Reply to: Fury at $2.5bn Lehman bonus

[DiscoStu]

Something about an AtW cut and paste post, with the bold and the comments (Seriously, no one gives a toss on reading your commentary), that turns a topical and interesting subject and makes it incredibly dull.

Give it a rest, go out and feed the squirrels or something ffs.

[BrilloPad]

Actually it was just before, on the Monday. This is a bank, KFW, of which 100% is basically paid for / owned by the taxpayer who will have to stump up the bill. The directors have been suspended and what got me, a non-executive director knew what was happening with Lehman yet the banks director of risk management didn't, what a complete knobhead and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a bank again.

But the banks director of risk management made sure that all the paperwork was in order - all 147 forms completed in triplicate! How can he/she be held responsible?

[darmstadt]

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.

Actually it was just before, on the Monday. This is a bank, KFW, of which 100% is basically paid for / owned by the taxpayer who will have to stump up the bill. The directors have been suspended and what got me, a non-executive director knew what was happening with Lehman yet the banks director of risk management didn't, what a complete knobhead and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a bank again.

[snaw]

Something about an AtW cut and paste post, with the bold and the comments (Seriously, no one gives a toss on reading your commentary), that turns a topical and interesting subject and makes it incredibly dull.

Give it a rest, go out and feed the squirrels or something ffs.

[Incognito]

Looks like you got your wish atw.

No more investment banks.

[ace00]

Looks like you got your wish atw.

No more investment banks.

[AtW]

Sorry but you really really don't know what you are talking about

Shareholders can't make executive decisions - this is the priviledge of the executive team. Shareholders can use their votes to elect the team, however they can't (unless they are on the executive team) make such decisions.

It was legal duty of the people who actually run the bank to oppose crazy ideas that may have been suggested by the shareholders, because it would be the executive team who'd be liable for the decisions they have to make.

There will be a lot of lawsuits related to LB case - it is bigger case than Enron and it seems that Enron were just amateurs.

---

It is obvious Sandy that you can't stand up to your boss if that's necessary. Now where is my tea?

[SandyDown]

Shareholders are not making decisions - executive management (who in some cases might also be shareholders) does. It is them who would go to jail for such decisions rather than shareholders who only risk their capital.

I say WTF????

Sorry but you really really don't know what you are talking about... I may not be able to make the decision, my boss does, but I can easily apply some influence ...

[AtW]

sorry AtW, I got work to do

Good girl. I'll have a tea with milk but without sugar and Po-210.

[AtW]

also consider shareholder's faith in your company when making any decision

Shareholders are not making decisions - executive management (who in some cases might also be shareholders) does. It is them who would go to jail for such decisions rather than shareholders who only risk their capital.

As I said - if I was running Lehman (UK) I would not have allowed this systemic risk to occur, certainly not in the period of market turbulence - at the very least they should have written in contract that such money infusion stops in event of markets being unsettled or any notion of main bank being bankrupt or in troubles. That's sensible bank management that clearly was lacking in the City. No doubt all they gave a tulip about is the money they make overnight, probably not a lot but it was "free" money innit?

[SandyDown]

That's not very nice of you. If you engage in a discussion you should have at least some decency to read what your opponents say and then try argue sensibly about it. You have a very low discussion culture - that's what got you on my ignore list in the first place.

sorry AtW, I got work to do

[AtW]

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

That's not very nice of you. If you engage in a discussion you should have at least some decency to read what your opponents say and then try argue sensibly about it. You have a very low discussion culture - that's what got you on my ignore list in the first place.

[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!!

[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.

[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.