Fury at $2.5bn Lehman bonus

[ratewhore]

Are they not talking about the part of the business that made money, not lost it?

[SandyDown]

Some of you here really need to put on their accountant glasses on ...

X generated money for the org = don't care if he worked a few seconds only to generated it, bottom line X generated money for me

Y lost/cost the org money = don't give a flyign mokey if he's been working all night and day to save another human being or save the planet, fact is Y cost me so much money....


Now... who deserves a bigger bonust??

Sometimes it comes to : who should I sack??

[AtW]

What really cracks me up is this situation that shows very clearly just how poor those idiots are at risk management - British subsidiary of Lehman was sending $8 bln over to USA every night so that they can play with money there while earning small percent of money to UK Lehmans. I am sure whoever thought out this scheme made millions himself for great "idea". So, those clowns send over money few hours before US Lehmans declares bankrupcy and obviously they don't get money back.

Question - just how retarded they had to be to keep sending money over when talk of huge Lehman troubles was obvious even to the outside world? If they had any brains they would put a stop to such transfers due to risk of main HQ going down and taking their money with them.

It just shows what risk they were prepared to do in the name of profits - the only suprise about the end result is that they did not get bailed out.

[SandyDown]

What really cracks me up is this situation that shows very clearly just how poor those idiots are at risk management - British subsidiary of Lehman was sending $8 bln over to USA every night so that they can play with money there while earning small percent of money to UK Lehmans. I am sure whoever thought out this scheme made millions himself for great "idea". So, those clowns send over money few hours before US Lehmans declares bankrupcy and obviously they don't get money back.

Question - just how retarded they had to be to keep sending money over when talk of huge Lehman troubles was obvious even to the outside world? If they had any brains they would put a stop to such transfers due to risk of main HQ going down and taking their money with them.

It just shows what risk they were prepared to do in the name of profits - the only suprise about the end result is that they did not get bailed out.

AtW - you really don't understand the structure of those companies, although they are in the eyes of HMRC and such, are separate legal entities, in reality they all report to the US... also sometimes they deliberately need to keep some entities looking as if they are losing ... i.e. same as we Ltd directors try our best to make out companies look as if its losing money!!

[AlfredJPruffock]

One London-based Lehman employee said: “It’s an absolute scandal. I will never work for an American firm again. It looks like they are prepared to cut you off at the knees. Nobody from America has been in touch since we went into administration on Monday.”

The above is clearly a terrorist and is no doubt in the pocket of Al Queda- the real reason for the market turmoil.

[AtW]

AtW - you really don't understand the structure of those companies

Legally they are separate entities. I can understand why the main HQ would pull your money overnight to speculate a bit on financial markets, however when tulip hit the fan and everyone was speculating (nice to see speculators hit by same thing) about imminent collapse of their bank they kept sending money over.

Well, if they did not have balls to stop this arrangement (it was obvious that if that bank goes bust it would bust first in the USA when the money will be there) then they should not complain now that they did not get the money.

This is worse than some bank in Germany that sent 300 mln euros by mistake to Lehman few hours after bankrupcy was announced

Just how exactly they manage risks with this sort of money? Not very well clearly.

[SandyDown]

Legally they are separate entities. I can understand why the main HQ would pull your money overnight to speculate a bit on financial markets, however when tulip hit the fan and everyone was speculating (nice to see speculators hit by same thing) about imminent collapse of their bank they kept sending money over.

Well, if they did not have balls to stop this arrangement (it was obvious that if that bank goes bust it would bust first in the USA when the money will be there) then they should not complain now that they did not get the money.

This is worse than some bank in Germany that sent 300 mln euros by mistake to Lehman few hours after bankrupcy was announced

Just how exactly they manage risks with this sort of money? Not very well clearly.

Yawn - I can't be bothered to explain to you .... my advice, imagine your company (SK something ) was a success, you open a subsidiary in Russia or wherever... then your company gets into trouble... what would you do?? Imagine you are the owner of the two companies the one in the Uk and the one in Russia

[AtW]

imagine your company (SK something ) was a success, you open a subsidiary in Russia

Sandy, if I am successful I certainly would not open subsidiary in Russia - in fact not having to do any business there is 95% of success for me personally.

Imagine you are the owner of the two companies the one in the Uk and the one in Russia

Let's suppose I have a 100% owned subsidiary in USA. This will be separate legal entity subject to their own laws etc. Let's say that company is also successful and they have got X dollars on their bank accounts. Do you really think I would be pulling this money out of their account every night to use here in order to make some money? Not at all. I'd fire anyone who would seriously suggets that to happen. You know it's almost like take money from your company account and putting them into personal to make interest rate profit, then return money back.

It was very bad idea. It was totally insane not to put end to it once big turmoil started - if I was in Lehmans (UK) in position to put an end to it before Lehmans (US) gone bust I'd certainly do it. If they stopped me from doing it I'd certainly resign publicly and at least this would exonerate me from being called a complete retard that those guys are.

Ironically (I have no doubt about it) the person(s) who dreamed up this crazy scheme has received multi-million bonus(es), bought their Porsches and probably don't work at the bank right now.

[SandyDown]

Sandy, if I am successful I certainly would not open subsidiary in Russia - in fact not having to do any business there is 95% of success for me personally.



Let's suppose I have a 100% owned subsidiary in USA. This will be separate legal entity subject to their own laws etc. Let's say that company is also successful and they have got X dollars on their bank accounts. Do you really think I would be pulling this money out of their account every night to use here in order to make some money? Not at all. I'd fire anyone who would seriously suggets that to happen. You know it's almost like take money from your company account and putting them into personal to make interest rate profit, then return money back.

It was very bad idea. It was totally insane not to put end to it once big turmoil started - if I was in Lehmans (UK) in position to put an end to it before Lehmans (US) gone bust I'd certainly do it. If they stopped me from doing it I'd certainly resign publicly and at least this would exonerate me from being called a complete retard that those guys are.

Ironically (I have no doubt about it) the person(s) who dreamed up this crazy scheme has received multi-million bonus(es), bought their Porsches and probably don't work at the bank right now.

sorry I couldn't be bothered to read what you said above... can't stop yawning.

[SandyDown]

also consider shareholder's faith in your company when making any decision - remember the aim of any business that large is shareholer's faith in them, its not actually the $$$ profit value!!