Is anyone else besides me sick of all the talk about men suddenly becoming an “endangered species” (as Hanna Rosin put it writing for The Atlantic).  Give me a break.  Yes, it’s true that a man’s muscle isn’t nearly as valuable today as it was when he was hunting food for dinner.  Yes, it’s also true that women outperform men on four of the five scales that contribute to emotional intelligence  — the sine qua non for business success.  And of course there are the statistics about more women graduating from college than men, more women entering the workforce than ever before, and more men losing jobs in the current economy than  women.  So what?  It’s a little like saying you used to be the best at using a dictation machine but changing times required you to learn to master a computer.  You do what you gotta do. 

If men are getting the short end of the stick lately it’s only because they’ve rested on their laurels, believed that they would always reap the benefits of entitlement, and didn’t change with the times.  Seems like women have become the early adopters — and now we’re supposed to feel sorry for men?  If anything, women are barely inching toward parity.  Let’s not kid ourselves.  From corporate America to government, institutions of higher learning, and the Catholic Church — men are still in charge.  When women comprise 90% of the top spots in Fortune 500 companies, when they make up the majority of people sitting on the Supreme Court, when women are elected as the President and Vice President of the United States during the  same election, when 35 of Forbes top 50 colleges now headed by men are headed by women, and when you can only receive communion from a woman – I’ll start worrying about guys getting the short end of the stick.

TAGS: discrimination against men, Hanna Rosin, men as an endangered species, progress for women, The Atlantic

My friend and colleague, John Gregory, was teaching a short non-credit summer class at Pasadena City College on the history of rock songs based on his book  Making Music.  I thought it would be fun to attend and would also show support for him.  It was fun — until he put us in small groups and I was assigned to a group with two men,  a recent college grad and a 50-something attorney.  The assignment was to write a song.  No brainer, I thought.  We could collaborate, share ideas and come up with something.  Heck, I wrote a dissertation and I’ve written books to publisher specs – I could surely write a little ditty for no credit.  Boy, was I wrong. 

It’s been a long time since I’ve had to work collaboratively with men who were not either clients, consulting colleagues, family, or friends.  The men with whom I interact are professional, do what they say they will, communicate well, and pull their weight.  The classroom experience reminded me of why I left corporate America.  It was painful.  Those of you who work inside organizations and have to go through this every day have my sincere sympathy.  These two guys were probably a lot more like your co-workers than the executives and colleagues I’ve been working with for the past two decades. 

The first night we were put together I facilitated the discussion of how we might go about the assignment.  That was like pulling teeth.  They each had their own ideas, but didn’t listen to each other’s, nor did they even inquire about mine.  We weren’t making much progress but I wasn’t conducting a team building session here — this was supposed to be fun.  At the end of the evening we agreed we would each write one verse for “homework” and discuss what we came up with.  When we gathered in our small groups the next Wednesday I pulled out my homework and asked how they did with theirs.  They hadn’t done it.  So I decided to just keep quiet and let them come up with Plan B.  And you know what?  There was silence.  Neither guy said a word.  Finally the attorney suggested the other guy and I write and he would let us know if he liked it or not.  I laughed out loud and told him that’s not how a collaboration works.  He seemed genuinely surprised by my resistance to his brilliant idea. 

It would have been fairly easy for me to get these guys back on track.  It’s what I do for a living — help people get unstuck and move forward.  But I resented that they expected me to step in to play this role.  I was angry that they didn’t deliver what they promised.  And I was enraged when John came over to the group, asked who the team leader was, and they both pointed to me.  I wasn’t going for the bait.  If you don’t how to collaborate, I’m not about to teach you during what is supposed to be a fun, leisure time experience for me.  In fact, I decided right in that moment that I wouldn’t be coming back to the last class at all.  It wasn’t fun.  I don’t like having to deal with underperforming people in my free time.  I asked myself if it might have been the same with any two women I was paired with.  I don’t think so.  Women are more likely to “make nice” even if it’s only for the sake of avoiding the discomfort of silence or bad feelings around not doing what they promise. 

Here’s what I took away from the experience and I hope you will too:

1.  Be generous of spirit.  Until you know your generosity will never be reciprocated, isn’t appreciated, or will be taken advantage of — offer it freely.  I’m glad I offered to facilitate our first meeting.  And I’m glad I put the time into doing my “homework” despite the fact that the other two knuckleheads didn’t.  I wouldn’t have done that any differently.  I’m never sorry when I take the high road. 

2.  Don’t be a doormat.  If others don’t carry their fair share of the weight, avoid the inclination to carry it for them.  Get comfortable with silence and learn to bite your tongue rather than offer to do what others should be doing.

3.  Know when to cut your losses.  Sometimes you put a lot of money into digging a dry hole (as in not finding oil).  You keep digging and spend more money hoping you’ll be wrong.  The older I’ve become, the sooner I cut my losses.  If it’s clear that my needs won’t be met no matter how hard I try, I walk away. 

4.  Make your voice heard.  Even though the guys didn’t ask for my ideas during that first brainstorming session, I made sure I expressed them.  Using tonque-in-cheek humor, I said, “Although you haven’t asked, I’m sure you’re dying to know what I’m thinking.”

5.  Speak the truth.  When things don’t go the way everyone involved agreed upon, ask what’s going on.  In my situation, these weren’t relationships — they were people that I would never see again (or at least hope I won’t).  I didn’t owe them more than I gave.  But at work or with your family these are people with whom you are more closely involved.  If they disappoint you, say so.  If they don’t do what they promise, ask why not.  It doesn’t mean you have to be critical, only that you put your concerns on the table in the nicest way possible rather than swallow your feelings. 

So, tell me.  Do these guys remind you of your male co-workers?  Do your co-workers show no interest in what you have to offer but expect you to do the grunt work?  Do they play off your ideas but offer few original ones of their own?  As I said, it’s been a while since I’ve been in a situation like this one and I’m wondering if I forgot how painful it was or if things have actually gotten worse.

TAGS: Mediocrity, men and women in the workplace, Overperforming

A week ago yesterday I was in a serious car accident.  I’m very lucky.  Bruised by the strength with which my seatbelt held me secure and feeling the tightness of badly swollen and rigid back muscles – I walked away from the accident as did the others involved.  

Despite the reporter in me always automatically gathering information, the accident victim in me didn’t get it all.  So I am now – piecing it together and gathering details.  But first, I cut myself some slack and took a deserved “time out” to gather myself and nurse my aching back, right shoulder and knee – and vent.  

The good news is that no one (including the pregnant passenger in the car in front of me) suffered life threatening or irreversible injury.  The additional good news is that the person who caused the accident admitted complete liability on the scene.  The final bit of good news is that everyone involved had insurance.  

But the reality is that accidents still cost you money even when you are clearly the victim.  The basic formula is if the estimate of damages to the victim’s car is more than 70% of the car’s Blue Book value, the car can be deemed a total loss.  Such a decision can have you “upside down” in a car loan where the payout for a totaled car is less than the amount you need to be “made whole” or back to the way you (and your car) were before the accident. 

There’s still no decision regarding whether my car will be declared totaled.  The damage is quite significant. I was at a full stop behind two other cars that were stopped for a pedestrian in the crosswalk.  The car that hit me at about 30 mph was an SUV.  There were no skid marks so I took the full impact.  He took full responsibility and accepted liability on the scene. 

The lesson being shared here is – keep your policy current, carry proof of insurance with you and gather specific information at the scene – which, in the state of California – is mandatory for the Department of Motor Vehicles “Report of Traffic Accident”. 

You should know the other driver’s: 

• Full name
• License number and state
• Address
• Date of birth
• Name of vehicle owner (it could be different than the driver involved)
• Vehicle year and make
• Vehicle license plate or Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)
• Insurance company name and policy number
• Policy period (covering from what date to expiration date)
• Policy holder name 

This report is usually required to be filed within 10 days of the accident. 

You know I always include my mantra:  It’s your money so take it personally ™ to any situation that impacts your personal money.  It applies here, too and yes, it’s very personal.  But the greater mantra given these circumstances is:  I am very lucky and grateful.  There could have been a much costlier end result. 

Here’s to your health and wealth.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

That’s long been my motto.  Even when things get so messed up and compromise your sense of well-being and your right to a remedy   – never shoot the messenger.  The messenger is often a very good person who has to figure out a way to sweeten bitter news.

I found two worthy messengers in the midst of my ING Direct debacle http://thethinpinkline.com/2010/02/04/banked-but-busted/ where a simple money transaction became a complicated and protracted ordeal that compromised a very important and time sensitive transfer of funds.   I want to thank these messengers publicly for not only doing their job but doing it well with a sense of personal commitment that made their professional credentials in financial services even more impressive:  Erica Borsella, the ING representative who stepped in to handle my situation from a supervisory level and Cathy MacFarlane, ING Direct Corporate Relations who, when notified by me with an email detailing the timeline and mistakes made - responded on behalf of the company.  Both made it clear that I had done nothing wrong – in fact, that I’d done a responsible job as a customer – but was the victim of an unfortunate circumstance:  an inadequately trained ING representative who gave me wrong information.

Though neither Borsella nor MacFarlane could ”fix” what happened to me, both provided an often forgotten asset called the human touch.  MacFarlane consented for me to share her email in full: 

Dear Valerie:

When I finished reading your timeline and blog I found myself feeling an overwhelming respect for the level headed and patient manner in which you dealt with a series of unintended and undesired events and total admiration that despite being jet lagged and tired, you posted a beautifully written, concise and very logically detailed blog at 3:33 a.m.!! As someone who’s ‘filters’ fall away when I’m tired, I definitely need to take a lesson from you. 

First, I have to say that your experience with ING DIRECT distresses me.  I assure you that as a bank and as a culture Erica Borsella (who tried to assist you in correcting the issue) is the norm and not the exception. Unfortunately, the entirety of the problems started with what you so aptly called “an inadequately trained associate.” 

I appreciate your thoughtful posting and there are several lessons we can take from your unfortunate experience so we can try to ensure that all our customers have positive experiences. We need to ask our customers for the facts – and all the facts – and then explain the way the system and its features work. Indeed, a P2P (person to person) payment with the recipient’s bank account and routing number would have arrived in two days.  Minus the necessary details (recipient’s bank account and routing number) the payment ‘could’ become a paper check and take 5–7 business days as it travels snail mail. The new training contains simple steps – hopefully it will prevent customer pain! 

Valerie, on behalf of the bank I want to thank you again for your patience and extraordinary understanding. You helped us see a point of weakness and we’re correcting it.

Please feel free to contact me at any time with suggestions for ensuring we maintain a brand that deserves people’s trust.

Best regards,

Cathy MacFarlane

As I so often write in my blog:  It’s your money so take it personally.  I just wanted each of you to know that I practice what I preach.  It was my money that was needed for a major project – my book “Mind Over Money Matters”.  It details the mindset individuals and families need in order to recover from the recession - and is being published this summer by Sterling and Ross Publishers, New York.  The transfer of those funds were compromised and I took that personally. 

I hope the detailing of my banked but busted experience will help each of you know that we do have a voice and can effect change (even if not for our own particular circumstance).  What helped me most is that I kept good records:  names, dates and times and followed through.  And along the way found two messengers who appreciated my attention to detail and the opportunity for their company to learn how to better assist customers.

And despite automated emails I continue to receive declaring that I “haven’t yet activated” my ING Electric Orange card – I’m not going to.   As my 3-year old granddaughter Savannah would declare:  “No way!  The memory of the botched transfer experience won’t allow me to do that.  I remain an ING Direct Orange Savings customer.  It has worked seamlessly for me.  But the “banked but busted” debacle is why I see red when it comes to ING Electric Orange.  

Here’s to your health and wealth.

TAGS: Customer service, Rant

How long do you sit and wait for an interviewer who is late? Last week, I friend of mine went for an interview. He was politely greeted and escorted into a conference room, isolated from the main work area and unable to see what was going on outside. After fifteen minutes, the interviewer’s admin popped her head in to say that the boss had been delayed but would be right in. After another ten minutes (my friend had decided to leave on the thirty minute mark), the interviewer arrived, apologizing profusely and explaining that a client emergency had tied him up. My friend said he seemed sincere and the interview went well.

I’m sure we’re all struggled with the question of how long to wait for someone who’s late – a client, a colleague, friend. It’s a particular hot button for me since I made a point to arrive on time for appointments. I always factor in time to deal with the unexpected traffic or other things that can cause derailments (I even take the flight earlier than the one that should me there in plenty of time!). Of course, there is no right answer, it all depends on the situation. Yet, the “rule” that sticks with me is the one left over from college – that students only had to wait fifteen minutes for the tardy professor before the class was considered canceled. I think that the question of how long to wait for an interviewer can be handled the same way you’d handle anyone who keeps you waiting.

Some guidelines that may be helpful:

• Is nature throwing curve-balls? While people can (and should) mange bad weather, they often don’t. I tend to cut them some slack when the weather is inclement.
• Did she get you a message? It’s smart to include your cell phone/blackberry/voicemail contact information when you are confirming the meeting so that the other person is able to get you a message advising you of the delay. If you’ve done that and she hasn’t communicated with you, it might be that the delay is a test of your patience or a power tactic.
• How long is the delay? Each of us has to decide how long is long enough. I tend tie my decision to the purpose of the meeting and my schedule for the rest of the day.
• When he gets there, does he apologize? The apology is obligatory, if he doesn’t offer one, it is a red flag – here’s someone who doesn’t value your time.
• How sincere is the apology? The other red flag is a poor apology; it speaks to the person’s character.

Readers, what would you add?

TAGS: Interview skills, Job hunting, Job Search, LinkedIn

What do you do when you are banked – but busted because of the system? 

RANT!  Then get a plan and find a fix.  

It just happened to me and despite my healthy neurosis regarding all things money (aka knowing most of the rules and always having a financial backup plan) – the system held me and my money captive. 

It was a simple request on January 21st:  I needed to move a chunk of money from my longtime ING Direct Orange Savings account to my Chase checking account to provide money for phase two of a very important project.  Usually the process of transferring my money from savings to checking is one I do by myself, seamlessly, online since my savings account is linked to my checking account.  But in this particular case, the funds needed to be disbursed and received within a few days – so I called ING directly to see if the process could be expedited. 

The ING representative suggested with confidence that my needs could be better served if I opened an ING Electric Orange Account that would – within 2 to 3 business days – have the funds electronically transferred into the project company’s bank account.  I’m a problem/resolve kind of person.  The solution was set and the process completed online with the ING representative.  That was January 21^st.  

A week later – still no deposit.   

The ING representative had made a mistake.  And the only way I knew that was the case is when the project manager called to say:  “Nothing’s been received.  Could you check with ING?”  This by the way was after I’d received an email from ING confirming the transfer had been made. 

Here’s the rest of the story. 

The funds couldn’t be transferred electronically to the project company’s bank account because – oops “ING doesn’t have an electronic connection/capability to all businesses”.  OK.  I’m a logical person.  I understand that though we’re a nano second, wired, advanced technology world – not everything can be connected that way.  But here’s the rub.  ING opted to send a paper check through the United States Postal Service mail.  No, not by certified mail.  No, not by registered mail.  By regular mail with a 44-cent stamp and no ability to track it.   Even more insulting and adding insult to injury – ING never contacted me to tell me the problem.  ING never asked me if they could send a paper check.  ING made a decision about my money and a transaction that I needed done in a timely expedient manner.  ING didn’t deliver.  And the real irritation is that I could have employed another option to get money to the project on time – if I’d known there was a problem – with my money, going to my project manager who’s the one who became the victim of circumstances neither he nor I created.

I won’t bore you with the litany of the many phone calls, emails and conference call conversations (ING, me and my project manager) – I’ll just rant directly to the conclusion.  

Financial institutions are working over time to stay ahead of their customer needs in the midst of tight margins and threatened restrictions by the Fed.  To manage the tight money margins, financial institutions are changing rules fast.  Fees for banking services are going up; some are being allegedly eliminated; services that customers didn’t have to pay before are now being charged; lines of credit are being narrowed and interest rates are poised to punish if you don’t keep an eye out for change notices. 

And I believe the rules are changing so fast that ING and other financial services institutions’ own people can’t keep up!  That’s when we consumers/customers pay the price for the banking system’s bureaucracy which in my current frame of mind feels a lot like a shell game. 

ING has reviewed the initial call I made January 21^st and has confirmed:  “It wasn’t your fault, Valerie.  Our representative gave you incorrect information and is in the process of being retrained.”  They made a $25 gift deposit into my account for my troubles.  

In between the admission of an inadequately trained representative having botched up my request and the $25 apology, a very deliberate, experienced and empathetic supervisor has been working on my situation since January 26^th.  We’re on a first name basis and speak daily.  She stopped payment on the paper check which was still floating around in the postal system somewhere and untraceable.  The ING system meantime still requires a standard two business days to return my money to my account even though it was their mistake.  She is monitoring when the returned money hits my account and will immediately wire it (though ING protocols don’t usually allow wires) to my project manager’s account. 

That was the situation until Monday when the money was finally returned to my account.  How was the situation resolved?  I’ll tell you the conclusion another time.  I’m just off a late flight back home from travel and jet lagged.  Suffice it to say – not soon enough or well enough.  But I’m smarter and learned a lot.  There’s my story.  Hopefully a rant with a purpose and message for you.  Be sure to really mind over your money matters.  These days when it comes to your money, check and double check the rules because a policy or procedure yesterday may not be in play today or anymore.

 Here’s to you health and wealth.

TAGS: banking procedures, Rant

I’ve had a couple experiences recently that reminded me just how wrong networking can go.  The situations below are related to business development but the same principles apply to networking for jobs or career advice or  for any other purpose.

Situation #1: A woman to whom I was introduced at an event a few weeks ago by a mutual acquaintance followed up with an email suggesting a follow-up meeting. Her client base overlaps with mine so it seemed as though we might be able to help one another. So far, so good. We agreed to a date, place and time and she promised to confirm the day before. She didn’t, so I did. I arrived at the meeting place on time. She emailed three minutes before we were scheduled to meet that she was delayed ─ she finally arrived twenty minutes later. It was clear from the questions she asked that she had done no homework to understand what it is that I do. The last straw was when she asked me if I had ever met the woman who had introduced us at the event! The chances that I would even consider referring my clients to her evaporated – what would make me think she would treat them any differently than she treated me?

Situation #2: Another woman I met briefly at a different event (let’s call her Laura) is a money manager. She told me she often hires speakers for events she holds for her clients. Laura followed up by asking a colleague of hers (let’s call her Gail) to schedule a lunch meeting for the three of us to discuss a possible speaking engagement. Gail and I agreed to a date but then she called to reschedule it because Laura wasn’t available ─ twice! The long postponed meeting day finally arrived; Gail called that morning to explain that while Laura would not be able to join us, another person in the group was available and that I would enjoy meeting her. While the food and ambiance at lunch was lovely, the conversation was strained. Why? It became clear early on that the purpose of the lunch was for them to solicit my business. I abhor a “bait and switch” maneuver. On top of that, the newcomer had no social skills whatsoever!

As the cliché goes, “You only get one chance to make a good first impression.” Some suggestions to make your networking successful:

• Plan carefully
  Set the meeting for a day and time you will be able to show up unless a true emergency unfolds. Don’t try to fit a meeting into a week that’s already filled with important deadlines. And get there on time ─ not doing so sends a message about how you prioritize the relationship.

• Be prepared
  Learn as much as you can about the person with whom you are meeting. Figure out how you might be able to help him or her. Also think about ways he/she may be able to help you.

• Be honest
  All the way along. About everything.

As for me, I have decided to just say “no” to follow up meetings!

TAGS: follow-up, LinkedIn, Networking

From my quiet desert town of Tucson, Arizona – what a storm! 

Earlier this week, a professor of law at the University of Arizona just minutes down the road from me wrote an academic paper about the shame of the upside-down loan circumstances in which many American homeowners are drowning.  Shame on the nation’s banks was his point. 

Professor Brent White says these over-extended homeowners (estimated to be about 15 million Americans) would be better off financially if they walked away from their upside down mortgages.  He says they don’t because their moral compass won’t allow it; that it makes them ashamed to do it. 

Professor White respects that moral value but says many people are ashamed to walk away from their mortgage because they/we live a double standard.  A double standard that expects moral norms for Main Street and accepts market norms for Wall Street.  Banks operate to maximize profits.  Banks think about their interest(s) and look out for themselves.  Banks do this often at Main Street’s expense.  Professor White believes this double standard is what scares American homeowners into meeting to the market norm mentality that puts them in this upside-down home, negative equity situation.

I think he’s got a point.  And to me, the point is:  think about what’s in your best interest. 

Professor White isn’t advocating anyone walk away from their mortgage unless they feel its right for them.  White is saying American homeowners must act on economic self interest and determine what financial decision given their circumstances – is right for them.  And, he concludes, since shame doesn’t work for banks, it shouldn’t work for homeowners who are considering walking away from their homes.

This is a mind over money matters decision.  This is one of those situations where your mind over your money – matters.  If you choose to do this, know that there will be consequences.  Mortgage lenders are outraged and say it’s unethical.  They remind you – correctly – that this decision to walk away from your mortgage will stay on your credit report for 5 to 7 years. 

But advocates of this option say – your credit is already battered, you’ll have to take the steps to rebuild it anyway.  What you pay, the bank will solely benefit because you can’t keep up with the growing debt.  And to get in front of it now – is impossible.  Why throw money at a market mentality that is morally irreverent? 

It’s your money – take it personally.  Everyone’s situation is different.  There are 15 million Americans facing this right now.  It might be ok for you (or any one of them) to walk away from an upside down mortgage if it’s in your (their) best interest. 

Here’s to your health and wealth.

TAGS: default or walk away from homes, Upside down mortgages

We may not like it because most people on Main Street are still hurting and struggling financially, but when earnings rebound, when bailout loans get repaid and when a company racks up impressive performances, Wall Street’s long standing bonus structure kicks in.  (Wall Street:  From Bailout to Bonuses, Part 1, post 10/22/09).

Wall Street’s top firm – Goldman Sachs – is sitting on the biggest pot of bonus money in the company’s history:  $23 billion.  Goldman says $16.7 billion of it – is set aside for the much talked about and controversial end-of-year (compensation and benefits) bonuses.

A lot of people on Main Street want to “shoot the messenger” (Goldman Sachs) for having amassed such a bonus pool.  Such a lofty stash of cash infuriates a lot of hardworking, every day people – perhaps in part because Main Street wants to believe that what’s good for Wall Street is good for Main Street and vice versa. 

The reality is – it just doesn’t work that way.  In fact, it’s often the exact opposite.  We live in a capitalistic society and most of us believe in it but feel the practice of bowing to the capitalist gods (corporate America) must change, and that it starts with stopping these eye-popping, anticipated bonuses.

When properly used, I believe bonuses are a good thing.  They were created to motivate performance that would fall to (improve) the bottom line.  And bonuses are a good idea when they’re used as an incentive to motivate stellar performance.  Bonuses weren’t meant to be a guarantee.  They were meant to be the carrot. 

The problem with Wall Street’s bonus structure these days is that bonuses aren’t the carrot that’s being dangled anymore; they’re an expected additional compensation; and the money handlers are getting paid – when they sell you stock, for the transaction, and even when you are losing money on it.

Some say Wall Street bonus rewards should be tied to Main Street’s.  Their argument?  It would motivate the financial services industry to “do the right thing” and “get us back on our feet” rather than just increasing activity where “the rich get richer and though we (Main Street) lost money, they (Wall Street) get a year-end-bonus”.

My issue is the size of end-of-the-year bonuses.  I just can’t wrap my brain around justifying a $500,000 to $700,000 bonus (which is the range the New York Times has calculated for each of Goldman Sachs’ 31,700 employees who qualify for the windfall.)  Goldman’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein says the company needs to pay these huge sums in order to retain its best people or risk losing them to rivals.  

I think that’s a bogus - but popular – argument among all the top firms. 

Here’s the bottom line for Main Street:  the U.S. lost 7.2 million jobs in the last two years driving the unemployment rate to its highest level in more than a quarter of a century.  Plenty of very talented people on Main Street are still looking for work – let alone being retained with six figure salaries and six figure bonuses.

So while there may be some job opportunities out there for these bright, talented, high stakes Wall Street money managers – how many would actually walk away from a job that pays so very well – in this economy?

Here’s to your health and wealth.

TAGS: bailout, Bonus compensation, wall street

Goldman Sachs, Wall Street’s top firm, has set aside $16.7 billion for bonuses to top employees.  That’s up 46% from the bonuses the firm gave a year ago.  Paid at year’s end, this chunk of money is compensation and benefits for the first nine months of 2009.  The New York Times says it’s enough to pay each of Goldman’s bonus qualifying workers $527,192.  

Ka-ching!  But not on Main Street.

Wall Street bonuses have always been a hot topic but – in the current economic environment – bonuses are even more controversial and often lead to some very angry points of view.  

Goldman Sachs is in a lot of people’s crosshairs because Goldman’s bonus number is far greater than any other on Wall Street. 

But the flipside is – Goldman Sachs had a spectacular third quarter:  more than $3 billion ($3.19 billion, to be exact).  And since the bonus compensation formula is based on performance – I believe that will be central to Goldman justifying the bonuses to the public. 

Goldman’s CEO Lloyd Blankfein set a Wall Street pay record two years ago with a $70 million salary, stock, bonuses and options package.  He “slashed” his pay last year ($600,000 and nearly $278,000 in deferred stock rewards) and went without a bonus after the firm’s first quarterly loss.

Blankfein accepted financial support from the government : $10 billion.   He/Goldman Sachs has repaid the $10 billion in bailout money plus dividends.  Now the company is resuming allocating billions of dollars for year end bonuses. 

We may not like it because most people on Main Street are still hurting and struggling financially.  But when earnings rebound, when bailout loans get repaid and when a company starts racking up impressive performance, Wall Street’s long standing bonus structure kicks in.

That’s why I think how Goldman handles this end-of-the-year bonuses story will shape its image in the public’s eye for many years to come.  My bet is Goldman will justify having the biggest bonus pot in company history by showcasing its standing ovation third quarter performance.

Wall Street – From Bailout to Bonuses, Part 2 – next week.

Here’s to your health and wealth.

TAGS: bailout, Bonus compensation, wall street