Hi Everyone:
Before I begin with today's topic I have to correct a statement I made last week. After posting last week's blog, I found out that Bank of America (BOA) will be paying out bonuses that are in the tens of millions of dollars. I sincerely apologize for the mistake. I do try to be a accurate as possible. But what really gets my blood boiling is that BOA will be paying out those bonuses even though they lost approximately one billion dollars in total as a company and also have not fully repaid the bailout money that they received from all of us taxpayers.
That brings me to today's topic. Ask yourself this question, does it make any sense for a company to pay out bonuses when that company (as a whole), lost a lot of money, i.e.: one billion dollars? If you have any common sense, your answer should be a definitive NO!
My business experience has included working for a couple of very large Fortune 100 companies, with tens of thousands of employees world wide. My business experience also includes working for some small and start up ventures with as few as 130 employees. Most of the companies did have something in common which was: bonuses were part of the compensation package. Another commonality of most of the companies that I worked for was that no bonuses were paid out if the company as a whole lost any money. That meant that bonuses were only paid out when the company as a whole turned a profit for the year. In my multiple location companies, the next step was that the regional area (as a whole) also had to be profitable. Then and only then would a bonus be paid out. Now in a regional area that was composed of multiple locations, there were some individual locations that fell short of their profitability goals and even though the company as a whole was profitable and their region as a whole was profitable, if their individual location lost money, that location(s) was/were ineligible for any bonuses, period. That formula made sense to everyone involved in the bonus plan. The formula also made good business sense.
So why does Bank of America think it is okay to pay out almost $30 million dollars? Let's recap:
1) The BOA company as a whole lost almost 1 billion dollars, so no bonuses should be paid out!
2) BOA has not fully repaid the bailout money it so desperately needed and received, so no bonuses should be paid out!
3) In essence, BOA is paying out the bonuses with some part (who knows how much) of the bailout money, so no bonuses should be paid out!
It is painfully obvious that BOA does not use any common sense. Again, as I said last week, we should all be mad as hell and tell them we are not going to take it anymore.
Good common sense makes good business sense and which makes more cents.
Til next week
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
They Are At It Again!
Hi Everyone:
Something is about to happen that should make all of us yell out our windows that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore! What I am talking about is that the big banks are about to dole out 140 billion dollars in bonuses. WHAT!!!!!! Yes! JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo are about to do just that. Bank of America will not be joining that group due to the fact that they lost a billion dollars. But the other 3 have just made the most money in their history and therefore feel it necessary to pay out huge bonuses.
Let's look at their recent history. Last year these same big 3 banks paid out 130 billion dollars in bonuses. Lest we forget that it was these same banks that thought it was a good idea to sell sub-prime mortgages which broke the camels back and pushed us into the "Great Recession". The same employees that pushed and sold the sub-prime mortgages were the ones who were rewarded with huge bonuses because they made an obscene amount of money for their employers. But wait, then the mortgagees then started to default on their loans and these banks didn't have enough reserves to cover the defaults. Then what happened? They asked for and received bailout money that was in the billions and billions of dollars. Where did all of that bailout money come from? The U.S. government of course, which we all know is made up of all of the hard working tax payers in this country.
Everyone in this country should be extremely outraged. Why? Well it seems that these banks have not fully paid back their bailout loans yet. They do not seem to care about reimbursing us, the tax payers first. What these banks seem to care about is to pay these outrageous bonuses to keep their so-called top performing employees. Top performing employees? These are the same employees who created the idea and then sold the sub-prime mortgages which led to the, (had to be anticipated) loan defaults, which led to our "Great Recession" which then ultimately led to them receiving the bailout money. These are their best employees? You have got to be kidding to me!
These banks have no right, what so ever, to pay out bonuses with our money without paying us back first. How dare they!!!!!!! The very sad and unfortunate part of this continuing saga is that these banks didn't make their most recent obscene profits from doing what banks used to do best and that was making loans. These banks, even with all of the bailout money they received, didn't make credit more available. They did the complete opposite, by making credit less available. First they used the bailout money to shore up their bottom lines and then they made all of these profits by doing anything but giving out more loans. They invested in risking ventures that happened to turn profitable. Good for them, bad for us. PAY US BACK OUR MONEY FIRST YOU SHYSTERS!
Now since they have no intentions of paying back the bailout money first, I have an idea that we should all consider..................... There are thousands of small town banks and who knows how many small investment firms in this country that did not sell sub-prime mortgages and are consequently in great financial shape. Why don't we all take our money out of the big banks and invest it in the small town banks and financially solvent investment firms? This would send a message to the big banks that they will understand and also tell them that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore.
Common sense rules and greedy banks don't make any sense.
Til next week.
Something is about to happen that should make all of us yell out our windows that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore! What I am talking about is that the big banks are about to dole out 140 billion dollars in bonuses. WHAT!!!!!! Yes! JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo are about to do just that. Bank of America will not be joining that group due to the fact that they lost a billion dollars. But the other 3 have just made the most money in their history and therefore feel it necessary to pay out huge bonuses.
Let's look at their recent history. Last year these same big 3 banks paid out 130 billion dollars in bonuses. Lest we forget that it was these same banks that thought it was a good idea to sell sub-prime mortgages which broke the camels back and pushed us into the "Great Recession". The same employees that pushed and sold the sub-prime mortgages were the ones who were rewarded with huge bonuses because they made an obscene amount of money for their employers. But wait, then the mortgagees then started to default on their loans and these banks didn't have enough reserves to cover the defaults. Then what happened? They asked for and received bailout money that was in the billions and billions of dollars. Where did all of that bailout money come from? The U.S. government of course, which we all know is made up of all of the hard working tax payers in this country.
Everyone in this country should be extremely outraged. Why? Well it seems that these banks have not fully paid back their bailout loans yet. They do not seem to care about reimbursing us, the tax payers first. What these banks seem to care about is to pay these outrageous bonuses to keep their so-called top performing employees. Top performing employees? These are the same employees who created the idea and then sold the sub-prime mortgages which led to the, (had to be anticipated) loan defaults, which led to our "Great Recession" which then ultimately led to them receiving the bailout money. These are their best employees? You have got to be kidding to me!
These banks have no right, what so ever, to pay out bonuses with our money without paying us back first. How dare they!!!!!!! The very sad and unfortunate part of this continuing saga is that these banks didn't make their most recent obscene profits from doing what banks used to do best and that was making loans. These banks, even with all of the bailout money they received, didn't make credit more available. They did the complete opposite, by making credit less available. First they used the bailout money to shore up their bottom lines and then they made all of these profits by doing anything but giving out more loans. They invested in risking ventures that happened to turn profitable. Good for them, bad for us. PAY US BACK OUR MONEY FIRST YOU SHYSTERS!
Now since they have no intentions of paying back the bailout money first, I have an idea that we should all consider..................... There are thousands of small town banks and who knows how many small investment firms in this country that did not sell sub-prime mortgages and are consequently in great financial shape. Why don't we all take our money out of the big banks and invest it in the small town banks and financially solvent investment firms? This would send a message to the big banks that they will understand and also tell them that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore.
Common sense rules and greedy banks don't make any sense.
Til next week.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Motorcycle Riding In CT.
Hi Everyone:
I was in Connecticut last week and I was amazed at what still goes on in this state. As I was traveling on a major highway, Route 84, numerous motorcyclists passed me. What was disconcerting to me is that one can still ride a motorcycle in Connecticut without wearing a helmet. None of the motorcyclists that passed me were wearing a helmet. The funny thing is that a few of them did have a helmet strapped down on the seat behind them. Since New York state requires wearing a helmet, they were prepared to cross the state line.
The lack of a law requiring the wearing of a helmet just doesn't make any common sense to me. A bad accident on a motorcycle is almost always worse for the driver then if they were driving a car. There is obviously no protective barrier in the front, back or sides. There are also no front or side airbags to help protect the driver. There are no seat belts. Though I'm not sure that would even be an option. So what is left to protect the driver? Besides wearing body armor, which no one would wear; wearing a helmet is about the only really protection a driver can wear.
Besides the obvious fact of a fatality due to a catastrophic head injury, non-lethal but severe head injuries can be devastating not only to the driver but also to their families and friends. Coma's are not an unusual result of severe head injuries. Even if the driver does not go into a coma, it is also not unusual for the driver to have to live the rest of their lives with: memory problems, speech problems, eyesight problems, or the loss of the use of a limb or two or all. Even after undergoing intense physical therapy and most likely occupational therapy (to relearn the regular activities of daily living), that can last for weeks and months, there are no guarantees that the person will ever be their normal self again. All of that because they chose not to wear a helmet because there was no law requiring it.
There are a lot of insurance policies that have caps as to how much the insurance will cover over a lifetime. The insurance companies call it the lifetime max. It doesn't take long to max out an insurance policy with severe head and body injuries. When that insurance runs out and they are still in need of medical care, maybe even lifetime care, they will then be covered by medicare which we all pay for via deductions from our paychecks. Then insurance costs increase and is passed on to each and every one of us.
Wearing a helmet doesn't guarantee that the wearer will escape a severe head injury, but it may minimize it. In my point of view, whether or not there is a law requiring the wearing of a helmet, it just makes common sense to wear one! The old saying goes that it is better to be safe than sorry. I'm not sure feeling the wind in your hair is worth the possible lifetime problems that can and do occur in a motorcycle accident.
Common sense rules and hair blowing in the wind looses.
Til next week.
I was in Connecticut last week and I was amazed at what still goes on in this state. As I was traveling on a major highway, Route 84, numerous motorcyclists passed me. What was disconcerting to me is that one can still ride a motorcycle in Connecticut without wearing a helmet. None of the motorcyclists that passed me were wearing a helmet. The funny thing is that a few of them did have a helmet strapped down on the seat behind them. Since New York state requires wearing a helmet, they were prepared to cross the state line.
The lack of a law requiring the wearing of a helmet just doesn't make any common sense to me. A bad accident on a motorcycle is almost always worse for the driver then if they were driving a car. There is obviously no protective barrier in the front, back or sides. There are also no front or side airbags to help protect the driver. There are no seat belts. Though I'm not sure that would even be an option. So what is left to protect the driver? Besides wearing body armor, which no one would wear; wearing a helmet is about the only really protection a driver can wear.
Besides the obvious fact of a fatality due to a catastrophic head injury, non-lethal but severe head injuries can be devastating not only to the driver but also to their families and friends. Coma's are not an unusual result of severe head injuries. Even if the driver does not go into a coma, it is also not unusual for the driver to have to live the rest of their lives with: memory problems, speech problems, eyesight problems, or the loss of the use of a limb or two or all. Even after undergoing intense physical therapy and most likely occupational therapy (to relearn the regular activities of daily living), that can last for weeks and months, there are no guarantees that the person will ever be their normal self again. All of that because they chose not to wear a helmet because there was no law requiring it.
There are a lot of insurance policies that have caps as to how much the insurance will cover over a lifetime. The insurance companies call it the lifetime max. It doesn't take long to max out an insurance policy with severe head and body injuries. When that insurance runs out and they are still in need of medical care, maybe even lifetime care, they will then be covered by medicare which we all pay for via deductions from our paychecks. Then insurance costs increase and is passed on to each and every one of us.
Wearing a helmet doesn't guarantee that the wearer will escape a severe head injury, but it may minimize it. In my point of view, whether or not there is a law requiring the wearing of a helmet, it just makes common sense to wear one! The old saying goes that it is better to be safe than sorry. I'm not sure feeling the wind in your hair is worth the possible lifetime problems that can and do occur in a motorcycle accident.
Common sense rules and hair blowing in the wind looses.
Til next week.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
H1N1 Flu Vaccine vs Common Sense
Hi Everyone:
I learned this week that a while ago, New York State passed a law that mandates all health care professionals to get the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine. Sounds like a good idea right? Well not according to a minority of health care professionals here in New York State.
It seems that there are some health care professionals that are against receiving the vaccine. They say that it is wrong to mandate it because it is against their civil liberties. They plan NOT to get the vaccine and fight having to receive it every step of the way, including filing a lawsuit. Oh you've got to be kidding me. Can these health care professionals be serious? Health care professionals are part of the first responders that care for people who are sick.
The 1918 flu epidemic that swept across the world killed millions of people. Even though this years swine flu will not be that bad, scientists are concerned that this second round of swine flu may mutate and consequently sicken and most likely, more people will die from it then last year, especially if they have other health problems i.e.: any type of lung disease. Why then don't those Health Care Professionals want to get the vaccine? Not receiving the vaccine is extremely short sighted and they are the ones who should and do know better. The bigger picture is that if the vaccine works, then it is good for the larger population so that the flu is not spread by the professionals who treat them. To me that is absolutely the only common sense approach to help stem the spread of the flu by health care professionals to others who may not be infected, including their own families and friends.
Of course there are other ways that all of us can help to stop the spread. A few of those ways are: 1) Sneeze into the crux of your elbow.
2) If you sneeze into a tissue, throw the tissue out asap and don't put it in your pocket.
3) If you are sick, stay home.
4) Wash your hands thoroughly.
5) If you touch handrails, doorknobs, handles or any other surface that other people touch, do not touch your eyes, nose or mouth. Then wash your hands as soon as you are able.
6) Never press elevator buttons with the tip of your finger, use your knuckle instead.
7) Use common sense.
I learned this week that a while ago, New York State passed a law that mandates all health care professionals to get the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine. Sounds like a good idea right? Well not according to a minority of health care professionals here in New York State.
It seems that there are some health care professionals that are against receiving the vaccine. They say that it is wrong to mandate it because it is against their civil liberties. They plan NOT to get the vaccine and fight having to receive it every step of the way, including filing a lawsuit. Oh you've got to be kidding me. Can these health care professionals be serious? Health care professionals are part of the first responders that care for people who are sick.
The 1918 flu epidemic that swept across the world killed millions of people. Even though this years swine flu will not be that bad, scientists are concerned that this second round of swine flu may mutate and consequently sicken and most likely, more people will die from it then last year, especially if they have other health problems i.e.: any type of lung disease. Why then don't those Health Care Professionals want to get the vaccine? Not receiving the vaccine is extremely short sighted and they are the ones who should and do know better. The bigger picture is that if the vaccine works, then it is good for the larger population so that the flu is not spread by the professionals who treat them. To me that is absolutely the only common sense approach to help stem the spread of the flu by health care professionals to others who may not be infected, including their own families and friends.
Of course there are other ways that all of us can help to stop the spread. A few of those ways are: 1) Sneeze into the crux of your elbow.
2) If you sneeze into a tissue, throw the tissue out asap and don't put it in your pocket.
3) If you are sick, stay home.
4) Wash your hands thoroughly.
5) If you touch handrails, doorknobs, handles or any other surface that other people touch, do not touch your eyes, nose or mouth. Then wash your hands as soon as you are able.
6) Never press elevator buttons with the tip of your finger, use your knuckle instead.
7) Use common sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)