Executive Compensation Capped
40 RepliesJump to last post
STARTING people should have been scared pre November 2008Obama is starting to scare me.
Wait until Ole Barry gets word that many brokers are compensated more than $500k per year…
What are you a communist? WTF business is it of a freaking politician to set incomes of executives? That is the job of managemnt and the BOD not the freaking politicians who are doing nothing but lining their pockets with billions of dollars. Seriously, you dont think Paulson, Blair and say the Finance Committee of Congress didnt see this coming and haven't make a killing off this event? Please tell me you arent that naieve. This is absolutely absurd. The Treasury FORCED everyone to take TARP money to prevent a bank run on those institutions who had to have TARP money. Secondly what business it it of Obama to mandage/legistlate???? HE HAS NO AUTHORITY under the constitution to legistlate!!!!![quote=Hank Moody] [quote=tori52]President Obama just announced a cap of 500,000 on Executive Pay. (Companies that rec’d TARP) Everyone is being penalized, it seems…Blessings and Good Luck to You All. [/quote]
How is still having a job being penalized?
[/quote]
agree completely if we were even remotely operating in a capitalistic society. we aren't. i am just thankful they did not let anyone else go under, it has done wonders for our economy.....they saved us all, oh wait.
[quote=Ferris Bueller] I WAS against and still AM against any and all bailouts.
It’s socialism. Companies that are not managed well deserve to die.[/quote]
Ok Hoover
[quote=TwoTour]
I’d be curious to know of all those on here yelling socialism or communism insults, who were opposed to the “bail out” in the first place. All the TARP money did was take a huge stride into nationalizing a good part of our economy. If you were only worried about the pay, you were deluded. The government now owns those corporations in at least part, and it is now exercising its rights as a entity with an interest.Should have been against to begin with, let only the strong survive, let the market decide who is left standing, and we wouldn’t have to worry about it. [/quote]
I may show my ignorance (again) but the TARP, as it was sold, was to purchase the CDO/SIV/Subprime/Toxic/(fill in the blank) debt off the balance sheets of these instituions. But Paulson decided to buy stock instead - thus making the gov’t an owner of financial institions rather than some financial instruments.
TARP Strategy (or Lack Thereof), Okay, so the U.S. taxpayer won’t be buying toxic debts and bad mortgages after all. Instead, it will be the United States of Shareholders with the Treasury Department changing its stated strategy. Oops, nevermind, We’ll just use the money to buy bank stocks, preferred shares, and hope it will shore up banks’ balance sheets, err … maybe not.
I don’t like the bailout, but think it was necessary. The financial markets are the grease of any economy, without the TARP funds, we could have slid into a depression.
Second, I'm all for capping the pay of failed executives. Tell me what's capitalistic about golden parachutes? Some Harvard MBA jackass tanks a whole company and then gets to walk away from his mess with $20M? Seriously? As many of us are shareholders of some of these firms, we should be applauding this. If you make a complete mess of your business, what do you walk away with?[quote=TwoTour]I’m about as conservative as they come, and a huge part of what the new administration does makes me nervous, but I’m all for capping the exec’s pay. These sorry bastards are watching those around them fall, are failing in most counts of business, are singing the blues about needing Uncle Sugar’s help, but continue to reap huge rewards? Screw that! You want government money, then you don’t get the good life.
I'd be curious to know of all those on here yelling socialism or communism insults, who were opposed to the "bail out" in the first place. All the TARP money did was take a huge stride into nationalizing a good part of our economy. If you were only worried about the pay, you were deluded. The government now owns those corporations in at least part, and it is now exercising its rights as a entity with an interest. Should have been against to begin with, let only the strong survive, let the market decide who is left standing, and we wouldn't have to worry about it. [/quote] I 100% agree with that last paragraph, that is what got us into the mess into the first place (that, and mark-to-market accounting and Barney Frank forcing banks to write bad mortgages, but I digress).
However, I disagree with your first paragraph. The only reason these CEO's (and other C-level execs) make over $500k is because the board of directors (usually large owners in the company) think they are worth it. Why else would you pay someone $20 million? It's not because he scratches a few backs. As a shareholder in a company, wouldn't you want the best possible person? What if that guy has an offer from company A for $900k, and an offer from your company for $500k (because of the cap). You just lost the best person for the job over a lousy $400K! That $400k could cost you millions (and possibly billions) in the long run because you are having to get second and third string execs! It's crazy.
Well when the Feds are done giving away billions, cutting exec comp and getting their fingers in everything. We can make sure we cut their retirement program to shreds and save billions, since they seem to have the proverbial double standard going on.
Most of those guys starting with Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are bonergnomes. You need to have the best people in the best jobs, what CEO's are going to want to run any bank that took tarp money...hell they could be treasury secretary instead, retire and make 20 mill a year on the speaking circut.[quote=etj4588]I don’t like the bailout, but think it was necessary. The financial markets are the grease of any economy, without the TARP funds, we could have slid into a depression.
Second, I'm all for capping the pay of failed executives. Tell me what's capitalistic about golden parachutes? Some Harvard MBA jackass tanks a whole company and then gets to walk away from his mess with $20M? Seriously? As many of us are shareholders of some of these firms, we should be applauding this. If you make a complete mess of your business, what do you walk away with?[/quote] What about successful executives at these same companies? This is dangerous territory. Do you think that Congress sees any difference between an executive who cost his companies millions and one who saved his company millions? Do you think that they will see the difference between an executive and a broker making $2,000,000? Tell a $10,000,000 a year ballplayer that they will only get $500,000 next year. How much effort will you get from them? What makes an executive any different?What's next 6% on an A share VA?? Ohhhh Noooo...President Obama just announced a cap of 500,000 on Executive Pay. (Companies that rec’d TARP) Everyone is being penalized, it seems…Blessings and Good Luck to You All.
[quote=Ferris Bueller] I WAS against and still AM against any and all bailouts.
It’s socialism. Companies that are not managed well deserve to die.[/quote]
If citi dies, who reimburses their $800 billion of “FDIC deposits”? FDIC fund only has $40 billion. B of A has same problem. It would cost tax payers more if you let them fail.
Government must step in to clean this up or the domino effect goes on and on and on. Just like the 30s
Under capitalism, the heads of great companies used to take a horrific financial beating during economic downturns. The crash of 1870 punished Cornelius Vanderbilt. The panic of 1907 beat the hell out of Andrew Carnegie.
Today, in the era of Lemon Socialism, Stan O’Neal and John Thain destroyed the greatest name on Wall Street and walked away with hundreds of millions for their failures. Charlie Prince did not understand the company he ran into the ground, but he too sits on hundreds of millions. Vikram Pandit was paid tens of millions just for signing on the dotted line…what did owners of C get for their millions in cash salary and upfront bonuses…a middle manager who was overwhelmed by the water flooding into his ship. Ken Lewis gets 20 million for taking a decent financial company and buying pure crap for real dollars thereby ruining his formerly decent company. The system was f*cked.
The $500k is mostly symbolic (only top five execs on future TARP apps), but it does send a statement. These guys (their predecessors over the path 30 years) gamed the system to create these compensation strategies (read David Cay Johnston or Kevin Phillips for eye openers).
President Obama is just sending a shot across the bow, letting them and their hand-picked compensation committees know that the era of bamboozling stakeholders to create their private plutocracy is over. If they really think they are worth more than that, try the really free market. How many of you think anyone today will pay Thain, O’Neal, Pandit, or any of these other zeros 20 million up front just for signing the contract.
[quote=anonymous]
Tell a $10,000,000 a year ballplayer that they will only get $500,000 next year. How much effort will you get from them? What makes an executive any different?[/quote]Well if you follow baseball and this year’s free agent class you’ll have your answer by September. A lot of guys are getting a fraction of what they made and what they were asking for. By the way, those high salaries in sports were driven by the marketing value of sporting events. Unfortunately for the players, 40% of American advertising dollars were spent by the car companies and the banks. The three stiffs the Yankees made rich this year are probably the last hurrah.
[quote=josephjones107] [quote=Ferris Bueller] I WAS against and still AM against any and all bailouts.
It’s socialism. Companies that are not managed well deserve to die.[/quote]
If citi dies, who reimburses their $800 billion of “FDIC deposits”? FDIC fund only has $40 billion. B of A has same problem. It would cost tax payers more if you let them fail.
Government must step in to clean this up or the domino effect goes on and on and on. Just like the 30s[/quote]
You’re right. Its a catch 22 though. Because when the government is done cleaning up this mess, and we are running 10% or more inflation because our currency is worthless, the $800 Billion that the government guaranteed for Citi will be worth about $20 billion.
I dont say i have any answers, just that this whole thing is a mess and we are ultimately furked no matter what the Feds do or dont.
Wasn’t it Bush who started everything with the TARP? If he and the other good Republicans had done what they believed in, everything would have failed before Obama got in and capitalism would be saved. Sure, we’d all be pissed at them now, but a year from now we’d all be saying what a fine job W did on his way out.
But at least the gov’t is hedging:
Bail out Citi - but make them break up
Bail out BAC - but make them get bigger
One of those should work…
I think its ironic that Obama wants to cap pay at 500k. Considering that the top 50% of income earners in this country pay 96% of ALL income taxes, he is shooting himself in the foot and decreasing revenue to the treasury. Its pure political posturing. Everything he promised in his campaign is now DOA. No pork, no earmarks, its a friggin joke. He has zero control. Pelosi and Reid are running the show.
[quote=training wheels]I think its ironic that Obama wants to cap pay at 500k. Considering that the top 50% of income earners in this country pay 96% of ALL income taxes, he is shooting himself in the foot and decreasing revenue to the treasury. Its pure political posturing. Everything he promised in his campaign is now DOA. No pork, no earmarks, its a friggin joke. He has zero control. Pelosi and Reid are running the show. [/quote]
All that from the change candidate. A BSing empty suit at the top during these times = scary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9kGYWF48qo
How many in the top 50% make over $500,000 nice Hannity stats, now what are the full stats Rugburn?
[quote=GoodTimes]How many in the top 50% make over $500,000 nice Hannity stats, now what are the full stats Rugburn?[/quote]
Easy J.J…you’re missing the big picture and coming off looking like an idiot demanding your full stats.