Obama's compensation plan is bullshit
- Thread starter dawgball
- Start date
I would be willing to bet there are some here who think these execs should be paid more!:142smilie
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
you know hollywood lobbied for federal funds,too....thankfully,cooler heads prevailed and i believe that that was cut out of the package...
if hollywood would have gotten some bread,would everyone want the gov`t telling matt damon,tom hanks and brad pitt how much they can make per movie?.....
say a $500,000 limit?....
by accepting this money,these companies set themselves up as government pawns.......what did they expect from this administration?....it`s on them....
where i draw the line is if bock tries to reign in executive salaries on companies that didn`t have their hand out....
he does that and all bets are off...that`s a bridge too far..
if hollywood would have gotten some bread,would everyone want the gov`t telling matt damon,tom hanks and brad pitt how much they can make per movie?.....
say a $500,000 limit?....
by accepting this money,these companies set themselves up as government pawns.......what did they expect from this administration?....it`s on them....
where i draw the line is if bock tries to reign in executive salaries on companies that didn`t have their hand out....
he does that and all bets are off...that`s a bridge too far..
Last edited:
lol- are you even serious?
Surely they expected the same treatment as the last admin. You know, manage the company to ruin, take billions from the government and then make sure to take your 10 million dollar year end bonus along with the rest of upper management.
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
Well, he's not. At least at this time.
So you didn't really express whether you thought what actually was announced today was a good decision or not.
Do you have an opinion on that specifically?
i think there may be a constitutional fight brewing over this.....bock may not be able to set compensation on a private company regardless of the bail-out.....
maybe the ceo`s don`t fight it because of the public support for it....:shrug: ..that i don`t know..
but it does seem strange that the gov`t can set salaries on private institutions....regardless of the handout...
he`s not god...
but..these companies brought it on themselves by taking gov`t money...
on that i agree...
Last edited:
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
After taking that money, they are officially not fully private any longer, in my opinion. They couldn't survive on their own.
If this was a decision on companies outside of the bailout, I would be outraged.
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Wednesday imposed $500,000 caps on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving federal bailout money, saying Americans are upset with ?executives being rewarded for failure.?
Obama announced the dramatic new government intervention into corporate America at the White House, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side. The president said the executive-pay limits are a first step, to be followed by the unveiling next week of a sweeping new framework for spending what remains of the $700 billion financial industry bailout that Congress created last year.
The executive-pay move comes amid a national outcry over huge bonuses to executives heading companies seeking taxpayer dollars to remain afloat. The demand for limits was reinforced by revelations that Wall Street firms paid more than $18 billion in bonuses in 2008 even amid the economic downturn and the massive infusion of taxpayer dollars.
?This is America. We don?t disparage wealth. We don?t begrudge anybody for achieving success,? Obama said. ?But what gets people upset ? and rightfully so ? are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.?
The pay cap would apply to institutions that negotiate agreements with the Treasury Department for ?exceptional assistance? in the future. The restriction would not apply to such firms as American International Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., and Citigroup Inc., that already have received such help.
?There is a deep sense across the country that those who were not ... responsible for this crisis are bearing a greater burden than those who were,? Geithner said.
Firms that want to pay executives above the $500,000 threshold would have to use stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds.
Generally healthy institutions that get capital infusions from the Troubled Asset Relief Program in the future will have more leeway. They also will face the $500,000 limit, but the cap can be waived with full public disclosure and a nonbinding shareholder vote.
Obama said that massive severance packages for executives who leave failing firms are also going to be eliminated. ?We?re taking the air out of golden parachutes,? he said.
Other new requirements on ?exceptional assistance? will include:
The expansion to 20, from five, the number of executives who would face reduced bonuses and incentives if they are found to have knowingly provided inaccurate information related to company financial statements or performance measurements.
An increase in the ban on golden parachutes from a firm?s top five senior executives to its top 10. The next 25 would be prohibited from golden parachutes that exceed one year?s compensation.
A requirement that boards of directors adopt policies on spending such as corporate jets, renovations and entertainment.
The administration also will propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don?t receive government assistance, Obama said. Those proposals include:
Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out.
Requiring nonbinding ?say on pay? resolutions ? that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation.
A Treasury-sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation.
Compensation experts in the private sector have warned that intrusions into the internal decisions of financial institutions could discourage participation in the rescue program and slow down the financial sector?s recovery. They also argue that it could set a precedent for government regulation that undermines performance-based pay.
?One of the big questions is whether it will make it more difficult to recruit and retain executives at these companies,? said Claudia Allen, chair of corporate governance at the Chicago-based law firm of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg.
The $500,000 cap ?is a very tight limit,? she said.
Timothy J. Bartl, vice president and general counsel for the Center On Executive Compensation, said the president?s actions are a unique situation given the government?s role bailing out troubled institutions.
?We do not view it as something that ought to be extended beyond this circumstance,? he said.
On Capitol Hill, some lawmakers had been pushing for even stricter caps.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., have proposed that no employee of an institution that receives money under the $700 billion federal bailout can receive more than $400,000 in total compensation until it pays the money back. The figure is equivalent to the salary of the president of the United States.
Even some Republicans, angered by company decisions to pay bonuses and buy airplanes while receiving government help, have few qualms about restrictions.
?In ordinary situations where the taxpayers? money is not involved, we shouldn?t set executive pay,? said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.
?But where you?ve got federal money involved, taxpayers? money involved, TARP money involved, and the way they have spent it, with no accountability, is getting close to being criminal.?
Obama announced the dramatic new government intervention into corporate America at the White House, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side. The president said the executive-pay limits are a first step, to be followed by the unveiling next week of a sweeping new framework for spending what remains of the $700 billion financial industry bailout that Congress created last year.
The executive-pay move comes amid a national outcry over huge bonuses to executives heading companies seeking taxpayer dollars to remain afloat. The demand for limits was reinforced by revelations that Wall Street firms paid more than $18 billion in bonuses in 2008 even amid the economic downturn and the massive infusion of taxpayer dollars.
?This is America. We don?t disparage wealth. We don?t begrudge anybody for achieving success,? Obama said. ?But what gets people upset ? and rightfully so ? are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.?
The pay cap would apply to institutions that negotiate agreements with the Treasury Department for ?exceptional assistance? in the future. The restriction would not apply to such firms as American International Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., and Citigroup Inc., that already have received such help.
?There is a deep sense across the country that those who were not ... responsible for this crisis are bearing a greater burden than those who were,? Geithner said.
Firms that want to pay executives above the $500,000 threshold would have to use stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds.
Generally healthy institutions that get capital infusions from the Troubled Asset Relief Program in the future will have more leeway. They also will face the $500,000 limit, but the cap can be waived with full public disclosure and a nonbinding shareholder vote.
Obama said that massive severance packages for executives who leave failing firms are also going to be eliminated. ?We?re taking the air out of golden parachutes,? he said.
Other new requirements on ?exceptional assistance? will include:
The expansion to 20, from five, the number of executives who would face reduced bonuses and incentives if they are found to have knowingly provided inaccurate information related to company financial statements or performance measurements.
An increase in the ban on golden parachutes from a firm?s top five senior executives to its top 10. The next 25 would be prohibited from golden parachutes that exceed one year?s compensation.
A requirement that boards of directors adopt policies on spending such as corporate jets, renovations and entertainment.
The administration also will propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don?t receive government assistance, Obama said. Those proposals include:
Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out.
Requiring nonbinding ?say on pay? resolutions ? that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation.
A Treasury-sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation.
Compensation experts in the private sector have warned that intrusions into the internal decisions of financial institutions could discourage participation in the rescue program and slow down the financial sector?s recovery. They also argue that it could set a precedent for government regulation that undermines performance-based pay.
?One of the big questions is whether it will make it more difficult to recruit and retain executives at these companies,? said Claudia Allen, chair of corporate governance at the Chicago-based law firm of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg.
The $500,000 cap ?is a very tight limit,? she said.
Timothy J. Bartl, vice president and general counsel for the Center On Executive Compensation, said the president?s actions are a unique situation given the government?s role bailing out troubled institutions.
?We do not view it as something that ought to be extended beyond this circumstance,? he said.
On Capitol Hill, some lawmakers had been pushing for even stricter caps.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., have proposed that no employee of an institution that receives money under the $700 billion federal bailout can receive more than $400,000 in total compensation until it pays the money back. The figure is equivalent to the salary of the president of the United States.
Even some Republicans, angered by company decisions to pay bonuses and buy airplanes while receiving government help, have few qualms about restrictions.
?In ordinary situations where the taxpayers? money is not involved, we shouldn?t set executive pay,? said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.
?But where you?ve got federal money involved, taxpayers? money involved, TARP money involved, and the way they have spent it, with no accountability, is getting close to being criminal.?
?executives being rewarded for failure.?
wouldnt that accurately describe almost every member of congress and senate?
have they imposed a maximum salary or drastic pay cut to themselves during these "worst times in the last 80 years?"
answer, nope....they continue to spend at record rates, the type of spending they are blaming private companies of doing that caused this problem.
:142smilie
I agree with your general points, but how many billions that they are 'spending' have gone to and will go to, the same failed companies and executives?
This whole thing kind of goes around in a circle. Crazy shit.
"The administration also will propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don?t receive government assistance"
how can they get away with this?....
you guys laugh when some of us worry about socialism....that`s what this would be....a totally unwarranted expansion of government power...
what would stop them from setting limits on the mechanic down the street?...the guy that runs the italian food store?....the local liquor store...
they`re not gonna stop till somebody stops them...
it ain`t working in europe and it ain`t working here...
that`s scary....
how can they get away with this?....
you guys laugh when some of us worry about socialism....that`s what this would be....a totally unwarranted expansion of government power...
what would stop them from setting limits on the mechanic down the street?...the guy that runs the italian food store?....the local liquor store...
they`re not gonna stop till somebody stops them...
it ain`t working in europe and it ain`t working here...
that`s scary....
nobody cared 6 months ago so why care now
YES WE CAN
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN
OH-BAAAAAAAA-MA
hey at least my gas and mortgage will be paid for, although i'm still waiting for my first gas/mortgage check from BO.
Not sure about that one Wease - I think I agree with your bristling on that. But sounds like in the article that the already awarded money is not going to be affected, just future monies from those who are asking for assistance to the dramatic degrees. I agree with that, in principle.
you can argue the issue when it involves those that took handouts....
but expanding it and forcing it upon viable businesses that opearate in the black without gov`t assistance is quintissential socialism..
why would the gov`t get involved in mucking up already viable enterprizes?...
because they can....
in that case where does it end?...and how can you pick and choose who to enforce it on?....wouldn`t you have to institute it across the board to be "fair"(isn`t that the buzzword?)...
the slippery slope...the gov`t works for us...not the other way around...
but expanding it and forcing it upon viable businesses that opearate in the black without gov`t assistance is quintissential socialism..
why would the gov`t get involved in mucking up already viable enterprizes?...
because they can....
in that case where does it end?...and how can you pick and choose who to enforce it on?....wouldn`t you have to institute it across the board to be "fair"(isn`t that the buzzword?)...
the slippery slope...the gov`t works for us...not the other way around...
Settle down, Weasel - if you read the detailed ideas beneath the line you cherry-picked you will see that they aren't talking about salary caps, but rather restrictions on selling stocks and more influence of shareholders in compensation decisions. ...Not exactly socialism.
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 50
Well, I guess it's a step, but I am kind of pissed that it won't apply to all of the jackasses that we've already bailed out.
Why the feck not?
We literally own those piece of shits, so shouldn't we say how much their paid?
Don't give me the bullshit about them being the top talent, either.
There are loads of talented top-level people that would start tomorrow for $500K
Why the feck not?
We literally own those piece of shits, so shouldn't we say how much their paid?
Don't give me the bullshit about them being the top talent, either.
There are loads of talented top-level people that would start tomorrow for $500K
reminds me of Milton Friedman's idea to negatively index pay of Congress to the deficit. More deficit grows, less they get paid--do that and budget would be close to balanced every year!
kind of like how member of the house and senate contribute to the social security fund
wait.......nevermind
