If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I had a look. From 2004 to the end of 2007 he operated the company in a manner the stock went from around $100.00 a share to $200.00 a share with the high in 2007 being even more than that. His salary as posted by Bob was about 20 cents a share in 2007. Sure looks like a good deal to me.
How much does he make this year? It's a little more to the point.
Hmm..hmmm...your cfc membership expired on Sept 1, 2011. :p
Would you like to renew. :)
Not when I'm going to be out of the country on university exchange I wouldn't. I don't think a CFC membership will allow me to play tournaments in France.
Interesting that you would resort to that particular tactic to suggest I can't say anything about what happened during the time you were CFC president and I was a CFC member. Did my right to say anything also expire on Sept 1, 2011? Interesting since if I do renew now my membership would be back dated 3 months anyway. Let's see renew now, be back dated 3 months, then not have use of my membership for a further 6 months to 12 months, back to Canada and time to renew again. No thanks as the CFC does not have charitable status any longer I don't see myself making that kind of 'donation' at the moment.
Does the concept of accepting leadership responsibility elude you that much?
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 15th November, 2011, 07:04 PM.
You quoted numbers, Bob. Nice big round numbers. Now that I ask a few questions you have to find out the details. So I assume they were Bullsh*t numbers. If you can't show the details it's not good form to single out the people.
Most of the details of the compensations packages are public. You simply have to look them up. See what the shareholders approved.
I targeted Goldman Sachs executives, because IMHO, they are the worst of the banks. Anyway, I provided specific pay examples whereas you simply made a generic statement about overpaid union leaders. I thought the comparison would be educational.
On your prodding I did go to the Goldman Sachs website to verify the data by looking at the 2007 annual report. To my surprise I didn't find it. However, there are many websites quoting bank executive pay data, so it would appear the data is in the public domain.
My apologies to the Goldman Sachs shareholders. It appears, at least some of them are proceeding with legal action against the bank.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Tuesday, 15th November, 2011, 07:13 PM.
I targeted Goldman Sachs executives, because IMHO, they are the worst of the bank offenders. Anyway, I provided specific pay examples whereas you simply made a generic statement about overpaid union leaders. I thought the comparison would be educational.
On your prodding I did go to the Goldman Sachs website to verify the data by looking at the 2007 annual report. To my surprise I didn't find it. However, their are many sites quoting bank executive pay data, they are all very big numbers, and they can't all be wrong.
My apologies to the Goldman Sachs shareholders. It appears, at least some of them are proceeding with legal action against the executives.
It says 2 million base salary and stock, which is normally based on performance targets. I notice the bonus two years later was a lot less. Did you read that part? It's not something complainers want to hear as it doesn't make their point.
I still think that finding and reading the Reuters article and comparing the figures it gives with the figures that Bob Gillanders gives, should not be such a difficult task. You just put the obvious search terms in an engine, skip the wiki and forbes references, and read the reuters:
"Blankfein's 2009 bonus was worth $8.9 million when awarded in February 2010, far below the $67.9 million that he received for 2007." The 2007 figure is close to what Bob wrote. Especially keeping in consideration that Reuters states the bare bonus, but Bob gave the "compensation". Do you agree? Just in case it's scrolled too far away, Bob wrote:
"Compensation for top Goldman Sachs executives for 2007:
Lloyd Blankfein $70,300,000"
So, Gary, do you agree that Bob's figure is pretty close?
Interesting that you would resort to that particular tactic to suggest I can't say anything about what happened during the time you were CFC president and I was a CFC member. Did my right to say anything also expire on Sept 1, 2011?
wow , you read all that into a simple question, "Would you like to renew your membership?"
I still think that finding and reading the Reuters article and comparing the figures it gives with the figures that Bob Gillanders gives, should not be such a difficult task. You just put the obvious search terms in an engine, skip the wiki and forbes references, and read the reuters:
It's not hard and I asked Bob. I knew the reply when I asked the question because I did look. It's fair to ask an accountant how much is base salary and how much is options.
Had I been writing you in reply to your posting that information, my questions would have been substantially different.
wow , you read all that into a simple question, "Would you like to renew your membership?"
This membership drive stuff is really hard!
I already received an email from someone I assume had been given my info by the CFC and I sent the same explanation back. Thanks for coming out though.
Perhaps your right, perhaps I did jump to the wrong conclusions faster than an Occupy Toronto protestor. :D:D
I had a look. From 2004 to the end of 2007 he operated the company in a manner the stock went from around $100.00 a share to $200.00 a share with the high in 2007 being even more than that. His salary as posted by Bob was about 20 cents a share in 2007. Sure looks like a good deal to me.
How much does he make this year? It's a little more to the point.
I think Bob's point is that they artifically pumped up profits pre-2008 by taking an imprudent (perhaps criminal) amount of risk. They then received large bonuses and stock options pre-2008 but caused the bank failures, requiring public bail outs but of course kept the pre-2008 millions they didn't really deserve considering they basically ruined much of their companies, their stocks and the American economy. That is why there are no stand along investment banks any longer in the US of A.
If I remember correctly from accounting theory class, and I do, there are a number of such tactics that accounting researchers have verified companies use - tactics such as 'big bath', 'pump and dump' etc. all to maximize their bonuses but at shareholder expense in the meantime. That's why things like bonus ceilings to avoid excessive risk taking should be used to protect shareholders. You will often find that a company headed for bankruptcy was able to pump out high profits leading up to the bad times by either questionable accounting practices, short term profit decisions that hurt long term profits (such as not reinvesting in new equipment) and basically being run into the ground and then being discarded like a peeled banana.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Tuesday, 15th November, 2011, 09:42 PM.
It's not hard and I asked Bob. I knew the reply when I asked the question because I did look. It's fair to ask an accountant how much is base salary and how much is options.
Had I been writing you in reply to your posting that information, my questions would have been substantially different.
Uh huh. You knew the answer, but you preferred to insinuate. There's a name for that, hereabouts. I'll juxtapose the kernel of your reply to Bob.
Since you're so knowledgeable, maybe you can give us some information on those salaries for that company so we know we aren't reading a "big lie".
What is the base salary each one received? Give us the details of the stock options, if any, and if they are excerciseable or not. Also how many options were excercised.
Maybe a bit of details so we know you aren't dealing in bullsh*t numbers.
The "big lie" always starts out that way, doesn't it? First it's a small porportion of the populaton. Then it gets bigger and before long it's us against them.
Any reader who is in doubt about the meaning of the phrase "big lie" (used twice by Gary) can easily look it up.
The name of the action is "trolling", and the name of the thing is "FUD": Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. FUD is usually sown or spread; but trolled is multitasking. Troll me some more FUD, man.
The Good News is that internet trolls have something in common with Isaac Newton.
I think Bob's point is that they artifically pumped up profits pre-2008 by taking an imprudent (perhaps criminal) amount of risk.
And in the case of at least one major, prominent bank / broker, they knew exactly what they were doing. Their "smart boys" had figured it all out (when is not clear), and ran the scam to the hilt. At least that's one of the messages I took away from the book "The Big Short" (not Nigel) by Michael Lewis. Strangely, though, Lewis seems to downplay this notion and his book was shortlisted for the "2010 Financial Times and Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award". Ironic, or what?
Even if it was all accidental, are the drunk drivers to be held responsible? Do the driver-perps get to keep the gold pieces that fell out of the pedestrian's pocket as he was getting run over? When Americans voted "Yes We Can" in 2008, surely they wanted some measure of recompense, or retributive justice, or prosperity, choose any one. Three years along, and no hint of it. Their votes were insufficient. I'm not an "occupier", but it makes perfect sense to me that they should widen the front. Business and banking, after all, asked for and were granted free trade and deregulation. Maybe business and banking should welcome the chance to make proposals with a view to making free trade and deregulation work for the average person.
Originally posted by Zeljko Kitich
They then received large bonuses and stock options pre-2008 but caused the bank failures, requiring public bail outs but of course kept the pre-2008 millions they didn't really deserve considering they basically ruined much of their companies, their stocks and the American economy. That is why there are no stand along investment banks any longer in the US of A.
If I remember correctly from accounting theory class, and I do, there are a number of such tactics that accounting researchers have verified companies use - tactics such as 'big bath', 'pump and dump' etc. all to maximize their bonuses but at shareholder expense in the meantime. That's why things like bonus ceilings to avoid excessive risk taking should be used to protect shareholders. You will often find that a company headed for bankruptcy was able to pump out high profits leading up to the bad times by either questionable accounting practices, short term profit decisions that hurt long term profits (such as not reinvesting in new equipment) and basically being run into the ground and then being discarded like a peeled banana.
It might also happen right here in Canada, for example this Vancouver Sun news story about BC Hydro.
The goal of the occupy movement was never to occupy public parks. The goal was to raise public awareness of the problems in our economic and political systems (mostly USA) that tend to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few.
Occupying public parks was just tactics. Now that it looks like the tents are coming down, time to change tactics. I hope the protestors will realize this and keep it all peaceful. Public support is everything. Fighting with the cops and municipal politicians (all 99%'ers) would just be counter productive.
Tweet
, you read all that into a simple question, "Would you like to renew your membership?"
Comment