<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Ron Amundson - Latest Comments in Who ate the other $8.944 billion</title><link>http://ronamundson.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://ronamundson.disqus.com/who_ate_the_other_8944_billion/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 03:26:36 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Who ate the other $8.944 billion</title><link>http://www.ronamundson.com/blog/2009/02/21/who-ate-the-other-8944-billion/#comment-6477665</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Wall Street runs in its own world LOL, although to some extent, the loss leader in retail is similar. The idea is that incentivizing them to stay will ensure the company makes money in years 2,3,4 and on. Also, if a broker leaves, then so do all his customers, and that could be a huge hit. However, not so much in the case of $GS, as they are so entwined with the treasury, but $C is unlikely to be around by the time the bonuses would be paid out... Its an odd deal for sure. Way back when I was fascinated by finance and economics, but thought the money was too limited, but hindsight is always 20/20. LOL&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ron Amundson</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 03:26:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Who ate the other $8.944 billion</title><link>http://www.ronamundson.com/blog/2009/02/21/who-ate-the-other-8944-billion/#comment-6476256</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If we pay them 105% of their actual production, what money are they actually making for the company?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I just must not understand banking.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Joy</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:36:07 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>