Goldman executives get access to restricted stock

[hue]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/28/us-goldman-stockawards-idUSTRE80R0LU20120128

(Reuters) - Top Goldman Sachs Group Inc executives received previously restricted stock awards that are now worth $47.7 million, according to regulatory filings, though the executives are still limited in selling most of their Goldman stock.

Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein, Chief Financial Officer David Viniar, Chief Operating Officer Gary Cohn and top investment banker and vice chairman John Weinberg each received 45,497 shares worth $5.1 million, based on Goldman's closing price of $111.77 on Friday.

Seven other executives each received previously awarded shares worth $2.8 million to $5 million, according to Form 4 filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Among those executives are vice chairmen Michael Evans and Michael Sherwood, as well as Goldman's legal chief, Gregory Palm, its accounting chief, Sarah Smith, and compliance chief Alan Cohen.

[xchrom]

1. ...

[CurtEastPoint]

2. This firm is a cancer and blight on the world.

[davidwparker]

17. +1

[cyberpj]

20. +1 here too.

along with 'the peoples government' that won't do anything about it.

[tawadi]

3. Infuriating

[SoapBox]

4. ...makes me SICK.

Really...I'm at a lose for words. It never ends.

[sakabatou]

5. Motherfuckers!

[sarcasmo]

6. They need to tax those parachutes at 50%. When you hit the mega millions

isn't the tax around 50%?

[AndyTiedye]

7. Restricted Options are like Long-Term Capital Gains if Held 18 Months

so they're almost tax free.

[supernova]

8. Enraging, but

how many other investment houses do the same?

[Sgent]

9. This doesn't bother me near as much as

options and higher salary.

In these cases, executives are usually given (and pay ordinary income taxes on) X shares at market price, but they cannot sell or take it with them for so many years (usually 5). If the shares go down, the executives lose real money, and have paid taxes on money they will not receive.

Its a good deal for the shareholders in theory because it aligns senior management with shareholder interests.

Now... a problem can arise if the amount given is unreasonable, but that's a different discussion.

[cstanleytech]

10. I wonder what the lowest wage is for someone who works for the Goldman Sachs though

compared to what these guys got paid.

[valerief]

12. I'm sure the contracted janitors don't make a lot. nt

[cstanleytech]

15. I'm not talking outsourced jobs like that but rather the internal ones from

office clerks and so on.

[valerief]

11. I'm certain they deserve it. They work so hard.

They're actually a blight on humankind.

[tosh]

19. It's missing something...

that blade thing.

[Hotler]

22. ....

[lonestarnot]

23. K & R!

[FromTheRight]

14. Goldman Sachs' is a big contributor

Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-20/politics/obama.goldman.donations_1_obama-campaign-presidential-campaign-federal-election-commission-figures?_s=PM OLITICS

Just figured you would want to know...

F.T.R.

[Moosepoop]

16. Two things...

One, it should be noted that the total quoted is from not just Goldman Sachs' PAC, but also from individual employees who happen to work for the company. I would hope that many regular employees who are part of the 99% would be voting Democratic in general and for Obama in particular. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Two, your link goes on to say this:

According to figures dating to 1990, Goldman Sachs' PAC and employees have consistently contributed more money to Democratic rather than Republican candidates for federal office.

In the 2008 election, three out of every four dollars contributed by Goldman Sachs went to Democrats.

So Goldman Sachs and its employees have been giving more money to Democrats in general, consistently, since at least 1990.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but could you comment on how this information fits into it?

Oh, and Welcome to DU!

[FromTheRight]

21. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

The point is that the folks at G&S have sent much more money to the Democratic party than to the Republicans. I am assuming that they feel that the Democrat's polices best represent their interests (make money). So I also suspect that the Democrats and the supporters of them had substantial influence on the regulations that govern their businesses, and the bailouts and golden parachutes.

So why would G&S be railed against here on this forum? It is clear that supporting the Democrats is supporting G&S and the fat cat - 1%ers.

Donate to Democrats > Favorable regulations > Golden parachutes, bailouts, subsidies and grants > More donations to the Democrats > Favorable Regulations > Start over

Which part of the 99% is donating to the G&S PAC? Answer = 0%

Of the 99% G&S individual employees that are donating to the Democrats, How many want to be part of the 1%? Answer = 100%

So Democrats in general, consistently, since at least 1990 have supported G&S with favorable regulations enabling golden parachutes, tax shelters, bailouts, and the like.

[Moosepoop]

25. I see. So you are not only anti-Obama, but anti-Democratic party as well?

Your first post in reply to the OP had Obama's name bolded, apparently to imply that he was in cahoots with Goldman Sachs. I pointed out, from your own link, that GS has donated more to Democrats than Republicans in general since 1990.

From that, you have gone on to use that as a justification to spout assumptions and declarations that paint "Democrats and the supporters of them" -- as the villains in allowing GS to operate in the way that they have. Such "Democrats and the supporters of them" make up the majority of DU. But you knew that.

Here's something else that you forgot to include from your own link:

"Barack Obama's presidential campaign shattered all records when it came to fundraising, so it's no surprise that he significantly outraised John McCain when it came to contributions from the financial industry in general and Goldman Sachs in particular," CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser said.

Steinhauser added: "And even though some of the policies he was pushing during his bid for the White House were not so popular with Wall Street executives, it seemed investors wanted to back a winner."

That's not a surprising notion. But I can't wait to hear your take on how that "strategy" worked out for them in 2001 and 2004, and all the bad things we "Democrats and the supporters of them" are to blame for during the terms that followed those elections. Since, according to you:

So Democrats in general, consistently, since at least 1990 have supported G&S with favorable regulations enabling golden parachutes, tax shelters, bailouts, and the like.

So far in this election cycle, GS has donated far, far more to Mitt Romney as the presumptive Republican nominee than they have to President Obama as the presumptive Democratic nominee. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000085&cycle=2012&state=&party=&chamber=&sort=A&page=1

How does this translate into "Obama/Democrats = bad"? I have faith in you, you'll find a way to support that idea.

As for your question as to why GS would be railed against on this forum, since, according to you...

So why would G&S be railed against here on this forum? It is clear that supporting the Democrats is supporting G&S and the fat cat - 1%ers.

... enjoy your stay.

[fascisthunter]

18. quislings allowed it...

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

24. Having friends in high places, pays for itself.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085