Workers at Goldman Sachs have racked up an average $527,192 (£324,607) in salary and bonuses so far this year after the American investment bank made a $3.1 billion profit in the third quarter.

 

Average pay for staff at the group, which employs around 5,500 staff in London, is 46 per cent higher compared to last year. The news is likely further to enrage taxpayers who blame excessive risk-taking by banks for the global recession.

 

So far, over the first nine months of its financial year, Goldman Sachs has set aside $16.7 billion to compensate its 31,700-strong global workforce — a 46 per cent rise in the same period in 2008. The bank needs to top $21 billion to match the bumper bonus year of 2007.

 

In the most recent quarter, covering the three months to September 25, Goldman Sachs ring-fenced $5.3 billion for salary and bonuses, which is a rise of 84 per cent in the third quarter last year.

 

The sharp rise in pay has been revealed amid the first criminal case of the credit crunch which is continuing today.

 

Two Bear Stearns managers, Ralph Cioffi, 53, and Matt Tannin, 48, are on trial accused of securities fraud after their hedge funds imploded in 2007, signalling the start of the crisis.

 

Global governments have pledged to stamp out risk-taking by banks and yesterday Goldman Sachs was one of a number of the world's biggest banks which signed up to new rules on bonuses agreed at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh last month.

 

UK banks have already pledged to support the new rules, which will allow bonuses to be clawed back as well as the deferral of compensation for senior executives working in more risky areas over three years, with at least 50 per cent of the payment in shares or share-linked instruments.

 

David Viniar, chief financial officer of Goldman Sachs, said that the bank was considering whether to raise the proportion of its compensation paid in equity, as other banks are doing in response to pressure to tie bonuses to banks' performances.

 

"We've always paid a lot of our bonuses in stock, deferred and divesting over time, but we're looking at those programs and a decision will be made at the end of the year," he said.

 

Mr Viniar insisted that Goldman Sachs, which has come under fire for its generous compensation just months after paying back a $10 billion taxpayer loan, was aware of the difficulties that ordinary consumers faced in the tough economic environment.

 

"We're very focused on what's going on in the world, what's going on in the economic environment," he said. "But we're also focused on our franchise and being fair to our people, who we think have performed admirably through the entire crisis. That's something we're weighing up."

 

Profits for the third quarter rose from $845 million last year. Although earnings were not as high as the $3.4 billion made in the record last quarter, they were ahead of expectations.

 

Source: The Times

 

Well it didn't take these bast*rds long to start awarding obscene bonuses. The recession must be over, and everything is tickety boo, pour me some bollinger Farquar order me a new Bentley, as the old one has run out of petrol. If there are one lot of people that p*** me off worse than MP's its these mechant bankers (ryhming slang).

 

So much for the G20 getting all the banks to agree to show some restraint, we always knew they would do this, talk about deja vu!

 

These people should be taxed at 90% if they award these bonuses, otherwise we will see the same thing happen again, credit crunch 2 the sequel.

Workers at Goldman Sachs have racked up an average $527,192 (£324,607) in salary and bonuses so far this year after the American investment bank made a $3.1 billion profit in the third quarter.

 

Average pay for staff at the group, which employs around 5,500 staff in London, is 46 per cent higher compared to last year. The news is likely further to enrage taxpayers who blame excessive risk-taking by banks for the global recession.

 

So far, over the first nine months of its financial year, Goldman Sachs has set aside $16.7 billion to compensate its 31,700-strong global workforce — a 46 per cent rise in the same period in 2008. The bank needs to top $21 billion to match the bumper bonus year of 2007.

 

In the most recent quarter, covering the three months to September 25, Goldman Sachs ring-fenced $5.3 billion for salary and bonuses, which is a rise of 84 per cent in the third quarter last year.

 

The sharp rise in pay has been revealed amid the first criminal case of the credit crunch which is continuing today.

 

Two Bear Stearns managers, Ralph Cioffi, 53, and Matt Tannin, 48, are on trial accused of securities fraud after their hedge funds imploded in 2007, signalling the start of the crisis.

 

Global governments have pledged to stamp out risk-taking by banks and yesterday Goldman Sachs was one of a number of the world's biggest banks which signed up to new rules on bonuses agreed at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh last month.

 

UK banks have already pledged to support the new rules, which will allow bonuses to be clawed back as well as the deferral of compensation for senior executives working in more risky areas over three years, with at least 50 per cent of the payment in shares or share-linked instruments.

 

David Viniar, chief financial officer of Goldman Sachs, said that the bank was considering whether to raise the proportion of its compensation paid in equity, as other banks are doing in response to pressure to tie bonuses to banks' performances.

 

"We've always paid a lot of our bonuses in stock, deferred and divesting over time, but we're looking at those programs and a decision will be made at the end of the year," he said.

 

Mr Viniar insisted that Goldman Sachs, which has come under fire for its generous compensation just months after paying back a $10 billion taxpayer loan, was aware of the difficulties that ordinary consumers faced in the tough economic environment.

 

"We're very focused on what's going on in the world, what's going on in the economic environment," he said. "But we're also focused on our franchise and being fair to our people, who we think have performed admirably through the entire crisis. That's something we're weighing up."

 

Profits for the third quarter rose from $845 million last year. Although earnings were not as high as the $3.4 billion made in the record last quarter, they were ahead of expectations.

 

Source: The Times

 

Well it didn't take these bast*rds long to start awarding obscene bonuses. The recession must be over, and everything is tickety boo, pour me some bollinger Farquar order me a new Bentley, as the old one has run out of petrol. If there are one lot of people that p*** me off worse than MP's its these mechant bankers (ryhming slang).

 

So much for the G20 getting all the banks to agree to show some restraint, we always knew they would do this, talk about deja vu!

 

These people should be taxed at 90% if they award these bonuses, otherwise we will see the same thing happen again, credit crunch 2 the sequel.

 

 

I have bolded the relevant bit, they earned their company $3.1bn in 3 months why should they not be entitled to share in the success of their work ?

 

You only earn bonuses if you deliver results and they have delivered so good luck to them

 

Articles slating them are the politics of envy :manson:

 

No, they really aren't - look how FANTASTICALLY these firms were doing off of sub-prime mortgages! :manson: Bonuses should always be linked to long-term, sustainable success...

 

Were Goldman & Sachs bailed out or not? :unsure:

No, they really aren't - look how FANTASTICALLY these firms were doing off of sub-prime mortgages! :manson: Bonuses should always be linked to long-term, sustainable success...

 

Were Goldman & Sachs bailed out or not? :unsure:

 

Yeah $10bn loan that has been completely paid back now

 

I still don't see the big deal, a footballer gets bigger bonuses than this if his side makes the CL or wins the Premiership and there is no fuss about that but a banker earns his company billions he is not allowed to share in its success :rolleyes:

 

 

Yeah $10bn loan that has been completely paid back now

 

I still don't see the big deal, a footballer gets bigger bonuses than this if his side makes the CL or wins the Premiership and there is no fuss about that but a banker earns his company billions he is not allowed to share in its success :rolleyes:

Awful analogy. I appreciate it's not quite the same, but if a footballer makes an epic f***-up he doesn't destroy the economy...

Awful analogy. I appreciate it's not quite the same, but if a footballer makes an epic f***-up he doesn't destroy the economy...

 

True but 99% of bankers are hard working people that do a lot of good and create a lot of wealth especially for pension funds for example, there is the odd bad apple but these are few and far between, bash a banker is a trendy bandwagon atm and it is just stupid IMHO

 

Brian said "The recession must be over, and everything is tickety boo, pour me some bollinger Farquar order me a new Bentley, as the old one has run out of petrol. If there are one lot of people that p*** me off worse than MP's"

 

He would not say the same about Wayne Rooney that is the point I am making, the way it was phrased was pure vicious bile and jealousy

 

Want to see a real bonus ? Steve Jobs is apparently in line for a bonus of $62.5m this year

Edited October 16, 200915 yr by B.A Baracus

I agree that bash-a-banker is just mindless reactionary bile (ditto bash-a-politician), but quite frankly they have absolutely no sense of PR if they're going about these bonuses a. so quickly, and b. without agreeing to making bonuses long-term success linked...

 

I have no problem with the concept of bonuses in and of themselves, but they definitely need to make sure that such bonuses are linked explicitly to long-term success rather than short-term successes, otherwise you just encourage pursuit of unsustainable growth...

I agree that bash-a-banker is just mindless reactionary bile (ditto bash-a-politician), but quite frankly they have absolutely no sense of PR if they're going about these bonuses a. so quickly, and b. without agreeing to making bonuses long-term success linked...

 

I have no problem with the concept of bonuses in and of themselves, but they definitely need to make sure that such bonuses are linked explicitly to long-term success rather than short-term successes, otherwise you just encourage pursuit of unsustainable growth...

 

I'm sorry, but frankly, bankers deserve a bloody good bashing after what they've done to us.... It's all very well to just say "oh, it's a few rotten apples....." yadda yadda... But the so-called "good apples" weren't exactly blowing any whistles or attempting to stop these dangerous, unsustainable practices which ended up almost as "Great Depression version 2.0"... The ONLY reason we avoided that catastrophe was by Govts using taxpayers money to bail these c/unts out.....

 

And now, they have the nerve to start giving themselves these massive bonuses again, presumably for taking similar sorts of risks which got us all in this mess to begin with... I'm sorry, but you dont make that sort of profit unless you're taking an almighty gamble.... These people are clearly learning nothing from the mistakes that were made, and now this "bonus" is just a smack in the teeth for the rest of us who are continuing to suffer the effects of the mistakes they made in the first place... Talk about pouring salt into the wounds.... <_<

 

I'm totally with Brian, these "bonuses" should be taxed at 90%, simple as..... -_-

 

He would not say the same about Wayne Rooney that is the point I am making, the way it was phrased was pure vicious bile and jealousy

 

Wayne Rooney didn't cause the collapse of the financial markets you prat..... The likes of Fred fukkin' Goodwin did..... -_-

 

People in their foolishness CHOOSE to pay vastly inflated prices at football games or buying replica kits or buy a Sky Sports subscription, none of us exactly had a choice when it came to bailing out the banks did we.....? An absolutely FATUOUS comparison..... -_-

 

im really in two minds about this.

 

yes the bonuses are obscene, but in a free market economy if these people make money why shouldnt they get a share? ... but im not sure how to punish them if and when it all goes pear shaped. the problem as i see it is.... someones got to do the job and no one can be regarded as 100% secure/competant in ANY job. so sometimes they will get things wrong..

I'm sorry, but frankly, bankers deserve a bloody good bashing after what they've done to us.... It's all very well to just say "oh, it's a few rotten apples....." yadda yadda... But the so-called "good apples" weren't exactly blowing any whistles or attempting to stop these dangerous, unsustainable practices which ended up almost as "Great Depression version 2.0"... The ONLY reason we avoided that catastrophe was by Govts using taxpayers money to bail these c/unts out.....

 

And now, they have the nerve to start giving themselves these massive bonuses again, presumably for taking similar sorts of risks which got us all in this mess to begin with... I'm sorry, but you dont make that sort of profit unless you're taking an almighty gamble.... These people are clearly learning nothing from the mistakes that were made, and now this "bonus" is just a smack in the teeth for the rest of us who are continuing to suffer the effects of the mistakes they made in the first place... Talk about pouring salt into the wounds.... <_<

 

I'm totally with Brian, these "bonuses" should be taxed at 90%, simple as..... -_-

 

What is needed is th FSA to be given more teeth to massively fine or withdraw licences o companies breaking the rules but Goldman Sachs are not breaking the rules far as I am aware so until they are then I don't see why their employees should be hit in the pocket by being denied bonuses they have legally earned

What is needed is th FSA to be given more teeth to massively fine or withdraw licences o companies breaking the rules but Goldman Sachs are not breaking the rules far as I am aware so until they are then I don't see why their employees should be hit in the pocket by being denied bonuses they have legally earned

 

Yeah, right... Like I have any faith in the FSA..... <_< Broon should give all these powers back to the Bank Of England... Because, as far as I could make out, it was actually people within the BoE who were about the only ones to see this sh"t on the horizon......

 

These people are not exactly "poor" Craig.... Which is why, if they DO get bonuses, they should be subject to punitive Emergency Taxation until the country is back on its feet.... Their sector caused the problem, so in my view, it's right they should share some of the pain that everyone else is going through....

 

Yeah, right... Like I have any faith in the FSA..... <_< Broon should give all these powers back to the Bank Of England... Because, as far as I could make out, it was actually people within the BoE who were about the only ones to see this sh"t on the horizon......

 

These people are not exactly "poor" Craig.... Which is why, if they DO get bonuses, they should be subject to punitive Emergency Taxation until the country is back on its feet.... Their sector caused the problem, so in my view, it's right they should share some of the pain that everyone else is going through....

 

The country IS back on its feet

 

The recession/credit crunch is over, the stock market is booming, the housing market is strongest it has been in around 3 years, recruitment companies are reporting a big increase in vacancies, restaurants in my area are packed again, if I go for a curry on a Friday/Saturday now I have to book in advance whereas a year ago I could just turn up and the place was 1/2 empty, I am struggling to find parking spaces again in my local shopping area car park so the economy is strong again, some areas like manufacturing are lagging behind but the recession/credit crunch is over

The country IS back on its feet

 

The recession/credit crunch is over, the stock market is booming, the housing market is strongest it has been in around 3 years, recruitment companies are reporting a big increase in vacancies, restaurants in my area are packed again, if I go for a curry on a Friday/Saturday now I have to book in advance whereas a year ago I could just turn up and the place was 1/2 empty, I am struggling to find parking spaces again in my local shopping area car park so the economy is strong again, some areas like manufacturing are lagging behind but the recession/credit crunch is over

 

Is the MASSIVE DEBT over as well then....? :rolleyes:

 

I dont buy that it's over, I really dont..... There'll just be something else around the corner in a few years time because Capitalists like Goodwin, Applegarth and others simply dont learn their lessons.... And I dunno where the hell you live, but I'm still seeing half-empty restaurants around my area..... Several gigs I've been to in the past six months have been VERY poorly attended in comparison to how these particular bands normally would attract crowds at past gigs.... So, frankly mate, it's all a bit subjective if you ask me....

 

Is the MASSIVE DEBT over as well then....? :rolleyes:

 

I dont buy that it's over, I really dont..... There'll just be something else around the corner in a few years time because Capitalists like Goodwin, Applegarth and others simply dont learn their lessons.... And I dunno where the hell you live, but I'm still seeing half-empty restaurants around my area..... Several gigs I've been to in the past six months have been VERY poorly attended in comparison to how these particular bands normally would attract crowds at past gigs.... So, frankly mate, it's all a bit subjective if you ask me....

 

i agree with craig... recession? what recession?... it passed me by with little or no effect. it wasnt half as bad as what the doom mongers were predicting a year ago... if anything was subjective, it was their ott predictions of the cc. oh yeah, wasnt YOU one who swallowed the doom mongers rhetoric? :lol: im sure you posted 'its the worst recession since the thirties' or summut like that! :rofl:

 

yes we have a debt, so? thats the price we paid for our government SUCCESSFULLY steering us clear of the worse effects of the cc.... i dont see any praises for this anywhere here <_< , oh no wait, its not fashionable to actually praise browns mob is it.... even IF they were partly culpable in the first place.

i agree with craig... recession? what recession?... it passed me by with little or no effect. it wasnt half as bad as what the doom mongers were predicting a year ago... if anything was subjective, it was their ott predictions of the cc. oh yeah, wasnt YOU one who swallowed the doom mongers rhetoric? :lol: im sure you posted 'its the worst recession since the thirties' or summut like that! :rofl:

 

yes we have a debt, so? thats the price we paid for our government SUCCESSFULLY steering us clear of the worse effects of the cc.... i dont see any praises for this anywhere here <_< , oh no wait, its not fashionable to actually praise browns mob is it.... even IF they were partly culpable in the first place.

 

A bit more than "partly"... And, I'm sorry, but why should anyone be praised for sorting out mistakes that THEY made in the first place.... "Yeah, cheers Gordon, you sat by and did absolutely nothing while the city fatcats were coining it in with massive bonuses, which got us all up the Gary Glitter, even though you had the likes of Danny Blanchflower in the Bank of England warning you that perhaps Collatoral Debt Obligations and sub-prime mortgages were NOT really a good idea. The Credit Crunch then put millions out of work both here and in the US, messed up the economy, put small businesses on the rack, gave us the worst financial disaster since the war, and the only way you got us out of it was to give the Banks BILLIONS of Tax-payers money, and then to make it all worse, you go claw back the 10p tax rate which adversely affects the lowest paid workers in the country..... You're a fukkin' STAR Gordon, great job....." <_<

 

You think just because YOU managed to get by relatively unscathed by it, then that means is somehow didn't happen... YOU FOOL..... And a rather selfish fool at that, I may not have been all that adversely affected by the CC, but I sure as Hell saw the effects it had on several of my friends, especially those who run small small businesses.... LOADS of people lost their livelihoods over this sh"t in case that passed you by.... God, you're talking almost as much cr@p in this post as Crazy Chris..... -_-

A bit more than "partly"... And, I'm sorry, but why should anyone be praised for sorting out mistakes that THEY made in the first place.... "Yeah, cheers Gordon, you sat by and did absolutely nothing while the city fatcats were coining it in with massive bonuses, which got us all up the Gary Glitter, even though you had the likes of Danny Blanchflower in the Bank of England warning you that perhaps Collatoral Debt Obligations and sub-prime mortgages were NOT really a good idea. The Credit Crunch then put millions out of work both here and in the US, messed up the economy, put small businesses on the rack, gave us the worst financial disaster since the war, and the only way you got us out of it was to give the Banks BILLIONS of Tax-payers money, and then to make it all worse, you go claw back the 10p tax rate which adversely affects the lowest paid workers in the country..... You're a fukkin' STAR Gordon, great job....." <_<

 

You think just because YOU managed to get by relatively unscathed by it, then that means is somehow didn't happen... YOU FOOL..... And a rather selfish fool at that, I may not have been all that adversely affected by the CC, but I sure as Hell saw the effects it had on several of my friends, especially those who run small small businesses.... LOADS of people lost their livelihoods over this sh"t in case that passed you by.... God, you're talking almost as much cr@p in this post as Crazy Chris..... -_-

 

..... i know very few people IF ANY who have been affected by the cc that much, no one i know has been made redundant or has had a loss of earnings.... so from my perspective, i see alot of anti government, anti capitalist hyperbole coming from the usual quarters... <_<

 

yes i know there was a minor recession, but its effects were no where near as bad as the previous recessions ive lived through and imho the government appears to have done a damn good job in limiting its effects compared to how recessions have previously been handled.

..... i know very few people IF ANY who have been affected by the cc that much, no one i know has been made redundant or has had a loss of earnings.... so from my perspective, i see alot of anti government, anti capitalist hyperbole coming from the usual quarters... <_<

 

yes i know there was a minor recession, but its effects were no where near as bad as the previous recessions ive lived through and imho the government appears to have done a damn good job in limiting its effects compared to how recessions have previously been handled.

 

A "minor recession"...?? Are you taking Happy Pills mate...? I just cant believe you sometimes.... You absolutely SLATE Major and Co over "Black Monday", which was just a drop in the bucket compared to this sh"t, and yet have no words of criticism for Broon or Darling.... Oh, of course, maybe if it was CAMERON and OSBOURNE who fukked things up to this degree you'd sing a different tune.... :rolleyes:

 

As far as I'm concerned there are bloody good reasons for the Anti-Capitalist "hyperbole"... You simpley seem totally unaware (or just dont give a sh!t) about the evil that Capitalism causes in the world, especially in Africa and Asia.... The costs to the Chinese people, for example, of rampant Free Market Capitalism (coupled in an unholy alliance with an incredibly Oppressive State regime), has been the absolute decimation of rural communities, polluted drinking water and even worse examples of exploitation and abject poverty than ever.... Next time you go into fukkin' PRIMARK you might want to bear that in mind... <_<

 

..... i know very few people IF ANY who have been affected by the cc that much, no one i know has been made redundant or has had a loss of earnings.... so from my perspective, i see alot of anti government, anti capitalist hyperbole coming from the usual quarters... <_<

 

yes i know there was a minor recession, but its effects were no where near as bad as the previous recessions ive lived through and imho the government appears to have done a damn good job in limiting its effects compared to how recessions have previously been handled.

 

Rob, I cannot believe you are saying the credit crunch was just a blip and not as bad as previous ones. Either you live in an alternative universe or you believe the Prime Minister’s ideology that we can spend our way out of it forever without any consequences. If you or I did that we would be made bankrupt in no time at all. We all know that you cannot keep spending more than you earn for ever and ever, some day the bills must be paid. Either you stop spending or you bring in more income. It is the same with governments. Their income is taxes, these have dropped significantly in the last couple of years, as unemployment rises, less overtime worked therefore the tax take drops, at the same time unemployment benefits rises added into this is all the cash the Government spent saving the banks from going bust etc, and there is a huge amount of borrowing that has to be paid back. They cannot default on it, as we would be no better than a banana republic, the IMF would have to bail us out. This means they would set spending limits and demand cuts and massive repayments outwith the Government’s control.

 

It might not have affected you personally, or your close family & friends, and that is good for you, but you cannot say it hasn’t happened to millions of others just because you were immune. That is like a Swiss citizen saying in 1939-1945 World War ,what world war, never affected me.

 

Blair & Brown have spent all our money, they have sold all the family silver, the cupboard is bare, but the bills are still coming in. In the next few years over 10% of all Government spending will be on interest payments to pay for all the cash borrowed from other Countries. Never mind the actual repayments of the debt. That means that money is lost and cannot be spent on services, so cuts will be made to everything, health, education, defence, councils, you name It. Once again you might be lucky and no longer use education as your kids have left school, you might not require hospital treatment today, and you don’t care about defence. Well lucky you, but once again what about the millions who depend on these services. You are self employed and you cannot be made redundant like thousands of others, but what If the councils who give you contracts get their budgets slashed, they might pay you less, they might cancel your contracts, tell me that won’t affect you. Up till now councils haven’t cut any of their budgets, but believe me they will, next year and the one after and the one after that. Plus your council tax will go up, and your income tax will go up, and your national insurance will go up. Come back in 2 years time and say “ credit crunch, what credit crunch” and we will see.

 

These are the facts of fiscal life. The City knows them. The chancellor knows them. George Osborne knows them. Public spending will be cut and taxes will rise. All that is at issue is when, for how long and by how much. Certainly, the scale of the retrenchment will dwarf that of the 1990s, when policy was tightened aggressively after sterling's exit from the European exchange rate mechanism.

John Hawksworth, chief economist at PricewaterhouseCoopers, estimates that a tightening of 10% of gross domestic product (GDP) – about £150bn at today's prices – will be needed over the next decade to both rein in the deficit and compensate for the effects on the public finances of an ageing population.

 

The problems with the public finances began during the years 2003 to 2007. The economy was growing at a robust rate but fiscal policy remained lax. The Treasury had far too rosy a view of the government's tax take, and ran up a sizeable structural budget deficit.

That meant that when the financial hurricane blew in, the public finances were in poor shape.

 

But never mind you can keep wearing your rose tinted glasses and everything will be tickety boo.

 

RBS executives set for record £4bn bonus bonanza

 

Bonuses and salaries totalling nearly £4bn are to be handed out to employees of the state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) this year, it emerged last night.

 

The average worker in RBS's investment banking arm is on course to take home an average of £240,000, with the top 20 set to receive bonuses of between £1m-£5m.

 

The lavish awards for 2009 outstrip even those given in 2007 before the recession, and make a mockery of ministers' promises to clamp down on bankers' bonuses.

 

Last night, Gordon Brown, in his regular Downing Street broadcast, reiterated his call for banks to show restraint. He called for an end to "reckless banking practices" that contributed to global financial collapse last year.

 

The move means RBS is likely to clash with UK Financial Investments which oversees state-owned investments in banks. The taxpayer has a 70 per cent stake in RBS after the £20bn rescue of the bank, headed at the time by Sir Fred Goodwin.

 

Mr Brown said in his "fireside chat" podcast: "Banks must put lending to businesses and homeowners before making huge payouts to their staff." Mr Brown also promised homeowners better protection from lenders ahead of the publication tomorrow of a major report into mortgages by the Financial Services Authority.

 

Source: The Indepent

 

Surely this is not right, talk about a slap in the face to all taxpayers, this is amost a nationalised bank for crying out loud.