Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs 'Expecting $100 Million Bonus'

London Times ^ | January 31, 2010 | Helen Power

[Steelfish]

February 1, 2010 Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs 'Expecting $100 Million Bonus'

Helen Power in Davos

Goldman Sachs, the world’s 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 bank’s biggest-ever payouts. “This is Lloyd thumbing his nose at Obama,” said a banker at one of Goldman’s 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 bank’s 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.

[al baby]

book mark

[BallyBill]

Good for him.... just to stick it to Odingo.

[Skenderbej]

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.

[Kickass Conservative]

You know, 100 Million sure ain’t what it used to be.

A few trips to Copenhagen, a trip to Hawaii and a few Date Nights should about cover it...

[bog trotter]

I wonder, is there any way to find out what the union bigwigs get?
Talk about greed and taking from the “little guy”.

[SpaceBar]

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?

[freedomfiter2]

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.

So he wouldn’t have produced nearly as well with a $50,000,000 bonus? No one else could’ve produced these results?

[ground_fog]

Goldman always supported Democrats i wonderif they finally learned.

[Jim Noble]

Paying 100 million for a 1.8 billion increase in profit

Those "profits" are entirely artificial and were obtained through corruption.

[BipolarBob]

and the government will get their paws on a significant portion of this, so what’s the beef?

[Skenderbej]

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.

[Skenderbej]

Care to elaborate?

[Oceander]

Anyone who would have settled for such a parsimonious deal, rather than the performance-based deal that these bankers negotiated would probably not have performed as well, in part because such a person would either not know their own true worth as well, which means that they would have been confused about their own willingness to accept, or refuse, risk, and because they would most likely have been more risk-averse in general, and would have avoided some of the riskier, but more lucrative, deals that went into making the bank's profits. So, in a word, the answer to your rhetorical question is "Yes."

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.

[Pelham]

“So he wouldn’t have produced nearly as well with a $50,000,000 bonus? “

Slave wages beneath his dignity.

[Brugmansian]

None that I’m aware.

[hoosierham]

I need taller boots when reading some posts.

[Oceander]

No doubt; I apologize for using such "big" words - would it be easier if I limited myself to one and two syllable words?

[hoosierham]

greed