Quote:
Originally Posted by uno
These people were grossly overpaid with extravagant bonuses for failure in the first place for running their respective companies both into the ground, into the red and into gov't hands begging for bailouts. If they want to leave the companies they helped destroy, so be it. I doubt it'll look good on a resume. Bring in some fresh blood that can turn these companies around into profitable entities, pay back the bailout money and reap the rewards.
I doubt there are only a tiny handful of people capable of running these companies. Sure as shit there are people out there who can and will do a better job. It sounds to me that, as i stated earlier, it will encourage and reward based on merit and achievement rather than reward failure as has been the case.
|
You are oversimplifying this situation.
A high-level bank can have dozens and dozens of executives and high-level account managers. Possibly even hundreds. Every single one of them did not destroy the company. Many of them were the only ones keeping the companies afloat. Those people are worth their money. They bring in massive dollars.
Those people have perfect resumes. They have reputations. They have jobs lined up and people willing to pay them.
This isn't black and white. Part of the reason those top-level banks wanted to pay back the TARP money so fast is because they were already losing their top guys. If you lose your top guys, constantly, you are screwed, period. That's also why the fed was hesitant about letting these companies pay back the money... they are afraid that these companies will target the other companies that still have to follow the executive pay restrictions and scoop up all of their top-level guys, leaving the "bad banks" in an even worse situation because now not only are they low on money, they are low on quality human resources.