Why do some folks whine about the bankers whilst lavishing their sports heroes?

From what I have seen thus far, being completely unfamiliar with SEC filings more than qualifies someone to share their ignorant opinions about how Executives are compensated.

The difference between your example and mine is that I don't pretend to know anything about IT. I only wish people shared the same sentiment about the financial industry.

 

I've also never heard of a "two big to fail" athlete/one who receives bailouts from the federal government

 

So you respond to my question by not answering it, and are suddenly surprised that NOW accounts pay fraction on their deposits.

Okay...

All accounts pays the same interest in the US.

Sounds like someone could use lessons in balancing their chequebook.

If you really have to ask, then you are really not familiar with how the banking system works.

Membership fees are for specific services, such as accounting provisions, interest for overdrafts and charges for exceeding particular overdraft transactions, which can be the difference between your occurring large fees on your checking account and having your transactions run smoothly.

Speaking of which, you may not understand, but it does actually cost money to occur overdrafts (which can occur in many different ways). It cost for the banks to process them (because they now have to borrow you money) and it cost you to run them (because you didn't have enough money available). Also, overdraft protects you from running bounced cheque at the retailer. Bounced checks will give you a fee for Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) and an addition fee (Returned Cheque) from the retailer.

So bounced cheques are really a big deal, as far overdrafts.

I don't think it is worth the time to explain what a derivative is...

So do you think the world is better off with your level of financial illiteracy or worse? Because clearly you don't seem to think its worthwhile to put a ball through a hoop for a living but not understand any basics of balancing a chequebook, overdrafts, or why bounced cheques are a big deal.

 

Its good to know that no one will ever question how much money I make relative to the 99%, so long as I can score a touchdown or make a free throw.

Ah, equality that all that...

 

I'm sure someone would have loved to answer your question, but couldn't hear you over your special pleading fallacy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Give it time.

 

See study from Stanford Business Center above. Will give you a clue

 

It only gives me a clue that you don't understand a thing that you are trying to research. I'd explain it to you if I honestly thought you could understand it...

 

I think you should have spent a little bit more time with your English professor.

 

Cause sports and movie stars, while high profile, represent a very small percentage of the wealthy. Most of the wealthy are either inherited or they are business executives, particularly those working in financial services.Movie and sports stars are also valuable to society. They bring happiness to millions, if not billions of people world-wide. What do finance executives bring to society? not much. They essentially use financial tricks to suck money from the economy into their own pockets, while destabilizing the market. The economy would actually be much better off if many of them didn't exist.

 

Oh give it a try, I am sure you are enough to explain it to all us imbeciles. I mean if you can spend all your life reading corporate reports I am sure you can find a minute or two.

 

As I have already said before, CEO compensation is extremely volatile. Very few executives (if any at all) are lucky enough to have a performance or track record where their income increases steadily year after year, but a vast majority of executives do not have that type of return. Case in point, Lisa A Hook, the Chief Executive president and chief executive of Neustar went from making $3,936,866 in 2011, to $7,226,305 in 2012 to $4,524,400 in 2013. Thats an 85% increase in one year to a 37% drop in another.

A very small amount of Hook's compensation was in the form of a base salary. The rest was attributed to stock/option rewards, which were based on a number of factors.

1. $3.1 million dollars was made from their performance-vested restricted stock unit (PVRSU). Executives collect these rewards based on a number of factors, which include individual and Company performance, position and level of responsibility, market data, and the recommendations of Neustar's CEO, in determining each executive’s salary, performance-based cash award, equity awards and other compensation.
2. $682,500 dollars was made from the Non-Equity Incentive Compensation Plan. These are annual cash incentives given by the company's Annual Incentive Plan (AIP). This is based on the company's Company’s Return on Net Asset (RONA) performance, which is defined in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis."
3. $15,300 was made from company contributions to Hook's individual 401K account.

All together with her base salary, this made up her compensation of $4,524,400 in 2013. Simply put, only 15% to 27% was actually made up of a salary. The rest was completely based upon incentives and performance based returns.

It is essentially foolish to compare the compensation of an executive to an average employee, based on these circumstances. If any employee of any particular company had their income drop 37% in one year, there would be calls for labour strikes and sabotage of that particular company. Only from the outside looking in does this actually look simply, and that was just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to determining executive compensation.

 

Well, if people were blasting bankers purely because they were rich, I guess you'd have a point, but bankers can do things that affect you and me that football players cannot, which is where most of the criticism lies.

For instance if Peyton Manning throws an interception, I don't have to bribe the referee to "bail him out".

Also if Peyton Manning fumbles, my house doesn't devalue by 30%, etc, etc, I think you get the point, but if not, I have lots more of these.

 

This is an interesting example. While it is correct that 15-27% of her compensation is base salary it is not demonstrated how much of the rest is actually based on objective performance measures. Her compensation for 2014 should be interesting since it appears that that the company is in trouble at least as reflected in the stock price.

 

Of course it is, that's so obvious there's not even asking. When we go deep in common people's hipocrisy we can find outanding errors like buying the albums of a spoiled pop star who behaves like a monkey, but being critical about evil managers who steal their money. Well if you praise dikk heads you should praise both, or none, choose what to do or proceed on in your hypocrital mediocrity.

 

Majority of the compensation that Lisa Hook has made within that given year was based on target performance. If Hook reached peach performance as Chief Executive, she would have earned $4,692,919 awards