Financial News

[kapkomet]

I'm as pessimistic as anyone about the long-term prospects since the stimulus was too small, but saying "oh it's just a surge in temporary hiring" is moronic. Temporary hiring increases tend to presage long-term hiring at the end of a recession because companies don't want to commit to long-term hiring until they're certain the recession is ending.

I understand that. Probably better then you... (no slight intended). But, for the media to be orgasming over these numbers and everyone talking about "how it's all ok now" is bulls***.

 

The pure NUMBERS (not percentages) do not suggest that permanent hiring is taking place, and when that turns around, then I'll agree with the sentiment that things are turning around.

 

I had a pretty long talk with a recruiter who's a good friend of mine - they are starting to see an uptick in positions to be filled as well. They aren't seeing the number of positions actually being filled yet, though - just the feelers. That part is encouraging - but my larger point is it's still a train wreck out there. There's a long way to go before we see real employment turn around and unless some things change drastically, the numbers are not going to improve.

[NorthSideSox72]

lol too bad 100% of the dollars were US tax payer funded. it was about US 'green jobs' government money being spent.

We are being passed up. It bothers the s*** out of me.

 

[Balta1701]

 

That plate belongs to Morgan Stanley Vice-Chairman Rob Kindler.

[mr_genius]

 

That plate belongs to Morgan Stanley Vice-Chairman Rob Kindler.

 

i hope that is real

[StrangeSox]

I'm as pessimistic as anyone about the long-term prospects since the stimulus was too small, but saying "oh it's just a surge in temporary hiring" is moronic. Temporary hiring increases tend to presage long-term hiring at the end of a recession because companies don't want to commit to long-term hiring until they're certain the recession is ending.

 

Exactly. I'm currently considered a "temp" hire on a 6 month contract. Along with about 50 other people at a company that had 30 employees a year ago. They fully expect to be able to keep most/ all of us on in the future.

[StrangeSox]

I understand that. Probably better then you... (no slight intended). But, for the media to be orgasming over these numbers and everyone talking about "how it's all ok now" is bulls***.

 

The pure NUMBERS (not percentages) do not suggest that permanent hiring is taking place, and when that turns around, then I'll agree with the sentiment that things are turning around.

 

I had a pretty long talk with a recruiter who's a good friend of mine - they are starting to see an uptick in positions to be filled as well. They aren't seeing the number of positions actually being filled yet, though - just the feelers. That part is encouraging - but my larger point is it's still a train wreck out there. There's a long way to go before we see real employment turn around and unless some things change drastically, the numbers are not going to improve.

 

But it is less of a train wreck than it was in the summer or spring. It is still bad but it is trending in the right direction.

[3E8]

everyone talking about "how it's all ok now" is bulls***.

Everyone is saying the economy is all ok now?

[NorthSideSox72]

Everyone is saying the economy is all ok now?

as far as I can see, no one is saying that. Not sure where that came from.

 

[kapkomet]

as far as I can see, no one is saying that. Not sure where that came from.

The main stream media orgasming over the numbers being "so much better!!!!!!" droolz!

 

[StrangeSox]

They are so much better, though.

 

Being $100,000 in debt is better than being $1,000,000 in debt, even if you've still got a lot of debt.

Edited December 6, 2009 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

The main stream media orgasming over the numbers being "so much better!!!!!!" droolz!

I really have not seen anything of the sort. I suppose it depends where you get your financial news, and what you call the "Mainstream Media". For financial news, usually for me its a combination of WSJ, Crain's, CNN-FN and Yahoo Finance (just a news condenser, really). But I have seen a pretty consistent theme of "looks like we are finally going the right direction, but we have a long way to go".

 

 

[lostfan]

The main stream media orgasming over the numbers being "so much better!!!!!!" droolz!

Keep it in perspective, in the summer of 2008 they would do s*** like have a counter on the screen during coverage of the NYSE and asking if a full-blown collapse ala Black Tuesday was imminent. Now it's just in the other direction. That's just what they do.

[southsider2k5]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260152381...14353:b29231116

 

Fresh Pay Skirmish Erupts at AIG

 

By DEBORAH SOLOMON and SERENA NG

 

Five high-ranking executives at American International Group Inc. said last week they were prepared to quit if their compensation is cut significantly by the insurer's government overseers, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

The threat is the latest in the running fracas between AIG and the government's compensation czar, Kenneth Feinberg, who is charged with setting pay limits for top executives at companies receiving the most federal bailout money.

 

The AIG executives who notified the company they were prepared to resign include its general counsel, Anastasia Kelly, and the heads of some of its largest insurance businesses. Over the weekend, two of them changed their minds.

 

The executives are worried that their 2009 pay will be clipped, and that they will be subject to even tougher restrictions in 2010, including a prohibition against collecting so-called golden-parachute severance payments that they are currently eligible for.

 

AIG's recently hired chief executive, Robert Benmosche, threatened to quit last month amid frustrations over limitations on pay for top AIG executives. He argued that if the government wants AIG to prosper and pay back its debts, it needs to hire and keep top talent. He subsequently agreed to stay.

 

It doesn't appear that Mr. Benmosche had anything to do with last week's threatened departures, people familiar with the matter say.

 

AIG is 80% owned by the U.S. government, which has committed $182 billion in financial support to the firm. As one of the biggest recipients of government aid, AIG is subject to Mr. Feinberg's pay decisions.

 

In October, Mr. Feinberg reduced 2009 compensation for AIG's top 13 employees by 57%, including limiting most base salaries to no more than $500,000. Those 13 executives were the ones who remained of the 25 top 2009 earners at AIG, whose pay Mr. Feinberg was ordered to review. The others left before the pay review began. Mr. Feinberg is currently working on pay structures for the next 75 highest-paid AIG employees. The five senior staff members who said they may leave fall into that category.

 

 

Mr. Feinberg is considering less restrictive compensation for those 75, as well as for the top 100 earners in 2010, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Feinberg and AIG are discussing a plan under which the firm could pay individuals more than $500,000 as long as it can show "good cause" for going higher.

 

Some Treasury Department and Federal Reserve officials have urged Mr. Feinberg to ease up on the cuts.

 

The five senior AIG executives indicated on Dec. 1, in written notices, that they're prepared to leave by year-end, say the people familiar with the matter. They are trying to preserve their ability to collect severance payments, these people say.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260152381...14353:b29231116

Eh, go ahead. Quit. I don't personally believe this garbage about there supposedly not being quality executive candidates available who can do these jobs. I think there are plenty. And in fact, having new blood is probably better for the company than the same old crap. Best thing for them is to find people, internal or external, who are willing to be part of rebuilding a company. I have zero doubt you could find some very smart, very capable people willing to do that.

 

[Cknolls]

Six more banks fail Friday, bringing total to 130.

 

 

The jobs report showed an expanding service sector, the ISM did not. Friday's employment report showed that the Sevice Sector added 58,00 jobs. This does not jive with the Nonmfg ISM data released last Thursday. Nonmfg ISM was expected to show a reading of 51, but came in at 48.7 reflecting a contraction in the Service Sector. The jobs component came in at 41.6 suggesting job losses. This is why I'm still negative.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Cknolls

[lostfan]

If I have my way, I'll be adding some jobs to the service sector

[southsider2k5]

Eh, go ahead. Quit. I don't personally believe this garbage about there supposedly not being quality executive candidates available who can do these jobs. I think there are plenty. And in fact, having new blood is probably better for the company than the same old crap. Best thing for them is to find people, internal or external, who are willing to be part of rebuilding a company. I have zero doubt you could find some very smart, very capable people willing to do that.

 

How many executives do you think could handle this job, seriously? And oh yeah, they have to be willing to work for $500,000 a year and very little bonus incentive. Anyone in their right mind is going to find employment somewhere they can make more money for themselves by multiples of total dollars. We are talking 10 X's or way more in many cases. You are seeing the exactly flight of quality that was warned about before.

[BigSqwert]

How many executives do you think could handle this job, seriously? And oh yeah, they have to be willing to work for $500,000 a year and very little bonus incentive. Anyone in their right mind is going to find employment somewhere they can make more money for themselves by multiples of total dollars. We are talking 10 X's or way more in many cases. You are seeing the exactly flight of quality that was warned about before.

If $500K isn't enough incentive to do a good job then you won't find many tears streaming down my face for these people. Talk about greed.

[southsider2k5]

If $500K isn't enough incentive to do a good job then you won't find many tears streaming down my face for these people. Talk about greed.

 

Its all perspective.

[lostfan]

How many executives do you think could handle this job, seriously? And oh yeah, they have to be willing to work for $500,000 a year and very little bonus incentive. Anyone in their right mind is going to find employment somewhere they can make more money for themselves by multiples of total dollars. We are talking 10 X's or way more in many cases. You are seeing the exactly flight of quality that was warned about before.

High-ranking government employees probably only make about 190k (give or take a couple dozen) and work just as hard if not harder. 14 hour days, etc.

[southsider2k5]

High-ranking government employees probably only make about 190k (give or take a couple dozen) and work just as hard if not harder. 14 hour days, etc.

 

There are plenty of people who work just as hard for minimum wage. Should we cut the governmental employee salaries too?

[NorthSideSox72]

How many executives do you think could handle this job, seriously? And oh yeah, they have to be willing to work for $500,000 a year and very little bonus incentive. Anyone in their right mind is going to find employment somewhere they can make more money for themselves by multiples of total dollars. We are talking 10 X's or way more in many cases. You are seeing the exactly flight of quality that was warned about before.

Quite a few, actually. Look at any large organization - for every level of executive, there are 10 in the next level down for each one in that level, who would LOVE to do the job. And those people didn't get to that next tier by being slouches either. They are all qualified, and some would do a good job. There is no magic executive thing here. They all started somewhere else, and moved up. So really, a handful of companies, can't find new executives for $500k a year and an ENORMOUS resume boost for being part of repairing a company and having a C-level title? That's ridiculous.

 

Now, I will certainly say that I wish they had made caveats on the executive compensation restrictions with TARP firms, that allowed for larger payouts much later that were directly performance-related (i.e. stock grants or options). But that isn't really huge thing to me either way.

 

Also, if your firm did this horribly, you SHOULD be looking for new blood, not recycled executives.

 

[southsider2k5]

Quite a few, actually. Look at any large organization - for every level of executive, there are 10 in the next level down for each one in that level, who would LOVE to do the job. And those people didn't get to that next tier by being slouches either. They are all qualified, and some would do a good job. There is no magic executive thing here. They all started somewhere else, and moved up. So really, a handful of companies, can't find new executives for $500k a year and an ENORMOUS resume boost for being part of repairing a company and having a C-level title? That's ridiculous.

 

Now, I will certainly say that I wish they had made caveats on the executive compensation restrictions with TARP firms, that allowed for larger payouts much later that were directly performance-related (i.e. stock grants or options). But that isn't really huge thing to me either way.

 

Also, if your firm did this horribly, you SHOULD be looking for new blood, not recycled executives.

 

With the specialized knowledge of this specific field? I don't buy it for a second.

[lostfan]

There are plenty of people who work just as hard for minimum wage. Should we cut the governmental employee salaries too?

You completely missed my point. Is the government lacking in specialized skills with demanding hours because they don't pay truckloads of bonuses?

[NorthSideSox72]

With the specialized knowledge of this specific field? I don't buy it for a second.

I buy it all day. You really think, if you work your way down the org chart, at a large financial firm, that there is some ginormous drop off from C-level to Senior VP level? Or from CEO to ther C-level? Or from SVP to VP/JVP? No way. They all moved up the chain at some point. Its not a giant step after level ground, its small steps at each level. In fact, I'd say the transition we are talking about for, say, an SVP to a C-level job, internal to a firm, is usually going to be faster, than hiring a similar C-level guy from elsewhere.