Jump to content

Sanders Going After Jamie Dimon


BG2008
 Share

Recommended Posts

I usually don't post in Politics unless it affects me directly.  I can care less about abortion, gender bathrooms, confederate flags etc.  But Sanders going after Jamie Dimon for taking bailout money pisses me off.  It's no secret that I used to work for Citi.  I went through five rounds of layoffs before they decided that no one will buy real estate anymore and eventually gutted my group.  There was zero leadership from up on top.  Chuck Prince famously said "if you the music is on, you have to dance."  The whole time, JPM and Wells Fargo were the only 2 banks that didn't need the bailout.  Now Sanders is going after them.  They took the money so that the public couldn't tell who really needed the money.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Bernie the Vampire has made a comeback. He also went after Biomarin Pharma last week.

 

There is a large set of people with useless diplomas invested in debt forgiveness. CNBC said last week that people have stopped paying down their student loan balances. I think they have instead been contributing to Bernie and Elizabeth's campaigns.

 

Bernie is leading in NH and Iowa.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Bernie the Vampire has made a comeback. He also went after Biomarin Pharma last week.

 

There is a large set of people with useless diplomas invested in debt forgiveness. CNBC said last week that people have stopped paying down their student loan balances. I think they have instead been contributing to Bernie and Elizabeth's campaigns.

 

Bernie is leading in NH and Iowa.

 

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." Ben Franklin.

 

How about instead of debt forgiveness, they trade their debt for a certain percentage of additional tax going forward? Small debt 1% to 5% for large debt? You could cap the total for those who do end up with lucrative careers that actually end up paying off their debt. Now those who were frugal, so as to not have to take out debt, don't feel they are getting so screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what politics has become. Its a way of the left and what is ruining America.

 

Jamie Dimon is a role model across the board. He's even somebody Warren Buffett admits to admiring. He's never really had any missteps. Basically the Derek Jeter of the banking world. If Derek Jeter had Mickey Mantle's talent. Dimon is a pure American treasure and somebody we should be celebrating and studying.

 

Instead, you have losers like Sanders, Warren, AOC, and the rest of the crew, demonizing him and guys like Lee Cooperman; why? because they have money? It's pitiful.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Bernie the Vampire has made a comeback. He also went after Biomarin Pharma last week.

 

There is a large set of people with useless diplomas invested in debt forgiveness. CNBC said last week that people have stopped paying down their student loan balances. I think they have instead been contributing to Bernie and Elizabeth's campaigns.

 

Bernie is leading in NH and Iowa.

 

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." Ben Franklin.

 

How about instead of debt forgiveness, they trade their debt for a certain percentage of additional tax going forward? Small debt 1% to 5% for large debt? You could cap the total for those who do end up with lucrative careers that actually end up paying off their debt. Now those who were frugal, so as to not have to take out debt, don't feel they are getting so screwed.

 

A quote to follow:

 

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take

care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going

to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by

dividing it.”

 

- Adrian Rogers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't need that. We need more engaged shareholders that push back on huge pay packages. That is one of the issues with so much "passive" capital in the market - remember The CEO works for the shareholder.

 

It's been going on way, way longer than index funds have been popular. What's the downside?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't need that. We need more engaged shareholders that push back on huge pay packages. That is one of the issues with so much "passive" capital in the market - remember The CEO works for the shareholder.

 

That doesnt really work though.

 

Most boards actively collude with management teams despite having a fiduciary duty to shareholders. It is rare, but shareholders do sometimes reject compensation packages via the say on pay vote. However all that happens when this occurs is that the board, often consisting of senior executives, hires a "compensation advisory" firm. They then gather a group of "peers" and then chart compensation ranges of said peers. From there they find ways to structure pay packages, almost always in the form of stock options and awards, that "looks" better, but is just as, if not mores egregious.

 

The only way this changes is it there are laws put in place. Otherwise they'll just work around it, or use "peers" as their benchmark, even though ALL compensation is out of all, EVERYWHERE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't need that. We need more engaged shareholders that push back on huge pay packages. That is one of the issues with so much "passive" capital in the market - remember The CEO works for the shareholder.

 

That doesnt really work though.

 

Most boards actively collude with management teams despite having a fiduciary duty to shareholders. It is rare, but shareholders do sometimes reject compensation packages via the say on pay vote. However all that happens when this occurs is that the board, often consisting of senior executives, hires a "compensation advisory" firm. They then gather a group of "peers" and then chart compensation ranges of said peers. From there they find ways to structure pay packages, almost always in the form of stock options and awards, that "looks" better, but is just as, if not mores egregious.

 

The only way this changes is it there are laws put in place. Otherwise they'll just work around it, or use "peers" as their benchmark, even though ALL compensation is out of all, EVERYWHERE.

 

Absolutely right.

 

The board members don't want to rock the boat. Getting paid $250,000 for a couple meetings a year. Not a bad gig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't need that. We need more engaged shareholders that push back on huge pay packages. That is one of the issues with so much "passive" capital in the market - remember The CEO works for the shareholder.

 

That doesnt really work though.

 

Most boards actively collude with management teams despite having a fiduciary duty to shareholders. It is rare, but shareholders do sometimes reject compensation packages via the say on pay vote. However all that happens when this occurs is that the board, often consisting of senior executives, hires a "compensation advisory" firm. They then gather a group of "peers" and then chart compensation ranges of said peers. From there they find ways to structure pay packages, almost always in the form of stock options and awards, that "looks" better, but is just as, if not mores egregious.

 

The only way this changes is it there are laws put in place. Otherwise they'll just work around it, or use "peers" as their benchmark, even though ALL compensation is out of all, EVERYWHERE.

 

Absolutely right.

 

The board members don't want to rock the boat. Getting paid $250,000 for a couple meetings a year. Not a bad gig.

 

Even the ones making a lot less! I focus a lot on smaller cap companies where boards get paid much less, but its still a joke. Theres this idea that on a minimum basis, a board member should be getting $80-100k a year in total comp. Which is preposterous. They have base fees, and then get paid thousands to simply attend meetings or be on committees. Double pay effectively. Their travel is all reimbursed when there isn't anything being done that cant be done via a telephone conference call. They make public appearances at shareholder's expense. And when it comes times to replace directors, they often pick their replacements...Its all a sham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The better idea is to shut down the departments that have no commercial applications.

 

Right now everyone thinks they are going to say the "University of Michigan" and pay big expenses when in reality they are going to Michigan History University, Michigan Arts University, Michigan Music University, Michigan Anthropology University and so on.

 

If you had separate institutions for each major, the budgets, employees, tuition, etc would fall into line with employment prospects. Nobody would spend $200k for diplomas that should cost say $2k.

 

 

Yeah, Bernie the Vampire has made a comeback. He also went after Biomarin Pharma last week.

 

There is a large set of people with useless diplomas invested in debt forgiveness. CNBC said last week that people have stopped paying down their student loan balances. I think they have instead been contributing to Bernie and Elizabeth's campaigns.

 

Bernie is leading in NH and Iowa.

 

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic." Ben Franklin.

 

How about instead of debt forgiveness, they trade their debt for a certain percentage of additional tax going forward? Small debt 1% to 5% for large debt? You could cap the total for those who do end up with lucrative careers that actually end up paying off their debt. Now those who were frugal, so as to not have to take out debt, don't feel they are getting so screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I am going to exit stage left out of politics.  It was fun while I was here, kind of like visiting California.

 

 

You can't start a thread and just abandoned it! ;)

 

Why not? In todays culture you can start a kid, and abandon it.. There you go. Now it s a politics thread and BG can leave!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I am going to exit stage left out of politics.  It was fun while I was here, kind of like visiting California.

 

 

You can't start a thread and just abandoned it! ;)

 

Why not? In todays culture you can start a kid, and abandon it.. There you go. Now it s a politics thread and BG can leave!

Today's culture? I seem to remember some dude named Moses being abandoned down a creek in some desert somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I am going to exit stage left out of politics.  It was fun while I was here, kind of like visiting California.

 

 

You can't start a thread and just abandoned it! ;)

 

Why not? In todays culture you can start a kid, and abandon it.. There you go. Now it s a politics thread and BG can leave!

Today's culture? I seem to remember some dude named Moses being abandoned down a creek in some desert somewhere.

 

I think that's a different form of "abandonment" than what Greg was talking about. One is trying to save the child the other doesn't want to be "bothered" by them. ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...