livendive 8 #51 February 5, 2009 QuoteTerrible 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. They can return to profitability after they give us our money back. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #52 February 5, 2009 QuoteI 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. When an individual goes into bankruptcy, they have to report all income and schedule all payments with the bankruptcy coulrt until they have taken care of their obligations. Why should banks taking billions from the government not be similarly restricted? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #53 February 5, 2009 Quote When an individual goes into bankruptcy, they have to report all income and schedule all payments with the bankruptcy coulrt until they have taken care of their obligations. Why should banks taking billions from the government not be similarly restricted? Blues, Dave This is a trick question - right?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #54 February 5, 2009 >Likewise, CEO's doing well at good companies aren't typically looking to leave. Right. But old CEO's retire/die and new ones come along, like always. > What if you were pulling $50mil a year? Well, here's the thing there. If you're really making $50mil a year, you don't need most of your yearly salary. So you're more likely to take the offer of $1 million a year with a $500 million bonus in 4 years as opposed to $50 million a year for four years. At that point it's all an investment. On the other hand, if you suck, and you know you will drive the company into the ground, you're more likely to take the $50 million a year and get out while the getting's good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #55 February 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteYes, it is. No, it's not. "...you can't profit from a bailout." is a misinterpretation/spin of what he said, but it's not what he said. I gave you the quote of what he said! "...at a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that, if they don't provide help, that the entire system could come down on top of our heads," the president said, "that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful." "There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time. That's what he said. I may have paraphrased but I'm not reading anything between the lines. If you want to criticize the bailout or the idea of government having such an influence on private, or pseudo-private industry that's fine. There's plenty to argue about without making stuff up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 February 5, 2009 Quote > What if you were pulling $50mil a year? Well, here's the thing there. If you're really making $50mil a year, you don't need most of your yearly salary. So you're more likely to take the offer of $1 million a year with a $500 million bonus in 4 years as opposed to $50 million a year for four years. At that point it's all an investment. So how long do you ponder these numbers you pull out of thin air? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #57 February 5, 2009 Quote I wonder how many companies with these highly paid CEOs (understatement) are having trouble meeting their pension and health care commitments, or have happy shareholders this year. I also wonder how many companies would have even needed a bailout if their executive compensation packages were not at stratospheric levels. Visual aid Wow - the mob is in full force alright. Do you know where most of the compensation comes from? Shareholders...due to the stock dillution and then buying the CEO's options later. 50M a year is dwarfed by the tens of billions lost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #58 February 5, 2009 >So how long do you ponder these numbers you pull out of thin air? Uh, FallingOsh pulled the $50mil a year out of the air. I was just answering his question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #59 February 5, 2009 QuoteWow - the mob is in full force alright. I don't see that. Quite frankly if you are the CEO for a company that needs taxpayers money to be bailed out, you shouldn't even be making $500,000. Look at the performance of GM and the compensation of the CEO. The difference between average worker compensations and CEO compensation has been growing exponentially in the last years. Clearly that increase hasn't been reflected in the value that they have created in the same time frame. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 February 5, 2009 Quote>So how long do you ponder these numbers you pull out of thin air? Uh, FallingOsh pulled the $50mil a year out of the air. I was just answering his question. No, his number exists. There are execs earning that. But your 1 million/yr now (which isn't even allowed per the proposal), 500B, and 4 years are all made up to make a ridiculously obvious choice, even though it would never actually be a realistic scenario. The 4 year bit is especially suspicious, and even a great exec isn't guaranteed to succeed. I've seen plenty of good companies fail. A big problem in the current state is there is absolutely no way to accurately evaluate the loan portfolio. The wise man takes the money now when the option exists. Your counter scenario only makes sense if the back end bonus is a given. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #61 February 5, 2009 >Your counter scenario only makes sense if the back end bonus is a given. Or he is certain that he will be able to turn the company around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #62 February 5, 2009 Quote>Your counter scenario only makes sense if the back end bonus is a given. Or he is certain that he will be able to turn the company around. No one is so certain that they'll live on 5-20% of their normal compensation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #63 February 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteWow - the mob is in full force alright. I don't see that. Quite frankly if you are the CEO for a company that needs taxpayers money to be bailed out, you shouldn't even be making $500,000. Look at the performance of GM and the compensation of the CEO. The difference between average worker compensations and CEO compensation has been growing exponentially in the last years. Clearly that increase hasn't been reflected in the value that they have created in the same time frame. Way to skip the point of my posting. None of these companies are failing because of excessive pay. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #64 February 5, 2009 QuoteNone of these companies are failing because of excessive pay. In many cases it can be argued that to some degree they are. Most of these giant bonuses are performance driven and generally not based on long term performance (long term as in excess of 10 years). Hence, the top executives are driven to look at making decisions that increase their own paycheques, as opposed to making decisions based on what is best for the companies long and sustained profitability. GM is a perfect example. They should have dealt with the insane union demands a long time ago. However, that would have resulted in labour action, which would have impacted short term performance and would have seriously decreased their pay. However, if the senior executives would ahve done that, GM would very likely be in much better shape than they are now. Some of these companies are most definitely failing because of the mechanism that drives the excessive pay. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #65 February 5, 2009 QuoteQuote>Your counter scenario only makes sense if the back end bonus is a given. Or he is certain that he will be able to turn the company around. No one is so certain that they'll live on 5-20% of their normal compensation. Maybe for a couple of months they should fill the boots of one of the employees they've laid off. Then $500k/yr will seem real easy.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #66 February 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteWow - the mob is in full force alright. I don't see that. Quite frankly if you are the CEO for a company that needs taxpayers money to be bailed out, you shouldn't even be making $500,000. Look at the performance of GM and the compensation of the CEO. The difference between average worker compensations and CEO compensation has been growing exponentially in the last years. Clearly that increase hasn't been reflected in the value that they have created in the same time frame. Way to skip the point of my posting. None of these companies are failing because of excessive pay. That they are failing at all says the execs are not worth $500k.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #67 February 5, 2009 QuoteNo one is so certain that they'll live on 5-20% of their normal compensation. Then leave. I am sure some new talent would appreciate the opportunity to turn the company around. It is the current CEO's that lead their companies into this mess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #68 February 5, 2009 >No one is so certain that they'll live on 5-20% of their normal compensation. If you really think that people out there will have trouble living on a million a year - then we're not living in the same world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #69 February 5, 2009 Yep. who cares if regular working people are losing jobs at the rate of half a million a month. THINK OF THE RICH!! The first priority must be to ensure that the fatcats are able to get their annual supply of Lear Jets & Luxury Yachts. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #70 February 5, 2009 QuoteQuote When an individual goes into bankruptcy, they have to report all income and schedule all payments with the bankruptcy coulrt until they have taken care of their obligations. Why should banks taking billions from the government not be similarly restricted? Blues, Dave This is a trick question - right? No, should it be? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #71 February 5, 2009 QuoteYep. who cares if regular working people are losing jobs at the rate of half a million a month. THINK OF THE RICH!! The first priority must be to ensure that the fatcats are able to get their annual supply of Lear Jets & Luxury Yachts. No... but neither should they have their liberties restricted. I want you to work THIS HARD... but you're only going to take [cap]this paycut[/cap] (not that some of the incomes aren't what I would consider out of line... but I think what sports players get is out of line too.... ) AND.... on top of that SELL YOUR HOUSE. AND ... on top of that Take all of the blame if you can't get this turned around. AND... on top of that..... honestly, who are you trying to justify this too? There IS a lynch mob mentality here. But it's "ok" cuz every last one of them is just rich "fatcats" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #72 February 5, 2009 QuoteYep. who cares if regular working people are losing jobs at the rate of half a million a month. THINK OF THE RICH!! The first priority must be to ensure that the fatcats are able to get their annual supply of Lear Jets & Luxury Yachts. No... but neither should they have their liberties restricted. I want you to work THIS HARD... but you're only going to take [cap]this paycut[/cap] (not that some of the incomes aren't what I would consider out of line... but I think what sports players get is out of line too.... ) AND.... on top of that SELL YOUR HOUSE. AND ... on top of that Take all of the blame if you can't get this turned around. AND... on top of that..... honestly, who are you trying to justify this too? There IS a lynch mob mentality here. But it's "ok" cuz every last one of them is just rich "fatcats" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #73 February 5, 2009 Quote>No one is so certain that they'll live on 5-20% of their normal compensation. If you really think that people out there will have trouble living on a million a year - then we're not living in the same world. Once again, the proposal is 500k, not a million. And in California, that's a pretty big difference. But more importantly, I didn't say they would have trouble living on either salary. I have said that those with choices will generally opt to go elsewhere. And usually choices = talent. So how is discouraging talent a good thing for this companies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #74 February 5, 2009 QuoteOnce again, the proposal is 500k, not a million That would still be a 400% increase for at least 1 CEO (Buffet) who does just fine being rewarded for the long term profitability of his firm.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #75 February 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteNone of these companies are failing because of excessive pay. In many cases it can be argued that to some degree they are. Most of these giant bonuses are performance driven and generally not based on long term performance (long term as in excess of 10 years). I mostly agree with your point here. I do blame the method of option grants that reward execs for mere inflation or a general bull market. My response was in that the compensation is far lower than the loan losses. But of course, their actions and the corresponding opportunity costs have to be considered. I tend to blame these CEOs for incompetence rather than their compensation. Even if they were only getting a fraction of these options, the same incentives to over leverage are there. BankAmerica is a funny case, because much of their vunerability now comes from buying what they thought were firesales (Countrywide and Merrill), but now appear to be bad purchases. If it hadn't had done so, it would probably be healthier. JPM, otoh, seems to be the only giant that didn't overstep. Even though JPM is down terribly like all the other banks, I can see Diamond earning a decent bonus this past year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
