Obama administration plans to slash pay of executives at 7 bailed-out companies

[AFA]

Obama administration plans to slash pay of executives at 7 bailed-out companies

The Obama administration plans to significantly cut the pay of executives at the seven companies that have received the most bailout money, reacting to a growing outcry about huge new bonuses and other compensation at firms propped up by taxpayer dollars, according to people familiar with the decision.

The 25 highest-paid executives at the companies would have their salary cut by an average of about 90% from what they received last year, replacing the pay with stock that they would have to hold for a set period of time, the people said. The goal is to reduce corporate decisions based on short-term gains and force executives to consider the long-term impact on the company.
:thumbsup:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-executive-pay22-2009oct22,0,3885122.story

 

[CunningStunts]

Again, a good idea, but a terrible precedent.

If these companies were going under paying CEO's a shitton of money, why not let them fail? That's what happens to companies that aren't smart with their money.

But now, the taxpayers bailed them out, and now the government can set their salaries? Wow... this truly disturbs me on so many levels...

 

[AFA]

I think pretty much in the form of Richard Fuld of Lehman Bros who received $489M in comp for his 8 years of "hard work", these guys are clearly out for themselves. I disagree with the Bush admin when it granted them carte blanch under Henry Paulson, himself worth about 100M as chairman of Goldman Sachs, and felt the bailout needed a lot more consideration than "the emergency that had to be resolved immediately". Kudos for GM and all the other banks bailed out, which largely used the money to buy out smaller institutions and position themselves stronger strategically for the future.

This weeks Frontline, The Warning, does a great job for laying out the suspect motives of the most powerful of those responsible in the 1990's for a good deal of the current financial fiasco.

In the midst of the 1990's bull market, one lone regulator warned about derivatives' dangers -- and overnight became the enemy of some of the most powerful people in Washington...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

 

[meesterperfect]

Again, a good idea, but a terrible precedent.

If these companies were going under paying CEO's a shitton of money, why not let them fail? That's what happens to companies that aren't smart with their money.

But now, the taxpayers bailed them out, and now the government can set their salaries? Wow... this truly disturbs me on so many levels...

same here.

 

[knowone]

I disagree, it's a good idea, and a GREAT precedent!

 

[maildude]

Good.

 

[Facial_King]

I think minimum wage and a stern (humiliating, public) warning should suffice for anyone who doesn't actually get fired - and plenty of them deserve THAT.

 

[Legzman]

ummm...why not give the money they spent on the bailouts to these fuckin companies to the american citizens? Just a thought! OH wait...that makes entirely to much sense. Silly me, what the fuck was I thinking???

 

[Facetious]

Is this not classic fascism:
publicly traded - government controlled ?

 

[camplo72]

Is this not classic fascism:
publicly traded - government controlled ?

been living it all my life..even when bush was in office

 

[Hot Mega]

I pains me to see this but when YOU GO TO THE GOVERNMENT for help, the government has to have some say in how you use the people's taxes.

Moral of the story....don't fuck your affairs up so bad that you have to rely on the government to make you solvent.

 

[AFA]

ummm...why not give the money they spent on the bailouts to these fuckin companies to the american citizens? Just a thought! OH wait...that makes entirely to much sense. Silly me, what the fuck was I thinking???

Yes, I think I'm also as delusional as you about that.

I pains me to see this but when YOU GO TO THE GOVERNMENT for help, the government has to have some say in how you use the people's taxes.

Moral of the story....don't fuck your affairs up so bad that you have to rely on the government to make you solvent.

Yes, but then you get the first time home buyer rebate of $8,000, the clunker tax break of $4500, and the mortgage bailout for buying something you couldn't afford. I'm responsible I don't own a clunker to trade or need a bailout but it seems I just missed out on at least $12,500 or more in tax breaks I can use about now.

It's like going to Vegas, betting the farm and having the MGM Grand tell you not to worry about it when you lose.

 

[titsrock]

There must be limits even to capitalism. The average ceo asshole makes 234 times the amount of the entry level worker. The ceo does not generate 234 times *wealth* or success for a company. ceo pay SHOULD BE CAPPED at 10 times the lowest salary offered by the company. ceos get paid like kings whether or not the stock performs or tanks...that's the problem.

This is fine, but it's a distraction away from the bigger issue that the Obama Administration hasn't dealt with, and that is--REGULATION.

Obama needs to force Congress to pass MEANINGFUL REGULATION so these companies don't fuck up and take down the entire economy because of greed and selfishness.

 

[Will E Worm]

Is this not classic fascism:
publicly traded - government controlled ?

Yes, and it is not the job or right of the government to step into the private sector or any state or privately owned business and enforce wages and so on.

They don't have the jurisdiction.

been living it all my life..even when bush was in office

Obama is worse and it will only escalate.

 

[jasonk282]

Obama is worse and it will only escalate.

Yes according to Michale Bay he disbands NEST and the Deciptcons once again try to destroy earth.

 

[Member2019]

This is what should have happened years ago ...

Again, a good idea, but a terrible precedent.

If these companies were going under paying CEO's a shitton of money, why not let them fail? That's what happens to companies that aren't smart with their money.

But now, the taxpayers bailed them out, and now the government can set their salaries? Wow... this truly disturbs me on so many levels...

Why?

When you take federal funds you are now being funded by the tax payer and a public servant. There is a level of expectations on compensation. If you don't want that, then don't take the money. Leave and find a job elsewhere with better pay in the completely private sector.

I love how Republicans bitch about ACORN and then bitch about this. I mean they want the same accountability out of ACORN as well, because they take public funds too. So why a double-standard?

And I say this as a Capitalist and a Libertarian. If you don't want the government with any say, then don't take their funds. If you do, then you are now forced to comply.

In the case where your firm was going to go bankrupt, but the government saved you, your existing employment contracts are null and void. Sorry, but the bullshit of using the existing compensation agreements are total bullshit when your firm would have gone bankrupt.

Again, if they don't like it they can leave and get another, true private sector job.

 

[Facetious]

I wish that Obama would appoint a ''Supporting a Strong Dollar Czar'' and can his "manufacturing czar" who recently said something to the effect of 'The free market is foolish.'


Yea sir it might be but it beats the alternative. :dunno:

 

[Hot Mega]

Yes, and it is not the job or right of the government to step into the private sector or any state or privately owned business and enforce wages and so on.

They don't have the jurisdiction.

Of course there is this little thing about them going to the government in the first place. If you want total control over your affairs, don't ask for tax payer money.:dunno:

The government would be somewhat foolish to extend this kind of capital for some of these groups to just continue doing business as usual with public funds at risk. I'm certain that as a condition of receiving this capital these businesses had to accept some measure of oversight into their affairs. It only makes sense.

 

[GiannaIsMyGod]

Obama administration plans to slash pay of executives at 7 bailed-out companies

The Obama administration plans to significantly cut the pay of executives at the seven companies that have received the most bailout money, reacting to a growing outcry about huge new bonuses and other compensation at firms propped up by taxpayer dollars, according to people familiar with the decision.

The 25 highest-paid executives at the companies would have their salary cut by an average of about 90% from what they received last year, replacing the pay with stock that they would have to hold for a set period of time, the people said. The goal is to reduce corporate decisions based on short-term gains and force executives to consider the long-term impact on the company.
:thumbsup:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-executive-pay22-2009oct22,0,3885122.story

Best news I've heard in a while.

 

[Petra]

Of course there is this little thing about them going to the government in the first place. If you want total control over your affairs, don't ask for tax payer money.:dunno:

The government would be somewhat foolish to extend this kind of capital for some of these groups to just continue doing business as usual with public funds at risk. I'm certain that as a condition of receiving this capital these businesses had to accept some measure of oversight into their affairs. It only makes sense.

This is exactly it. It was written into the package agreement that the companies would be subject to conditions, which includes being told how much they can get paid, when they took that bail out money. It is NOBODY's fault that these companies are being subjected to this other than their own.

Where people need to get pissed is if the government tries this with companies that haven't taken a red cent of the bail out money.