yes, and in the very next line you are relying on the first line which still doesn't explcitly refer to the restroom, it does however refer to the bonuses he apparently went on an end around to hand out. I know you have been defending these salaries in several threads and spending habits, but the media got this one dead on based on more information coming out.
the rumor? ken lewis is the fool who pulled the wool over his own eyes. this is the same guy who bought countrywide. lewis went "all-in" waaaaaaay too soon and his company is getting destroyed for his inability to control himself.
No offense or anything but the title IS part of the article and at a minimum, the journalist imply that was the case. Now maybe it was a case of bad writing or a sensationalist headline to draw viewship, I don't care to speculate, but in either case the claim was made. No, I just have a healthy level of respect for the man. Not everybody risk flushing their own career down the toilet my taking such risky jobs. It also helps matters further that he had no false misgivings about the conditions at Merrill or hide his head in the sand like an ostrich. But speaking of hiding head in the sand, here comes the same potshot pulling moronic twerp who couldn't (actually wouldn't is the correct word) make a gentlemen's wager with Icehouse regarding firms being subpoenaed for fraud. Here is also the same moron who couldn't tell why Cioffi's fund committed fraud by mispricing securities after being called out to do so. I'm still waiting for an answer Sammy, though I'm not expecting one. And I won't hear from you until the next potshot who knows when. C U Next Tuesday, maybe?
How is he a fool if he was able to pull it off? Merrill shareholders should treat him like the second coming of Jesus. Let's be honest here, Thain is Lewis' fall guy so he doesn't have to take the blame. Thain's fiduciary duty was to Merrill shareholders, so is it any surprise he would present Merrill as being in better shape than it was? Doesn't mean he committed fraud, just that he put it in a positive light. Lewis on the other hand, is ultimately responsible for his decisions. He bought something he didn't understand; he was arrogant enough to believe he can pull it off; on top of it all, he didn't do his homework. So now when the gravy train stopped rolling, some guy had to take the blame. And that was Thain. It was coming even if there wasn't any cultural clashes. Unfortunately for Lewis is that he's now alone and have nobody left to blame. So the next mistake, well...
Yeah Thain took huge risks - it takes balls of steel to accept a $43 milllion signing bonus like he did in 2007. I don't know if I could ever flush my career down the toilet by accepting $43 million. Let me get this straight I-9, you are asking me to explain why the guys charged with fraud are alleged to have committed fraud? You should put down Internet Tough Guy Magazine (Netizen edition) and read the text of the indictment and the civil complaints...otherwise i can't really help you .... oh and you called me a c-nt , wow that's awesomely creative and badass of you.
Um yeah. John Thain is 53. He's got a couple years ahead of him. Had he stayed at NYSE, he would have received a base pay of somewhere around 5 - 8 million range, but he could work there for who knows how long. Not the best pay in the world, but stable. By going to Merrill, had he not pulled it off, he likely would be out of a job, which he is right now. And nobody knows whether he'll find another job. He's componsated for the risk he's taking. No moron, it's nice of you to conveniently lop off a portion of the argument. Your initial assertion in regards to Cioffi was that he PURPOSEFULLY MISPRICED SECURITIES. What he ACTUALLY got charged was that he sold those securities to unsuspecting investors. He DIDN'T price those securities. He DIDN'T tell those investors how much they're worth or how much to pay for them. Both are arguably fraud, but the devil's in the detail isn't it? And Cioffi didn't commit the worse kind, i.e. misprice securities. And no, I don't try to act like an internet tough guy. You'd notice I didn't do the same with pgabriel, whom I disagree with. Nor did I do so with with robbie380. When it comes to you though, I'm merely calling a duck a duck (or a moron a moron, whatever). It's not an insult. It's merely the statement of a fact.
This post is for whoever it was who claimed that no top bankers/CEOs could even be alleged to have done anything remotely fraudulent or illegal in connection with bonuses: Cuomo may take look at Merrill Lynch bonuses BY JOHN O'BRIEN Cuomo ALBANY, N.Y. (Legal Newsline) - Not surprisingly, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is upset that Merrill Lynch accelerated bonus payments to its executives before its deal to become part of Bank of America went through. The Wall Street Journal reported that a person familiar with the matter said Cuomo will "examine closely the disturbing reports of what appear to be large, secret, last-minute bonuses." Merrill Lynch and CEO John Thain gave billions of dollars to employees three days before the closing of its sale to Bank of America in December, the Journal has also reported. Thain resigned Thursday from Bank of America. The company announced last year that Thain would not get the $10 million bonus it was reported Merrill Lynch's Board was considering. Cuomo has been critical of Wall Street investment firms that benefited from the recent federal bailout, arguing that taxpayer funds should not be used for executive bonuses. "Utilizing Merrill's own criteria, a bonus of this size appears unjustified," Cuomo said in a letter to the company. "In terms of performance, Merrill has reported losses for every quarter this year and has lost more than $11 billion for the year as a whole. "Indeed, Merrill's decision to be taken over by Bank of America seems to have been the only thing that saved Merrill from collapse. Clearly, the performance of Merrill's top executives throughout Merrill's abysmal year in no way justifies significant bonuses for its top executives, including the CEO." Cuomo had also written the company on Oct. 29. He has pressured companies like American International Group, which recently announced it will limit its executive pay package and freeze the salaries of and eliminate bonuses for seven top executives. http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/218744-cuomo-may-take-look-at-merrill-lynch-bonuses
Is this becoming the random Wall Street fraud thread? http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50P04A20090126 Richard Fuld, former CEO of Lehman Brothers, sold his $13MM mansion to his wife for $100. That Florida Housing market is awful.
OK so let's apply your math to this. He worked at Merril from late 2007 to early 2009. He could have had 5-8 million. Instead he took home $43 million. Nice work if you can get it. my assertion regarding Cioffi was in response to the stupid claim that nobody on wall street could even have been alleged to have acted fraudulently w/respect to subprime, a pretty silly claim when there are guys on trial for criminal 10b5 cases in EDNY.
Yeah let's do some math. He would have 10 - 16 million instead of 43 million (nice of you to trim his time worked in the NYSE case btw). The difference is he would still have a job. He could work the next 3, 4, 5... years and keep pulling 5 - 8 million, even if you assume no pay increases and no bonuses. Your selective memory is simply astounding. Let me remind you that you specifically stated that those securites were mispriced. I also remember the exchange between you and Icehouse. He stated that the firms AS A WHOLE did not commit fraud, only individuals. His assertion was the fraud may be committed whether intentionally by the firm, or by its agents due to the lack of internal control, not to the intention of the firm. It was his assertion that in certain cases fraud was committed against the firms will. That's a farcry from your now spinster revisionist history that somebody claimed that "nobody on wall street could even have been alleged to have acted fraudulently w/respect to subprime." And in the Cioffi case, there is like I said, arguably fraud. But two things are clear: 1. It wasn't fraud that he mispriced those securites. He never told anybody how much to pay for any of those. 2. Arguably, what was committed it is only fraud because the system is set up to protect investors who may/may not have done their homework. If this was an M&A, people would be lavishing praises on how good a negotiator Cioffi is to get the best deal for existing clientele. Instead, people who didn't know what's going on wanted their money back, so instead of blaming themselves they blame somebody else. And guess what, they get to do that because apparently we define unloading bad assets during times of crisis as fraud.
So even if he had finished out his 5 year term he would have only earned as much as $25-40 million - but instead he was given $43 million up front,and the company went under anyway - please tell me why this is a good deal even in your terms? They definitley were mispriced - they weren't worth what people claimed, hence the destruction of trillions of dollars and the financial system as we knew it. Many people are alleging that the firms did commit fraud as well as the individuals - there are hundreds of class actions out there, lol. Icehouse's mistake was the line of reasoning that ... because there's no entity prosecution (which the DOJ disfavors anyway), everybody must have been a-ok. That's just absurdly stupid.
I suppose if Jesus teaches us humility and how to take enjoyment out of non-material things you might be right. In Jan 2008 Merrill stock was at $97. The 0.85 BAC share they got in return is now worth about $5. I get a better financial return when I take back the empties from a case of beer.
Like I said Sammy, he was paid TO TAKE THE RISK. Without the pay, he woulnd't take the risk. How so? I doubt you actually went to business because your utter lack of understanding on the subject matter. But still, let's get a little theoretical. Fair market value as defined in finance is of course as the discounted cash flow. So if you know you get $1,000 every year (like a vanilla bond), you could price it fairly easily. Well guess what, MBS don't work that way. In theory you price it the same way. In reality nobody knows whether there'll be losses defaults, prepayments and (now any ways) changes in loan terms. It is precisely for that reason NOBODY ever quote you a price for you to rely on. Prospecti and other documents indicate for you a stream of cash flow under very very VERY specific assumptions, carefully noted in the documents. They even throw in disclaimers to avoid liabilities. Suppose a sub-prime deal comes out today, by the 25th of next month, the Decrement Tables in the prospectus would be "wrong," because things happened different than the assumptions. They definitely don't quote you a price. You determine how much you pay for it. To claim that they inflated the value and mispriced it is more than ridiculous. And you know what the accountants' definition of the best judgement of fair value? How many someone paid for it, precisely because the whole concept is theoretical at best. Based on that merit alone, Cioffi certainly didn't misprice those securities. And that matters how? Yes the firms should be held responsible for whether if they committed fraud (which they didn't in this case) or whether their weak controls fostered an environment that allowed for fraud. Last time I checked, yes they were punished for such things. But that's not your claim is it? What you were claiming was that the firms purposefully committed fraud, fattening themselves with bonuses while nationalizing the costs, the keywords here being the firm. What you are advocating is more than the regulatory punishment for internal control weakness. What you are saying is that Bob Joe, the guy who had nothing to do with the alleged fraud, shouldn't get paid because Cioffi alleged did.
And unfortunately for Merrill shareholders, he took the pay and took the risk. Oh, I don't know, trillions of dollars in writedowns and the collapse of the entire financial system suggests to me that somebody's assumptions were wrong somewhere in there...just a hunch. No but I like the sound of it....as it's basically what happened. Stanley O'neal and john Thain laughed all the way to the bank.... No what I'm saying is when a bunch of management cronies pillage their companies and are not accountable to their shareholders there's probably some malfeasance afoot. And that it's incredibly naive to state that, industrywide, "there was no deception" at all and there is no possibility of any fraudulent behavior occurring at any point ever - that's just breathtakingly naive, but that was Icehouse's claim (though he backed off it a bit because it really is absurd, I mean even you would agree with that).
Finance is the profession of money. You'd have a pretty hard time arguing about non-material things in this field. And you know what I would say if I was kidding myself? I would say that I don't love money. I love the security that it brings, the ability to give my kids the best education and fulfill their life long dreams, yada yada yada. But let's cut the crap, whether we like it for not, we can't live without money. That's a flawed argument. You know what John Thain brought the Merrill shareholders? A second chance. You underestimated the extent of the problem the first go round and watch your account get hammered. When he pulled off the deal, Merrill shares briefly hid IIRC high 20's. You could have sold right there and then. Thain didn't get you a third chance. Nobody could. But then again, you shouldn't be keeping on asking for do-overs. Besides, I think BoA will survive. Your 5 bucks could go up. The alternative could have been a big fat zero. The bottom line is, when the company tanked the first time, you should already be treating your initial investment as sunk cost. Thain got you the best deal possible. What else could you ask for?
There's a difference between using money as a means over loving and obsessing over it it as an ends. Sure, it's human nature to be greedy and/or hoard in order to plan ahead, but what Jesus says about money totally goes beyond what is "natural".
