derivatives. After all, the mortgage poisoned financial products would not even have seen the light of day, if the CRAs had properly done their job of rating those products junk status, or at the very best as a cautionary investment.

In other words, Don't treat symptoms; get to the root causes. But in the worst case of logic ever, now uncle scam wants to create more refs. This is just plain stupid.

The answer is to not create more refs, but to find out why it is that the many refs we have now and just as importantly, the systems that they operate in, cannot, do not, or will not proceed effectively and do their job.

1. "Effectively" as defined as to relevantly inform the public, so that the public can make informed decisions and guide congress.

2. "Effectively" meaning in concise, plain language, not paper tsunamis that congress is so enamored with that filibuster and turn most people completely off. Any savvy investor will more often than not only read the exec summary of a business plan, and base her decision on that; the elevator pitch, management teams, and the proformas. - that's what it's for, to display that one can effectively communicate without a lot of broohaha used car salesman marketing gibberish. The logic being, if you can't do that, then why should money decide that you're capable of starting, building, and maintaining/managing a business if you can't even clearly talk about it, much less map it out and show "little things" like cash flow, year to year projections and roi coherently. Makes sense to me. Now, for shits and giggles, let's imagine congress trying to conform their diarrhea of the pen to that constraint. Funny, huh?

What this is really saying is that congress and the refs who are on the governmental side of the equation (don't forget, there are other, ngo/individual refs, such as the fourth estate, analysts, trade organizations, academics, authors...) must learn how to effectively communicate in general, but particularly when risk is involved and with our money. ANY savvy investor, from Buffett to Soros, would be accorded this going in to some high stakes gambling. It lets you know the risks involved so that - just as a gambler does - you can evaluate, assess risk, and set odds. In other words, one can make an informed decision. The American public represents the biggest stake pool in the world, but in terms of investing we're treated like caged animals to be fed scraps and water and kept at bay with cattle prods. The bottom line for the American people is that if congress can't do this, then they need to get the fuck out of Dodge. Make no mistake, unless the system is revamped, you're being served, and it's on a plate with garnishing.

3. "Effectively" in terms of being elected by the general public and not appointed. It's high time the American people became financially literate - way too much is at stake to be left in the hands of a few elite shitheads and their field negros who do their massas bidding.

4. "Effectively" as to be mirrored at every level; fed, state, county, city. It's outrageous how the present poisonous mindset infects every level. Just this past week, the LA County Board of Supervisors loaned $14 million to the LA Opera - while tens of thousands of Angelenos are stranded out of work.

As usual in Bizarro World, though, "they're" all about putting on a show and treating symptoms.

To those who don't believe the fix is on, keep reading...

cartoon by the great Jules Feiffer

http://www.scpr.org/news/2009/12/10/house-eases-restrictions-derivatives-trades/

Thursday Dec. 10th
House eases restrictions on derivatives trades

8:56 p.m. | Jim Kuhnhenn | The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan coalition in the House voted late Thursday to make it easier for corporations to engage in complex derivatives trades without government restrictions, eroding the reach of proposed regulations to govern Wall Street.

Democratic attempts to toughen the legislation failed.

Though not major setbacks, the votes illustrated the difficulties facing House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank and the Obama administration as they seek to pass legislation aimed at preventing a recurrence of last year's Wall Street crisis.

Key votes loomed ahead, with a final vote on the sweeping legislation scheduled Friday.

Democrats hoped to fend off an amendment Friday that would eliminate the creation of an independent Consumer Finance Protection Agency. The agency is a central element of the Democrats' legislation and the Obama administration's proposed regulatory changes.

The amendment was offered by Rep. Walt Minnick, a conservative Democrat from Idaho, and seven other centrist Democrats. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been running national television ads against the creation of a consumer agency, said it would base its support for lawmakers in next year's elections, in part, on how they voted on the amendment.

"I think we're going to beat the Minnick amendment, but it's a real test," Frank, D-Mass., said Thursday. Creating a consumer agency is a top priority for consumer groups and for labor organizations such as the AFL-CIO.

Democratic leaders also were pushing changes that would add further restrictions on banks and financial institutions. One, vigorously opposed by banks, would let bankruptcy judges rewrite mortgages to lower homeowners' monthly payments.

A coalition of banking organizations on Thursday sent lawmakers a letter urging them to vote against the amendment. The House previously passed bankruptcy-mortgage legislation, but it failed in the Senate.

The legislation imposes new regulations on derivatives, aiming to prevent manipulation in and bring transparency to a $600 trillion global market. But an amendment by New York Democrat Scott Murphy, adopted 304-124 Thursday night, exempted businesses that trade in derivatives, not as financial speculators, but to hedge against market fluctuations such as currency rates or gasoline prices. The amendment also provided an exception for businesses that are not considered too big to be a risk to the financial system.

A Democratic effort to make more companies subject to derivatives regulation failed 279-150.

The Chamber of Commerce circulated a letter Thursday urging lawmakers to vote for the Murphy amendment and against the broader regulation.

The House debate comes more than a year after the downfall of Wall Street banking house Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. panicked the financial markets and forced an unprecedented intervention by the federal government. The Senate is expected to consider a bill next year.

Backing for the overall bill splits along party lines. Republicans cast the legislation as a continuation of unpopular financial industry bailouts, while Democrats portray the GOP as reflexively opposed to any controls on Wall Street.

"What we've seen from the Democrats...is an attempt to spend our way into jobs, an attempt to borrow our way into jobs and now an attempt to bail out are way into jobs," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas. "And what is the result? The result is the highest unemployment rate in a generation."

Democratic leaders have focused on their own ranks, however. They had to scramble Wednesday after party centrists rebelled and threatened to delay the bill if the House was not allowed to vote on their proposed amendments.

At issue were changes they sought to ease regulatory provisions on consumer protections and complex derivatives trades. The impasse broke, but only after top Democrats spent more than an hour with high-level Treasury Department officials in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's offices crafting a compromise.

Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill., succeeded in getting her consumer protection limits inserted into Frank's version of the bill. Her provision would make it harder for states to enforce their own consumer protection rules on national banks. Under the compromise, states would not be able to pre-empt federal consumer laws if the state law "materially" interferes with the business of banks.

"It's solid progress in the effort to provide consistency and uniformity to the American consumer," said Scott Talbott, chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, an industry group.

The broader legislation hits big banks hardest, a response to public anger at the notion that some institutions had grown too big to fail and pushed the nation's financial system to the brink of collapse.

It would create a Financial Services Oversight Council to monitor the financial system and watch for future threats. Large, interconnected firms would have to put more money into their reserves. They would have to feed a $150 billion fund to cover the costs of dismantling a failing competitor. And even if healthy, they could be forced to downsize if they are deemed a grave threat to the economy.

"American families will no longer be at the mercy of the Wall Street in terms of their jobs, their homes, their pension security, the education of their children," said Pelosi, D-Calif.

---

The bill is H.R.4173.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.