SpeedRacer 1 #1 February 4, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7870638.stm Good move, Obama! If a company is sticking its hand out for taxpayer $, we should be allowed to put some limits on exhorbitant salaries/bonuses for the executives who fucked things up in the first place. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #2 February 4, 2009 Agreed. Didn't read the article, but I think there should be scrutiny into all aspects of their operations if they take big chunks of cash." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #3 February 4, 2009 Another "first" for Obama! He owes beer, again! As one of the 130+ million members of the board, I approve this motion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 February 4, 2009 Certainly a populist play. I see good reason for a cap (or deferral) on income to a CEO that is running the failing corp. It's not like he (or she) did the job to warrant the high salary. But what will this mean for a struggling company - isn't the obvious end result that a star officer would decline to shift to a company at risk (or leave one), and as a result make it more likely that it will fail? I'd be content to see changes not in the salary, but in the stock incentive rules. Few CEOs get more than a few million in salary, but could get 8 or 9 figures on stock options just because the market as a whole was healthy. Mandated holding periods and a strike price that increases at the rate of the industry, or at least the rate of inflation, will align their interests with the longer term value of the company. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #5 February 4, 2009 I have trouble viewing $500K per year as "underpaid" for ... well, damn near anything. But I'm just a tree-hugging idealist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #6 February 4, 2009 Quote But what will this mean for a struggling company - isn't the obvious end result that a star officer would decline to shift to a company at risk (or leave one), and as a result make it more likely that it will fail? Maybe that officer needs to leave. The old model was "fat checks and bonuses regardless of success". Where's the incentive to innovate beyond signing on to exotic financial instruments to cook the books? Maybe some of these businesses need an influx of fresh blood and enthusiasm. After all, there are probably quite a few qualified people who could get by on 1/2 a $mill with a pot of gold waiting for them after they pay off the government loan. That sort of pay for performance can be a real motivator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #7 February 4, 2009 QuoteCertainly a populist play. I see good reason for a cap (or deferral) on income to a CEO that is running the failing corp. It's not like he (or she) did the job to warrant the high salary. But what will this mean for a struggling company - isn't the obvious end result that a star officer would decline to shift to a company at risk (or leave one), and as a result make it more likely that it will fail? I'd be content to see changes not in the salary, but in the stock incentive rules. Few CEOs get more than a few million in salary, but could get 8 or 9 figures on stock options just because the market as a whole was healthy. Mandated holding periods and a strike price that increases at the rate of the industry, or at least the rate of inflation, will align their interests with the longer term value of the company. The way I understood the article, it said these highly compensated employees may get more than $500,000, but anything above that can only be in stock options that cannot be sold until the government loan has been repayed. Thus the only time those "star execs" would turn down a job is if they didn't believe they could turn around the company. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 February 4, 2009 QuoteI have trouble viewing $500K per year as "underpaid" for ... well, damn near anything. But I'm just a tree-hugging idealist. I can answer that in two ways. 1) the CEO of a struggling company should be working pretty damn hard. 7 days a week hard. (We know that the guy at Citi was golfing instead) The good ones I've seen or worked for put in quite a dedication, more than I'm willing to do for a paycheck. It warrants compensation. And in the Bay Area, a gross household salary of 500k means that you still don't qualify for a considerable portion of the housing market. 2) Left hand pitchers get paid millions per year even if they suck. If the Cubs won't pay it, the Yankees will, and of course that guy will move. A salary cap on selective companies reduces its pool of potential CEOs, and that's generally not conducive to getting the talent needed to repair the company. Obama's stance here is really about addressing (or pandering) to the masses who are angry about the situation these execs had a large hand in causing. Other than make us feel better, I don't see it as a productive solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #9 February 4, 2009 A good businessman will know that bailouts are the worst thing for the country and the economy. So if they are willing to whore themselves out to get money that the government is stealing from one group so THEY can get it for free.... Then they deserve to to be put under the thumb of the idiots in Congress and any restraints put on them are well deserved. Including salary caps. The faster these leaches go out of business (despite artificial and poorly thought our government propping) the better for all of us. Still - the whole thing is just the politicians kissing up to the general masses and it's a stupid and pointless move. I don't see the point ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #10 February 4, 2009 Good points. I have an idea. How about we just stop nationalizing companies? Then we won't have people pissed that their tax money is being wasted on CEO salaries and lavish exec vacations. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #11 February 4, 2009 QuoteStill - the whole thing is just the politicians kissing up to the general masses and it's a stupid and pointless move. I don't see the point you are probably right about the political motivation of this, but i'll take it. i agree with what obama has done on this one. i think the point will be that it will make a ceo very reluctant to take bailout money, and with the stock thing, motivate them to pay us back so they can be their own entity again. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #12 February 4, 2009 QuoteGood points. I have an idea. How about we just stop nationalizing companies? Then we won't have people pissed that their tax money is being wasted on CEO salaries and lavish exec vacations. i agree with you there, and according to the polls, every day more and more people agree with you. that is why i believe obama is trying to get this bills on his desk asap. the longer it takes, the more the public sees what the money is really being spent on and the more pissed they get. my first choice is to not have bailouts, but since they are going to do it, and it will take so long to get all of the money out, then they need to take as long as they need to to make sure that the best bill possible gets signed. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #13 February 4, 2009 QuoteStill - the whole thing is just the politicians kissing up to the general masses and it's a stupid and pointless move. I don't see the point It's possible that the reason the general masses like the rule is that it's actually a good idea. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #14 February 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteStill - the whole thing is just the politicians kissing up to the general masses and it's a stupid and pointless move. I don't see the point It's possible that the reason the general masses like the rule is that it's actually a good idea. It's more likely that the general masses haven't put much thought into what it means. Kelpdiver did a pretty good job of explaining it. What caliber CEO is going to take on a drowning company with a salary cap? The top quality execs will go to good companies who are willing to pay big bucks. It's like a court appointed defense attorney. Probably not the best representation. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #15 February 4, 2009 Quote http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7870638.stm Good move, Obama!If a company is sticking its hand out for taxpayer $, we should be allowed to put some limits on exhorbitant salaries/bonuses for the executives who fucked things up in the first place. How about the 4 banks out of the big 9 that said they didn't need the money, and the 2 of those 4 that tried to turn it down altogether until a closed door conversation with GW? It sure sounds like they were forced to go along. There's a lot more to the bank bailout story than we're privy to. Not sure what it is, but it smells bad.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #16 February 4, 2009 Only the companies that are getting the bailout money are required to accept the salary cap. If the company doesn't need the bailout money, they can do whatever they want. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #17 February 4, 2009 QuoteOnly the companies that are getting the bailout money are required to accept the salary cap. If the company doesn't need the bailout money, they can do whatever they want. Read carefully: >>>How about the 4 banks out of the big 9 that said they didn't need the money, and the 2 of those 4 that tried to turn it down altogether until a closed door conversation with GW? It sure sounds like they were forced to go along. There's a lot more to the bank bailout story than we're privy to. Not sure what it is, but it smells bad.<<< They took the money. My point was that they may have been forced to. "Gee thanks, Mr. President. First you make me take your stupid bailout money, and now you restrict how much I can pay my execs because of it". HmmmChuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TankBuster 0 #18 February 4, 2009 Terrible move, but very predictable. In the same speech : "There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time." Now they can't make profits? Isn't that what a business is supposed to do? This guy is an empty suit with absolutely no clue. But he gives a damn good speech.The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 3 #19 February 4, 2009 I would agree…which is why I disagree with the “bailout” all together. THINK! people THINK! This will and I repeat will leave the front door (not the back door) open to more government control. Example: what to invest in and where, how much to pay employees, who to and not to do business with. Don’t you see the danger in this? Aside for the fact that these measures completely overstep the scope and function of government…This is Socialism, plain and simple. As long as you can admit this to yourself and are okay with becoming a socialist country you should have nothing to worry about. Hey the government has done a real bang up job managing the tax payers dollar so far, I m sure things will be fine. God help us.Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #20 February 4, 2009 QuoteAside for the fact that these measures completely overstep the scope and function of government…This is Socialism, plain and simple. ding, ding. We have a winner.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #21 February 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteAside for the fact that these measures completely overstep the scope and function of government…This is Socialism, plain and simple. ding, ding. We have a winner. If you'd ever lived in a truly socialist nation, you wouldn't say that. Neveretheless, capitalist greed led to this mess, so maybe a little control will indeed be a winner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #22 February 4, 2009 > What caliber CEO is going to take on a drowning company with a salary cap? A really good one who knows he can turn it around. He could get tens of millions in bonuses provided he _does_ turn it around. Read the proposal; it's in there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #23 February 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Aside for the fact that these measures completely overstep the scope and function of government…This is Socialism, plain and simple. ding, ding. We have a winner. If you'd ever lived in a truly socialist nation, you wouldn't say that. Neveretheless, capitalist greed led to this mess, so maybe a little control will indeed be a winner. Capitalist greed is balanced by competition and the free market. Government manipulation of the capitalist system led to this mess, and the current lunacy called a bailout will make things much worse.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 3 #24 February 4, 2009 No no no this is for the betterment of “society” Business should stay in business at a loss. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. Atlas Shrugged…52 years later it ALL comes true!!!! Who is Jon Galt? http://www.obamadeception.net/Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #25 February 4, 2009 QuoteNo no no this is for the betterment of “society” Business should stay in business at a loss. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. Atlas Shrugged…52 years later it ALL comes true!!!! Who is Jon Galt? http://www.obamadeception.net/ A truly naive view. The government did not force the investment banks to buy junk loans. The govt. didn;t force mortgage brokers to push loans on people without checking their income or assets. Government DEREGULATION is at the heart of the problem. It's hard to blame retailing or manufacturing companies in trouble for the mess the whiz-kids in financial sector caused. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
