Same Warren Buffett, of course, who called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction" in his 2002 newsletter, 6 years before they brought down the world economy.

Buffet was also a guy who invested million in Interest rate derivatives ... -- #3 | Posted by StenWilly

Yeah, I know... the irony. Right up there with Soros. But at least they're speaking up.

i don't get some of these replies: it's every capitalist for himself, is it not?
don't shoot the messenger.

I thought a large portion of the CEO's income was in the form of stock... so don't they loose money if the company does poorly?

And isn't the lefties that all bitch when the stock makes money and the CEO's make a gizillion times what the guy that scrubs the toilet?

I think that all board members should take 80% in stock, with the provision that they must hold the stock for 10 years. That way, they would look more to the long-term health of the companies...

Actually,
They usually do....

i don't get some of these replies: it's every capitalist for himself, is it not?
don't shoot the messenger.
#5 | Posted by ichiro at 2010-02-28 05:16 AM

And that is precisely what is wrong with capitalism. Each man for himself leaves many without anything - the only reason Morgan represents the largest bank cabal is because he got there first and ensured no successful competition through illegal and dastardly means. That's the real nature of unregulated capitalism - to screw everyone else first.

Buffett knew six years in advance of this schema - it's obvious that since we don't have a house-cleaning in Wall Street they must still be busy profiteering. Why are we allowing this?

"I thought a large portion of the CEO's income was in the form of stock... so don't they loose money if the company does poorly?

And isn't the lefties that all bitch when the stock makes money and the CEO's make a gizillion times what the guy that scrubs the toilet?

I think that all board members should take 80% in stock, with the provision that they must hold the stock for 10 years. That way, they would look more to the long-term health of the companies...

#6 | Posted by 1libertarian "

Another "Libertarian" who doesn't have a fucking clue about business, money or much of anything as usual.

CEOs of F100 companies have already made their millions getting to their level. It's all fun and games wih zero personal risk. Their comp is base, huge bonus and buku stock options. If they fuck up and get fired they get millions in golden parachutes.

Of course when they fuck up employees get laid off but they don't have the millions in the bank. And investors major and minor lose money.

So what happens to a failed CEO who took bad risks? He gets a shitload of money. Maybe they should instead put the fuckers in jail for reckless behavior?

Get the picture wannabe libertarian?

Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. said fourth-quarter profit jumped on the recovery of derivative bets tied to the world's stock markets.

Derivatives added $1.05 billion to earnings in the quarter, compared with a loss of $4.61 billion a year earlier after the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Liabilities on Buffett's so-called equity-index puts narrow when four stock indexes, including the Standard & Poor's 500, climb closer to the levels they were at when Buffett made the deals near the market's peak in 2006 and 2007.

fur, it looks to me you both were saying the same thing with different words. You should check your blood pressure more often.

...but regulation is bad, mkay? It's socialist! Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin told me so!

exactly,

will Henry Paulson take the stand please..... lets not forget Robert Rubin.....both of these greedfuckers can be traced back to Goldman-Sachs...what a fucking surprise...and there's so many others

fur, it looks to me you both were saying the same thing with different words.

Huh? You haven't posted anything Sniper.

fur, it looks to me you both were saying the same thing with different words.

Huh? You haven't posted anything Sniper.

He was referencing 1libertarian and Furio, Snoofy...not himself.

Thanks American1st. I should learn to read more good.

Financial consequences, my left hind toenail.

Put 'em in stocks in the town square.

The street people need something to bugger.

"I think that all board members should take 80% in stock, with the provision that they must hold the stock for 10 years. That way, they would look more to the long-term health of the companies..."

Most CEO's are paid relative small salaries, several million dollars, with the bulk of their remuneration made up of restricted stock, the value of which is only realized if the company meets certain agreed upon performance benchmarks. It's a little bit disingenuous, but the critics of highly paid CEOs almost always include the restricted value as part of their income. It's really not, because if the company doesn't perform, they don't get that benefit.

It's actually a very good idea. And for a competent manager a very good opportunity. Reduce the salaries while increasing the restricted stock offering. The problem is that demand for CEOs has an inflationary effect where companies are willing to spend more and more in the hopes that they can find someone to captain the ship in the face of ever increasing competition.

In other words, CEOs do pay for poor performance, by not realizing the value of their restricted stock benefits.

And if they're fired they retire on multimillion dollar pensions - many times funded by raiding employee pension plans. Google it.

And when employee pension plans go bust the taxpayers pick up the tab. But, of course, the CEO's and CFO's are set for life even if the corporation fails.

"In other words, CEOs do pay for poor performance, by not realizing the value of their restricted stock benefits."

Or, more to the point, CEOs eschew wise long-term decisions and embrace short-term tricks.

JUST WHY...Should Execs Pay for Risky Bets...when the American Taxpayers are obviously so eager and willing to Bail them Out???

"fur, it looks to me you both were saying the same thing with different words. You should check your blood pressure more often.

#11 | Posted by Sniper"

No Snippy, "Libertarian" is not saying the same thing. There are no penalties for reckless CEO behavior. Earnings penalties mean little as all of these CEOs are independently wealthy.

You really have no clue

Furio / mary the whore, you are a pair of fucking idiots. Please get the demorat donkey dick out of your mouths long enough to think for yourselves. You say "It's all fun and games with zero personal risk..." that they are rich, and don't need the money. Fine. I was pointing out that they get the majority of their income from stock. If you want them to have a vested interest, then stock held long term is about the only option. What do you propose? Putting them in jail or tying them in the street so you and your friends (if you have any) can fuck them in the ass? Sorry, but that type of shit is just silly. Force them to loose their houses or cars if the company does bad? Then who the fuck would take a job like that? Well, you two might. For you, it might be a win-win. Company does well, you make bank... company does badly, you loose your double-wide and get buggered. Doubt most people would agree.

And if either of you think you could run a business better, then take your space change out of the couch, collect up all the empties on your front lawn, and start your own business. Fuck, not like the people who actually start businesses are any better than you, right?

Of course when they fuck up employees get laid off but they don't have the millions in the bank. And investors major and minor lose money.

So fucking what? You are not guaranteed a job. If this company fucks up, there should be a new company out there that is trying to capture the market share. I know, that evil thing called business. Capitalism... you might have heard about it? NO? Guess that doesn't surprise me.

Get the picture wannabe libertarian?

#9 | Posted by furio

Yes, and the picture is that YOU are sadly lacking in anything that approaches knowledge of business or banking.

And if either of you think you could run a business better, then take your space change out of the couch, collect up all the empties on your front lawn, and start your own business.

You just exposed yourself as a fire breathing, right wing fool 1LIB.

BTW 1LIB, the wealthiest states in this country vote Democrat. Man, if you right wing fools could just quit the talking points and make some sense this would be a better blog. Statements like you made above are ludicrous.

1LIB

Sorry, bro. I didn't see the "Furio" in the rant you posted. My bad.

I take that back. It was only one quote by Furio. If you're gonna measure stupidity by dick size it'd serve you well to know elephants have bigger dicks than donkeys.

Statements like this expose those who make them as idiots, as do any statements that paint one party as nothing but lazy, beer can collecting leeches. You know that isn't true, but you right wingers sure like thinking so. Makes on think y'all don't get outta the house much:

And if either of you think you could run a business better, then take your space change out of the couch, collect up all the empties on your front lawn, and start your own business. Fuck, not like the people who actually start businesses are any better than you, right?

1LIBERTARIAN

BTW 1LIB, the wealthiest states in this country vote Democrat. Man, if you right wing fools could just quit the talking points and make some sense this would be a better blog. Statements like you made above are ludicrous.

#28 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

The wealthiest states? Which STATES are they? Or do you mena the states that have the largest percent of people that make over $100k?

If you are talking about the NE area around NYC, thoes people are NOT capitalists. They are making their money by favorable regulation. They are the mooches of out society.

"You say "It's all fun and games with zero personal risk..." that they are rich, and don't need the money. Fine. I was pointing out that they get the majority of their income from stock."

Except that is 100% untrue. If the stock does poorly due to their bad performace, their options are not worth anything. But they still make millions in salary and bonus (they still get their bonuses for running companies into the ground) and it still costs millions to fire them.

They are in a win-win, no accountability situation. Why normal people act as apologists for the super-wealthy is beyond me. They are not worrying about you. And chances are, you will never be one of them. It isn't unreasonable for shareholders to demand accountability from CEOs who gamble wildly knowing full well everyone else pays if they lose.

He was referencing 1libertarian and Furio, Snoofy...not himself.

#16 | Posted by American1st

Sno has lint in his navel and can't see.

CEOs are chosen by God and their actions are infallible.

The Right
###
I was pointing out that they get the majority of their income from stock

The best way to raise the value of stocks is to dump a bunch of employees. It might tank the company in the long run (right Republican Idol Fionari?) but it's a good way to make a quick buck.

That and negotiating a nice golden parachute with your buddies on the Board.

You just exposed yourself as a fire breathing, right wing fool 1LIB.

BTW 1LIB, the wealthiest states in this country vote Democrat. Man, if you right wing fools could just quit the talking points and make some sense this would be a better blog. Statements like you made above are ludicrous.

#28 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Far right, yes. Almost, let's see, where the founding father's put the country. Amazing how all the people who favor turning over every second of your life to gov't control think that being "right wing" is a bad thing.

As for the richest states voting dem... so what? wasn't you just saying that people vote for things that aren't in their best interest? Guess you proved that, huh?

Why normal people act as apologists for the super-wealthy is beyond me. They are not worrying about you. And chances are, you will never be one of them. It isn't unreasonable for shareholders to demand accountability from CEOs who gamble wildly knowing full well everyone else pays if they lose.

#33 | Posted by Sully

Sully, why people like you think you are not smart enough to put on a seatbelt or buy insurance or strap your rugrat into a safety seat without some gov't agency with 10's of thousands of employees mandating that is beyond me. Of course, if you get hired by the gov't, you are suddenly promoted, instantly, to having knowledge so great you are empowered to tell others how to live. Just fucking retarded. I don't want a CEO to worry about me... I want him to worry about the business that hired him. Hopefully, he will make good decisions and those will make the company better, will allow companies to make good raises, and capture more market share. I fully expect that if I am a worthless drain on the company, I would be dumped. I am a hard worker and don't have to worry about that. I also have no worries that I will be dumped, as I can find another job.

I am sorry that you either do not have the work ethic to be worth something to a business or are so unsure about your skills that you don't believe you can contribute enough to get a new job if you are let go.

As for not being a CEO... I have owned a business, dealt with some of the stupid regulations, and decided that I could live on less money and a lot less stress. If we eliminated 80% of the gov't... I might roll the dice and take another shot at making a billion.

Oh, and one more point... missed this on the first pass...

Statements like this expose those who make them as idiots, as do any statements that paint one party as nothing but lazy, beer can collecting leeches. You know that isn't true, but you right wingers sure like thinking so. Makes on think y'all don't get outta the house much:

Painting with a broad brush is something done a lot around here. Read any thread that is about guns or religion and you will see it clearly.

As for the underlying statement, as you said, people in the NE make lots of money and vote dem... but a HUGE percentage of the dem voters are poor, inner city. Welfare recipients and gov't workers, what few union members still exist, etc. If you look at a map by county, the dem votes are almost entirely withing large cities, with the entire rest of the country being solid republican.

Look at the vote by county for 2004: