what do you think about obama setting pay for public companies?

[count of monte cristo]

i voted for the guy, this i think the SEC should not mingle in the compensation of these companies, too much oversight, imo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

The Obama administration is set to announce two proposals today that would empower shareholders and the Securities and Exchange Commission to have more oversight over executive compensation at all publicly traded firms, government sources said.

Under a so-called "say-on-pay" plan, shareholders would have a greater voice over what top earners at firms are paid.

A second proposal would authorize the SEC to ensure that compensation committees at companies act independently in setting executive pay. Members of these committees would be banned from taking any fees from their respective firms other than what they make for serving on the panels. Any attorney or consultants that help members in their work must be hired by and report to the committee rather than the chief executive of a firm.

[uno]

If they are going to take billions of our dollars and we are going to be temporary minority or majority shareholders in the companies, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to bitch slap them around a bit.

Whats funny is that a bunch of banks that were in "dire" need of bailouts suddenly want to pay back the bailout money so their execs don't take a pay cut.

[ReGGs]

I am torn on this situation. On one hand you have the government telling you how much you can get paid which always sounds a little onerous. On the other you have executives with golden parachutes that guarantee millions running companies and large amounts of employee pensions into the ground. Seems like a complete no win.

[Tom_PM]

"set to announce two proposals today that would empower shareholders and the Securities and Exchange Commission to have more oversight over executive compensation at all publicly traded firms"

OH yeah, sounds like Obama is the anti-christ.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by uno

If they are going to take billions of our dollars and we are going to be temporary minority or majority shareholders in the companies, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to bitch slap them around a bit.

Whats funny is that a bunch of banks that were in "dire" need of bailouts suddenly want to pay back the bailout money so their execs don't take a pay cut.

What do you suggest they do about the top-level bankers leaving the companies because pay is not what they can make at other companies?

This is already happening. Guys are being restricted on what they can earn so they are jumping ship to hedge funds and foreign finance groups. If a guy can make $2 million a year elsewhere but can only make $500,000 a year with you... where do you think he is going to go?

I understand the position of "if they take government money, there should be restrictions on what they should do." But, the government should also not meddle in business decisions... which is what's happening again and again lately. It's not good.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by uno

If they are going to take billions of our dollars and we are going to be temporary minority or majority shareholders in the companies, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to bitch slap them around a bit.

Whats funny is that a bunch of banks that were in "dire" need of bailouts suddenly want to pay back the bailout money so their execs don't take a pay cut.

"oversight over executive compensation at all publicly traded firms"

[uno]

Originally Posted by Sly

What do you suggest they do about the top-level bankers leaving the companies because pay is not what they can make at other companies?

This is already happening. Guys are being restricted on what they can earn so they are jumping ship to hedge funds and foreign finance groups. If a guy can make $2 million a year elsewhere but can only make $500,000 a year with you... where do you think he is going to go?

I understand the position of "if they take government money, there should be restrictions on what they should do." But, the government should also not meddle in business decisions... which is what's happening again and again lately. It's not good.

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.

[Sly]

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.

[IllTestYourGirls]

He is sending us faster to fascism than Bush ever did.

[uno]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

"oversight over executive compensation at all publicly traded firms"

That's what I get for skimming.

[jcsike]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

"oversight over executive compensation at all publicly traded firms"

imo, the ones that support this are the ones that dont realize that *some* people are worth a shitload of money

because they provide enormous value.



the "down with the fatcats"! crowd doesnt get it

[Probono]

Sorry I did not see the government setting pay. I see shareholders, the owners in capitalism and compensation committees who are not allowed payoffs to set pay? What did I miss in the quote?