Obama caps executive pay at 500K
 

For bailed out companies. Says that pay caps are only the beginning.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_163765.html

JP Morgan exec claims Obama is being "unfair" :1orglaugh
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...cb0Kg&refer=us
(note to JP Morgan's board, I'll gladly run your company into the ground for much less than 500K per annum)

Well.... the companies took the bailout. Welcome to socialism.

Those execs that are worth more will simply go elsewhere to a company that will pay them what they are worth.


.

so, their bonuses etc will just go up... they'll balance it out some way.

(although he says they'll be enforcing that too... ) we'll see

I'm hoping bonuses fall under 'compensation.'

yep and yep

It's just a political move, won't accomplish anything, current ceo will quit or will get paid via some loophole, if he quits, they'll have hard time finding a replacement for under 500k... this move will probably cause more damage than good...

Look for more of those companies that took bailout money to use that money to move operations over seas and saying fuck you to the USA :2 cents:

go where dont you read the papers? lol

"Hi, I just lost my previous company millions, and we were forced into taking a bailout from the government or we had to close up shop. They were only paying me $500K a year for the stand-up job I was doing, which is simply unreasonable. I'll come help drive your company into the ground for a mere $5 million / year. Where do I sign?"

how many execs are jewish?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup this bullshit if we pay that little we cant keep our talent.What talent? they drove your company off a cliff. lol

Some CEOs need to be beaten, kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered.


Of course, that will never happen, as Americans are a bunch of dumb, fat, lazy pussies.

Unlike China and India.

GOod, cuz none of them are worth a shit.
If people not figured that out by now. If ya ask me the government should sieze thier shit and use the money they paid themselves with to rebuild the companies they destroyed.

But there's no way we can attract top talent to run these companies without top pay!
\
http://www.darksidedata.com/cheney.gif



I can't possibly run this company into the the ground for less that 15 million and a 85 million golden parachute.
\
http://www.darksidedata.com/shatner.gif

It's their own fault... if they had received those bailouts and used them like they were supposed to rather than use it for parties, lavish purchases or just to fatten their own wallets a little more, this wouldn't be happening.

Throw that evil "socialism" word around all you want but if those greedy bastards actually had the economy or even their own company's best interests at heart, this never would have been considered, much less become a reality.

great idea. cut the pay of the leaders you need to restore the business. Meanwhile the people that destroyed the business already got paid & are gone.

If you read the actual guidelines it can be read broadly to include the traders of those banks' trading arms. That part might be problematic.

If you are a CEO of a company that is loosing money all the time, I don't see what's wrong with that. It's not like they are going to starve with a 500k salary...

:2 cents:

They can just get a "bonus" SALARY cap

What is an exec who ran a financial company with over 100 years of success into insolvency worth these days?

I agree with this logic.. not perfect but it's a start :)

Whats a vp in one of these firms advisory business worth if he brought in $5 million + in fees for the year? Tell them the government says their capped at $500K and you can kiss their book goodbye.

Plenty of exec's in these firms who screwed the pooch but there are plenty who are still making money for the firms.

Exactly what I was thinking. If those CEOs quit and they bring in new blood, pay off the bailout, they'll be making crazy bank again. Please forgive the pun, but it will be more performance based than anything.

If a company takes bailout money from the govt, then the govt has every fucking right to dictate the rules! It is not socialism at all. If you run a company in the US, and you do NOT request govt bailout money to keep your shit from going down, then make as much money as you want. All capitalist societies have elements that can be considered socialism, but this situation is not one of them.

If the billionaire and millionaire Wall Street assholes don't like it, then fuck them! A new crop of more intelligent people are waiting in line right now, and $500K is nothing to fucking balk at. It is more than the fucking President of the US makes!

If the auto companies aren't happy, well then fuck them too! The goddamned model T got 25 MPG a hundred fucking years ago. Where have the auto execs been hiding their heads for the past 30+ years!? Up the oil companies asses, that's where! If they go under, then a new crop of auto makers will come up - don't worry about it!

You fuckers who are ready to jump all over Obama can suck my dick! You had 8 bullshit fucking scumbag years they you used to fuck the economy, so now you can shut the fuck up! You better HOPE this new administration can fix the shit that the last administration created!

Exactly!

Co-fuckin-sign! :thumbsup

question. Does this include FUTURE ceos? Or just the ones that ran the companies into the ground? And if it does include future ceos how do they expect to get anyone competent at 500k a year?

there are a handful of industries that are necessary for society to function properly. Oil, banks, healthcare, law enforcement among others. The question is, are these industries better off being run privately, where they can destroy the economy, exactly the way the banks did, or should they be nationalized, since the govt "always" looks out for the people. There is no good answer either way IMO. Personally i think new laws are needed to make bankrupting a bank a felony. I see no difference between John Thain & bonnie & clyde.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Update on some details.

Any pay in excess of 500K would have to be in the form of stock that can't be sold or liquidated until after the government is paid back.

So if you want to pay your loser CEO millions of dollars you can, but you can't use taxpayer money to do it....you have to pay the taxpayers back in full before you pay the CEO.

This needed to be done. I think 500k is a bit extreme but then lets face it, it only being applied to those banks that took major rescue funds. The institutions which have not taken major rescue packages will not be bound by these terms.

Seems reasonable when you look at it on that level.

if they were worth more they wouldnt need the bailout :2 cents: let them go somewhere else and fuck shit up

actually not a lot of them are worth more them 500k a year, only few.
where would they go anyway, when everyone is firing off in their industry (more then in any other)?

the days of financial industry as we know it from years 2002-2007 is over.
it was only fake illusion of making real wealth, which will cost US taxpayer maybe more then whole financial industry earned in dozens of years...

Thats exactly right they should be lucky to get 500k:2 cents: if my company doesnt do well I dont make shit wish I had that option.

color me bad

Wonder why Bush did not do that .... ??????





.

.


.

.


:1orglaugh

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o...tted_0204.html
Curbing excessive pay, board clout of executives would help business

By ROB HASSETT

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Now that we taxpayers are bailing out banks and other companies that were grossly mismanaged, we should put corporations on a sounder footing and curb excessive compensation for executives of public companies.

First, no executive of a public company should be allowed to sit on the board of directors of that company. The CEO of a public company is often on the board and sometimes the chairman. Being on the board gives the CEO undue influence on the other board members regarding his or her compensation.

Second, each public company should be required to display the last three years of revenue, earnings, stock prices and executive pay in a prominent and clear format on the investor-relations page of the company’s Web site. Investors can obtain this information from the Security and Exchange Commission’s Web site, but putting it on the investor-relations page would make it more accessible to the average investor.

Third, if despite all of the above the directors of a company still decide to provide executive compensation that is above an amount that would be set liberally by the SEC based on the size of the company and other factors, the company should be required to obtain shareholder approval.

Unfortunately, many executives have shown they are not capable of reining in excessive pay and bonuses on their own.

Merrill Lynch, a company that lost $27 billion last year, paid out billions of dollars in bonuses to many of its executives just before Bank of America’s taxpayer-backed takeover. In 2006, the highest paid executive of any public company was Stanley O’Neal, the chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch at the time, who received total compensation of $91 million.

In 2006, the CEO of Countrywide Financial Corporation, Anthony Mozilo, received total compensation of $48 million. Countrywide was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy when it was recently sold to Bank of America in a fire sale brought on by poor management.

Mel Karmazin, the founder and chief executive officer of Sirius Satellite Radio, received compensation of $32 million in 2007 even though Sirius never made a profit before merging with XM Satellite Radio in 2008.

These are not isolated instances. The problem is not just that a few rogue executives are extraordinarily greedy and have indifferent or intimidated boards. The problem is that too many executives of public companies have insatiable appetites for money and choose to use their considerable skills to increase their compensation instead of doing what’s best for their shareholders.

Some will argue that part of the compensation referred to above was in the form of incentive compensation. In other words the executives were paid a large portion of their compensation for “outstanding” performance. The problem with incentive pay is that it encourages executives to accept unreasonable long-term risks for immediate income that increases incentive pay for that year. Agreements regarding incentive pay should be monitored as tightly as any other form of compensation.

The adverse consequences of unjustifiable executive compensation add up to more than what compensation gets paid out. It puts the company at a disadvantage when negotiating with unions, it creates cynicism among the other employees of the company and it understandably causes a lack of willingness by the public to provide taxpayer-funded bailouts when the economy turns sour.

• Rob Hassett is a corporate and technology lawyer with the Atlanta firm of Casey Gilson P.C.

Yeah because this administration is soooooo different!!! :1orglaugh They are all perfect little Jesus lovers. They go to church every Sunday but it's not the same bible or church that everyone hated from the last administration. Oh no!!! This administration has no corruption, they never lie, and they aren't out to empower themselves at all. They are all innocent honest people. :1orglaugh Let's just throw our lives in their hands blindly and never question anything. PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT!!! :banana

Wake up!!! It's still the fucking government and the fact that people want to STOP jumping on the government and kiss its ass is what is going to fuck this economy even more. It is dangerous not to question and debate potential solutions. There has to be a balance. Everyone has to question every administration and person IN THE GOVERNMENT!!! It is what helps keep people in check. :thumbsup Anyone who goes to extremes with hate and love is not going to see things clearly.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh care for some more neocon koolaid?