truth on hold Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 billions more in cheap money and over $300 hundred billion in gaurantees AND THE CROOKED AND INCOMPETENT CEO AND HIS HENCHMEN GET TO STAY ON. and all 100% taxpayer funded. all totalled a bigger freaking package than AIG got. and I repeat THE CROOKED AND INCOMPETENT CEO AND HIS HENCHMEN GET TO STAY ON. http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/p...g/20081123a.htm
taterhill Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 How much do you actually know about what is going on, or are you just repeating what you read in the media?
meazza Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 Just sad indeed. So I take it none of your portfolios have some stock of C?
Chef Jim Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 How much do you actually know about what is going on, or are you just repeating what you read in the media? His avatar is a naked guy. 'Nuf said.
truth on hold Posted November 24, 2008 Author Posted November 24, 2008 So I take it none of your portfolios have some stock of C? whether someone is long, short or neutral C, i don't see how anyone would be comfortable knowing CEO Pandit the Bandit and his Banditos get to stay on after the US Government (read taxpayers) just dished out the biggest bailout in world history. this is a taxpayer and ethics issue, not a C stock price one, and longs, shorts and neutrals all care about what happens to their tax dollars and that the system punishes rather than rewards bad guys. yes C was (and still is) a mess and something was going to be done there, but clearly that "something" should have included tossing the management. they did so with Fannie, Freddie and AIG ... so how can a bailout larger than all of them keep Pandit the Bandit and his Banditos? after all it was Bandit who a) gauranteed SIV 10's of billions in SIV debt when he didn't have to, b) got scooped on the Wachovia acquisition by Wells Fargo and c) sent the signal last week to the market the place was liquidating when he announced 52,000 layoffs. Yes I am livid he and his buddies are taking hundreds of millions for themselves from this bailout.
pBills Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 His avatar is a naked guy. 'Nuf said. So it's ok to constantly bail out financial institutions with their same failed leadership and no business plans offered? Shouldn't the CEO's of these bail out companies be made to take a large decrease in salary and NO bonuses?
Fezmid Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 Yes I am livid he and his buddies are taking hundreds of millions for themselves from this bailout. Don't let facts get in the way of your rant, mkay? "Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other top management will keep their jobs despite the intervention, but the government will have the final say on executive pay packages. More details on compensation may come next week, government officials said." http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...20081124?rpc=44
Chef Jim Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 So it's ok to constantly bail out financial institutions with their same failed leadership and no business plans offered? Shouldn't the CEO's of these bail out companies be made to take a large decrease in salary and NO bonuses? I think the CEO's should be dealt with and they very well may be. Do you have any idea of the terms of the "bailout"?
meazza Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 whether someone is long, short or neutral C, i don't see how anyone would be comfortable knowing CEO Pandit the Bandit and his Banditos get to stay on after the US Government (read taxpayers) just dished out the biggest bailout in world history. this is a taxpayer and ethics issue, not a C stock price one, and longs, shorts and neutrals all care about what happens to their tax dollars and that the system punishes rather than rewards bad guys. yes C was (and still is) a mess and something was going to be done there, but clearly that "something" should have included tossing the management. they did so with Fannie, Freddie and AIG ... so how can a bailout larger than all of them keep Pandit the Bandit and his Banditos? after all it was Bandit who a) gauranteed SIV 10's of billions in SIV debt when he didn't have to, b) got scooped on the Wachovia acquisition by Wells Fargo and c) sent the signal last week to the market the place was liquidating when he announced 52,000 layoffs. Yes I am livid he and his buddies are taking hundreds of millions for themselves from this bailout. Who's punished in the end? What are you going to do? Throw them in jail? On what grounds? Didn't C just let go their CEO just last year? Has the fate of any bank been solid since the market started to crash?
pBills Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 The CEO's should be dealt with. Any other person out there who f'd up within their career in a major way would be canned. Most of these people have a new golden parachute called job security. Why?
KD in CA Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 Any other person out there who f'd up within their career in a major way would be canned. Maybe they all belong to the CEO union.
Chef Jim Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 Just sad indeed. Why is this bailout that's happening sad and the one that's not happening for the auto industry sad?
pBills Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 Why is this bailout that's happening sad and the one that's not happening for the auto industry sad? I think they are both sad. I think it's worse though that people are so against giving the Auto Industry a Loan.
meazza Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 I think they are both sad. I think it's worse though that people are so against giving the Auto Industry a Loan. It's not the same thing. One is a viable business that is struggling due to a lack of consumer confidence (Citi) and one is a struggling business due to bad business decisions while competitors were making the right ones (GM, Ford, Chrysler) Citi isn't the only bank taking a beating. Pretty much any US bank is highly volatile due to a lack of confidence. On the other hand, the Big 3 made some very bad moves in terms of vehicles produced and as a result, no one wants them.
pBills Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 It's not the same thing. One is a viable business that is struggling due to a lack of consumer confidence (Citi) and one is a struggling business due to bad business decisions while competitors were making the right ones (GM, Ford, Chrysler) Citi isn't the only bank taking a beating. Pretty much any US bank is highly volatile due to a lack of confidence. On the other hand, the Big 3 made some very bad moves in terms of vehicles produced and as a result, no one wants them. May be true on some levels. However, letting the Big 3 fail, I believe is going to be very bad for the economy as well. Hell even their competitors have come out and said that.
Chef Jim Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 May be true on some levels. However, letting the Big 3 fail, I believe is going to be very bad for the economy as well. Hell even their competitors have come out and said that. Not as bad as letting the whole financial system collapse. BTW their competitors know they can't let the big 3 go out of business. It's the lack of quality in the big 3 that make their cars look that much better. That's the beauty of competition when you've got a good product.
pBills Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 Not as bad as letting the whole financial system collapse. BTW their competitors know they can't let the big 3 go out of business. It's the lack of quality in the big 3 that make their cars look that much better. That's the beauty of competition when you've got a good product. GM has been putting out some quality products lately. Catching up fast.
Chef Jim Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 GM has been putting out some quality products lately. Catching up fast. If that's the case then they're well on their way and a bailout isn't needed. But seriously it's too little too late. I live in car crazy soCal and all you see are BMW, Merceded, Lexus, Toyota, Honda. Even the SUV market seems dominated out here by Lexus
pBills Posted November 24, 2008 Posted November 24, 2008 If that's the case then they're well on their way and a bailout isn't needed. But seriously it's too little too late. I live in car crazy soCal and all you see are BMW, Merceded, Lexus, Toyota, Honda. Even the SUV market seems dominated out here by Lexus Do you think this crisis started within the last two years? Unfortunately the better lines are coming out now. And it may be to late. That's Southern Cal.. here on the east coast any luxury SUV is mainly a Tahoe or a suburban. I have a new Suburban. It is by far the best SUV I have driven.
Recommended Posts