At least they are being subtle . . .

[bpwallace49]

Wall Street bankers, publicly modest, eye fancy toys

 

Share

retweet

EmailPrint..On Thursday December 30, 2010, 5:46 am EST

By Phil Wahba

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Wall Street executives may face smaller bonuses and a public that still eyes them with suspicion, but that isn't stopping them from rediscovering their love of luxury cars, oceanfront homes and private jets.

 

A soaring stock market, a surge in merger deals and an uptick in hiring on Wall Street are allowing bankers to gradually return to the lavish lifestyles they enjoyed until the 2008 financial crisis came crashing down on their party.

 

Despite talk of bonus cuts, many businesses that cater to bankers' whims, such as the luxury car dealerships on Manhattan's Park Avenue, are teeming with Wall Street suits.

 

"Even if they are worried about bonuses, their egos are involved here," said one dealership manager, who said requests have been filing in for $225,000 crimson red Ferraris and $170,000 Audi R8 convertibles.

 

Wall Street paid out $20.3 billion in bonuses for 2009, and the numbers for 2010 are expected to be up modestly, according to various estimates, including one from New York's comptroller.

 

Hedge fund managers and investment bankers who advise on mergers should see some of the biggest increases, while bond traders can expect cuts of as much as 30 percent.

 

Financial industry employees will find out in January how big a bonus they'll get, and those who aren't sure if they'll get much seem to be waiting before they spend lavishly.

 

Nonetheless, there are enough Wall Street tycoons expecting big paydays to feed luxury spending.

 

Swiss-made Hublot watches, which cost 6,500 euros ($8,500) on average, are still regarded as success symbols and remain popular in London's City and on Wall Street. Chief Executive Jean-Claude Biver of Hublot, part of LVMH, told Reuters that December would be a record month.

 

"They still want their toys," Luxury Institute CEO Milton Pedraza said of bankers.

 

Financial industry honchos have wasted no time lining up rentals months in advance in the Hamptons, a string of seaside hamlets on Long Island where New York's elite summers.

 

One top banker shelled out $200,000 to rent an oceanfront house in Amagansett on Long Island for the month of August, said Paul Brennan, a Prudential Douglas Elliman broker.

 

Wall Street's money is trickling back down to companies like Avantair, which offers private jet timeshares. John Colucci, Avantair's executive vice president, said inquiries are up this year though many are waiting for their bonuses before actually committing.

 

TONING IT DOWN

 

Many on Wall Street are wary of flaunting their spending plans because of lingering public resentment over soaring compensation to bank executives even as the U.S. government paid to bail out financial institutions in crisis.

 

"People are trying to keep it relatively in control," one investment banker told Reuters. Another said his firm's Christmas party was at a bar where finger food was served. These and other bankers contacted by Reuters would not be quoted by name.

 

One investment banker said he saw no need for splurging.

 

"After living through two years of stressful times, my wife and I will do a couple of modest things," the banker said, noting that his one indulgence was a Caribbean cruise that ended up being canceled by this week's snowstorm in New York.

 

Upscale store chains like Saks Inc,, Neiman Marcus and Tiffany & Co have reported some of strongest sales gains among retailers in 2010.

 

But employees at Saks Fifth Avenue and Tiffany in Manhattan told Reuters they haven't seen any sign of more spending in anticipation of banker bonuses.

 

Bill Morell, the general manager of Foreign Cars Italia, a Ferrari, Aston Martin and Maserati dealer in Charlotte, North Carolina, home of Bank of America, said he's been getting more inquiries from bank employees to purchase in February when their bonus checks come in.

 

But he also noted that interest in used high-end sports cars has been particularly strong.

 

MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR CRIBS

 

One apparent change is that bankers with the means to fork out millions on homes and modern art are more discriminating than just a few years ago.

 

Wall Street types used to go to fairs like Art Basel Miami Beach and buy a paintings as a souvenir, but they now approach art buying as an investment.

 

"Now they're doing a lot of research and they're buying smarter," said Adam Sheffer, a partner at Cheim & Read, an art gallery in New York's Chelsea district.

 

Sheffer said the gallery earlier this month sold a $4 million painting by Joan Mitchell to a hedge fund manager.

 

Their splurging also extends to apartment hunting.

 

Halstead Property's executive director of sales, Richard Grossman, said Wall Street executives this year started making inquiries about Manhattan apartments earlier. Many high end places going for between $3 million and $7 million are in contract lately.

 

"Some of these guys are in their 20's and 30's and getting very big bonuses," Grossman said.

 

Luxury department store chain Neiman Marcus has also had no problem unloading some of its more curious and pricey Christmas gifts. The company said it took only three minutes to sell all 100 of its limited edition Chevrolet Camaros, priced at $75,000 each, when they were offered in October.

 

And the Mercedes-Benz dealership in Manhattan expects 2010 to be its best year ever. "They never really left," said general manager Blair Creed of his Wall Street clients

.

 

-Sigh-

 

I sure hope the gubmnet got their money's worth . .

[Ursa Majoris]

[residentrighties] What about Freddie and Fannie? These guys have worked hard all their lives and it's all Obama's fault and [/residentrighties]

[yo mama]

[residentrighties] What about Freddie and Fannie? These guys have worked hard all their lives and it's all Obama's fault and [/residentrighties]

I almost don't care anymore.

- the bottom 50% of wage earners only account for 3% of our income tax revenues (and that's NOT counting the people who don't bother/aren't required to file tax returns in the first place).

- the top 1% of taxpaying wage earners account for 20% of the country's income tax revenue. These folks are carrying the country on their backs. And that's BEFORE any estate and gift tax those same folks might pay (lord knows the bottom 50% doesn't pay much estate or gift tax).

 

Who are these mysterious top 1%? People making over $350,000. Frankly, I figured you'd have to earn more than that to be considered in the elite top 1% of income earners in the world's most prosperous nation. If those guys want buy a boat or something after paying their taxes, fine by me.

Edited December 30, 2010 by yo mama

[Furd]

Good for them.

 

I shoulda been a banker.

[Ursa Majoris]

I almost don't care anymore.

- the bottom 50% of wage earners only account for 3% of our income tax revenues (and that's NOT counting the people who don't bother/aren't required to file tax returns in the first place).

- the top 1% of taxpaying wage earners account for 20% of the country's income tax revenue. These folks are carrying the country on their backs. And that's BEFORE any estate and gift tax those same folks might pay (lord knows the bottom 50% doesn't pay much estate or gift tax).

 

Who are these mysterious top 1%? People making over $350,000. Frankly, I figured you'd have to earn more than that to be considered in the elite top 1% of income earners in the world's most prosperous nation. If those guys want buy a boat or something after paying their taxes, fine by me.

The piece that's always missing from these tales of tax woe is that the top 1% of income tax payers also own a much larger percentage of the country's wealth than 1%. Percentages are ALWAYS misleading, unless you look at the figures behind them. In your example, the top 1% are those making $350,000+. 1% of this nation is 300,000 people, a pretty large number. Within a smaller subset of those 300,000 is where the real wealth lies. Also, those 300,000 probably account for well over a million people in reality, once you count their family members too.

 

Less and less people pay income tax because (1) more and more of the overall wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands and (2) there has been relentless downward pressure on real wages over the last 30 years and that is increasing.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[tosberg34]

The piece that's always missing from these tales of tax woe is that the top 1% of income tax payers also own a much larger percentage of the country's wealth than 1%. Percentages are ALWAYS misleading, unless you look at the figures behind them. In your example, the top 1% are those making $350,000+. 1% of this nation is 300,000 people, a pretty large number. Within a smaller subset of those 300,000 is where the real wealth lies. Also, those 300,000 probably account for well over a million people in reality, once you count their family members too.

 

Less and less people pay income tax because (1) more and more of the overall wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands and (2) there has been relentless downward pressure on real wages over the last 30 years and that is increasing.

 

Then let's redistribute the wealth to the people who don't have it. We will form a commission to take their money away (physically if necessary) and hand it out to the other 99% - like free cheese. Problem solved - no more outrage.

[Ursa Majoris]

Then let's redistribute the wealth to the people who don't have it. We will form a commission to take their money away (physically if necessary) and hand it out to the other 99% - like free cheese. Problem solved - no more outrage.

I don't care any more than Yo Mama does. Got mine, thanks.

 

I do still care that a smaller and smaller number of people benefit from national growth, I do still care that ultimately the system as it has developed is unsustainable and I do still care about a number of other things that I believe are ultimately extremely damaging.

 

But I only care in an abstract kind of way, the way that I care that it's raining or whatever. I know there is fack all I can do about it.

 

Edit: And I certainly don't care to enter into a discussion with someone who has never ever presented any kind of rational argument beyond screaming about "libs".

Edited December 30, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[tazinib1]

Then let's redistribute the wealth to the people who don't have it. We will form a commission to take their money away (physically if necessary) and hand it out to the other 99% - like free cheese. Problem solved - no more outrage.

 

Standing in line.

[tosberg34]

Edit: And I certainly don't care to enter into a discussion with someone who has never ever presented any kind of rational argument beyond screaming about "libs".

 

Hmmmm...weird. Then why do engage with others who scream nothing other than "Republicans!" all day long? Seems to me you're a bit of a hypocrite.

[redrumjuice]

I almost don't care anymore.

 

- the top 1% of taxpaying wage earners account for 20% of the country's income tax revenue.

 

How much do the top 5% pay? 10%?

 

And there's ursa, big boy should mind his own business.

[muck]

Well, if the government would just print more money, we wouldn't be having these problems, would we?

[yo mama]

The piece that's always missing from these tales of tax woe is that the top 1% of income tax payers also own a much larger percentage of the country's wealth than 1%. Percentages are ALWAYS misleading, unless you look at the figures behind them. In your example, the top 1% are those making $350,000+. 1% of this nation is 300,000 people, a pretty large number. Within a smaller subset of those 300,000 is where the real wealth lies. Also, those 300,000 probably account for well over a million people in reality, once you count their family members too.

 

Less and less people pay income tax because (1) more and more of the overall wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands and (2) there has been relentless downward pressure on real wages over the last 30 years and that is increasing.

Yeah, there is most certainly a difference between "income" and "wealth." That's actually one reason I can stomach the estate tax on a conceptual basis - it taxes wealth, rather than income. (I understand that "but its all be taxed before" point of view, but that's true of any dollar anyone puts in your hand). There is a significant portion of our population that has a lot of stuff, but only modest income. Most of us would consider them "rich" from a balance sheet perspective, and yet their income tax burden might be less than some working schmo who just has wages.

 

While I'm not a huge supporter of a flat tax, I would be more in support of a flat tax if it included both income and assets in the tax base. The two primary counter-points are: (1) that would require more governmental intrusion into matters of our private property; and (2) while a flat tax would simplify taxation of reportable income, taxing the value of property would require us to report asset values. And if there is one thing the IRS loves more than Rush loves oxy, its to argue that your stuff is worth more than you think it is.

Edited December 31, 2010 by yo mama

[MTSuper7]

A flat tax would be a bad idea. What comes to mind is the effect it would have on tax professionals and the accounting industry. Just under 1/3 of all individual tax returns prepared last year were prepared with some sort of do-it-yourself online system like TurboTax. The other 2/3 of taxpayers got assistance in some form or another (H&R Block, a CPA, etc.). The government's over-complication of tax law has actually created a sizeable industry, and that industry would suffer greatly if a flat tax was ever implemented.

Edited December 31, 2010 by MTSuper7

[Big John]

A flat tax would be a bad idea. What comes to mind is the effect it would have on tax professionals and the accounting industry. Just under 1/3 of all individual tax returns prepared last year were prepared with some sort of do-it-yourself online system like TurboTax. The other 2/3 of taxpayers got assistance in some form or another (H&R Block, a CPA, etc.). The government's over-complication of tax law has actually created a sizeable industry, and that industry would suffer greatly if a flat tax was ever implemented.

Or like me who still use pen and paper and do itemize.

[muck]

A flat tax would be a bad idea. What comes to mind is the effect it would have on tax professionals and the accounting industry. Just under 1/3 of all individual tax returns prepared last year were prepared with some sort of do-it-yourself online system like TurboTax. The other 2/3 of taxpayers got assistance in some form or another (H&R Block, a CPA, etc.). The government's over-complication of tax law has actually created a sizeable industry, and that industry would suffer greatly if a flat tax was ever implemented.

 

I've heard this argument and find it specious.

 

Think of all the creativity and intelligence currently preoccupied w/ playing defense vs. Uncle Sam that could be spent curing disease, teaching kids, creating new businesses, writing software, etc.

 

The intellectual and creative horsepower that would be unleased if the tax code were greatly simplified would be astounding.

[redrumjuice]

A flat tax would be a bad idea. What comes to mind is the effect it would have on tax professionals and the accounting industry.

 

So the war on drugs is working? Google 'broken windows economic theory'. Learn something.

 

You could be smarter if you were a door knob.

[MTSuper7]

So the war on drugs is working? Google 'broken windows economic theory'. Learn something.

 

You could be smarter if you were a door knob.

 

I'll take the higher road on your insult... Though I'm not 100% sure I agree that the broken window theory applies to what I was referring to.

 

Another example: If we have the technology to pave a road that won't deterioriate anywhere near as fast as our current roads (and such technology does exist, so I've read), why aren't we deploying that technology? Is it too expensive to implement realistically? Or does the construction industry have too much to lose without so many roads to repair?

 

I'll admit I haven't exhausted my research on the internet with this info, but feel free to call me a dumbass if it makes you feel better about yourself. Calling me lazy would be more accurate though.

[redrumjuice]

I'll take the higher road on your insult...

 

I called you smart. In the other thread you called me a dick?

 

If we have the technology to pave a road that won't deterioriate anywhere near as fast as our current roads (and such technology does exist, so I've read)

 

Wow, pure genius! I am sure we could pave roads in diamonds, great idea!

[MTSuper7]

I called you smart. In the other thread you called me a dick?

 

You didn't call me smart. And yeah, I thought your comment in that thread was extremely rude so I called you out on it. I'm not sure how you couldn't see it as a rude comment.

[MTSuper7]

I've heard this argument and find it specious.

 

Think of all the creativity and intelligence currently preoccupied w/ playing defense vs. Uncle Sam that could be spent curing disease, teaching kids, creating new businesses, writing software, etc.

 

The intellectual and creative horsepower that would be unleased if the tax code were greatly simplified would be astounding.

 

I guess I'm biased since my job would be specifically hosed if there was a flat tax. But yeah, a door closes, but a window opens. I agree. It doesn't change the fact that one industry would suffer in order to bolster others.

[redrumjuice]

I thought your comment in that thread was extremely rude

 

I don't see how, expound on your opinion in that thread. If your kid spends 50% of their time with a teacher, you better be married to one.

[tazinib1]

I don't see how, expound on your opinion in that thread. If your kid spends 50% of their time with a teacher, you better be married to one.

 

 

Not sure if the 50% figure was an accurate one, but the teachers you find you can live without spend at least 8 hours a day with our children, 5 days a week, from infants until young adults. Maybe I was hoping you would get the point.

[MTSuper7]

I don't see how, expound on your opinion in that thread. If your kid spends 50% of their time with a teacher, you better be married to one.

 

What you just wrote is a lot better than "You're doing it wrong". And if you think 50% of their waking time with their teacher, it's pretty accurate (during the week at least). You sounded like you were passing judgment on your high horse.

[Clubfoothead]

If you are handing out $75,000 camaros as a bonuses, sure as $hit you are a criminal.