Skip to comments.Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs 'Expecting $100 Million Bonus'
Posted on 01/31/2010 7:24:24 PM PST by Steelfish
February 1, 2010 Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs 'Expecting $100 Million Bonus'
Helen Power in Davos
Goldman Sachs, the worlds richest investment bank, could be about to pay its chief executive a bumper bonus of up to $100 million in defiance of moves by President Obama to take action against such payouts.
Bankers in Davos for the World Economic Forum (WEF) told The Times yesterday they understood that Lloyd Blankfein and other top Goldman bankers outside Britain were set to receive some of the banks biggest-ever payouts. This is Lloyd thumbing his nose at Obama, said a banker at one of Goldmans rivals.
Goldman Sachs is becoming the focus of an increasingly acrimonious political and financial showdown over the payment of multimillion-pound bonuses.Last week the US President described bonuses paid out by some banks as the height of irresponsibility and shameful.
The American people understand that we have a big hole to dig ourselves out of, but they do not like the idea that people are digging a bigger hole, even as they are being asked to fill it up, he said last week.
Mr Blankfein took home his biggest bonus so far in 2007, when he was paid $67.9 million. His banks profits last year were $1.8 billion higher than in 2007. This leaves the bank with a justification to pay him even more although payouts will be made in shares rather than cash to make them more politically palatable.
(Excerpt) Read more at business.timesonline.co.uk ...
Paying 100 million for a 1.8 billion increase in profit is a pretty good deal for the company if you ask me. It’s a very good return on labor investment.
A few trips to Copenhagen, a trip to Hawaii and a few Date Nights should about cover it...
I wonder, is there any way to find out what the union bigwigs get?
Talk about greed and taking from the “little guy”.
I’m curious. What companies out there compete directly with Goldman-Sachs on a level playing field, and have similar representation in the federal executive branch by former board members, CEO’s etc?
Paying 100 million for a 1.8 billion increase in profit is a pretty good deal for the company if you ask me. Its a very good return on labor investment.
So he wouldn’t have produced nearly as well with a $50,000,000 bonus? No one else could’ve produced these results?
Goldman always supported Democrats i wonderif they finally learned.
Those "profits" are entirely artificial and were obtained through corruption.
and the government will get their paws on a significant portion of this, so what’s the beef?
He’s at the helm. Should he be punished for that? I bet you wouldn’t be so against a 100m bonus if you were receiving it.
Care to elaborate?
All of which is a little beside the point, and focusing on your own envy does not do the conversation any good. The simple fact of the matter is, this is the result of a negotiated contract worked about between an individual with a lot of skills and a private employer who had just as many sophisticated negotiators on its side as did the individual now receiving the plum bonuses. As such, no-one else has any business sticking their noses into the deal and whinging about it. If you don't like it, then don't place your money for management at the bank, and don't invest in the bank - take your money elsewhere.
That is what private investment and capitalism are all about, not pointless envious whinging - that's what liberals and the Democrats are for.
“So he wouldnt have produced nearly as well with a $50,000,000 bonus? “
Slave wages beneath his dignity.
None that I’m aware.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.