Good News Comrades: Exec Pay Capped by the Dems

[kaydee457 13]

The Peoples Republic of America moved to cap compensation for executives on wall street. We should all be proud!

The Obama administration stunned Wall Street on Wednesday by ordering massive pay cuts for top executives at seven financial firms that still hold billions in U.S. government bailout funds.

The move – which would lower average cash compensation by 90 percent — means the administration is making a frontal assault on Wall Street’s gold-plated compensation culture at a time of growing public anger over the firms’ massive pay and bonuses.

And the plan by pay czar Kenneth Feinberg comes in a week in which the White House has been increasingly aggressive in calling on Wall Street to stand down in its opposition to its regulatory reform proposal for the financial industry.

At the seven firms, total average compensation for many executives would be cut in half, according to an administration official. At AIG, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation – a humbling comedown for the once high flying insurance executives at the firm.

Along with AIG, the firm affected are Citigroup, Bank of America, General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers, GMAC Financial Services and Chrysler Financial.

The news came on a day in which President Barack Obama said big Wall Street banks no longer need federal help – signaling he plans to wind down the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program and tighten the screws on the companies that remain inside it.

The development, first reported by the New York Times, caught the financial industry by surprise. On K Street, financial lobbyists were scrambling to figure out what exactly the plan meant for their clients, and how best to respond to it.

“I don’t think that’s healthy, and I don’t like it,” said Camden Fine, president of the Independent Community Bankers of America. “These are decisions for boards of directors to make, not the government. I think this is a very slippery slope.”

And the announcement also prompted concern in the auto industry that car makers are being swept up in the administration’s attempt to squash Wall Street’s high living.

Auto officials cautioned that they want to see an official proposal before responding in detail. “We are currently in discussions with Mr. Feinberg's office regarding executive compensation,” said Greg Martin, the director of policy and Washington communications for General Motors. “We will have further information and comments once those discussions have concluded.”

One longtime critic of steep executive pay praised Feinberg’s move.

“We commend the pay czar and the administration for telling the people who crashed the economy that they need to make the same sacrifices main street and real America have been forced to take on as a result of the economic crisis,” said Dan Pedrotty, director of the AFL-CIO Office of Investment. “The American people are fed up with watching Wall Street play by a different set of rules and pretend like the economic crisis which they created is for everyone else to suffer through and not them.”

link

Edited October 22, 2009 by *entitlements_yay

[jimnlena 8]

Does make you sick to see US moving in the direction of socialism, that has worked nowhere!!!

[Niels Bohr 72]

Take that! You shouldn't have increased the interest rates, and your shouldn't double the withdrawel fees. And, you shouldn't have gave yourselves bonuses after taking money from taxpayers.

[almaty 19]

great news!...f##k those fat cat tax sucking pricks

[moelarrycheese 0]

Take that! You shouldn't have increased the interest rates, and your shouldn't double the withdrawel fees. And, you shouldn't have gave yourselves bonuses after taking money from taxpayers.

So, what you're saying is.. let's loan this company lots of money to save themselves, then let's cut the pay offered to prospective and/or current employees of that company charged with recouping and paying back that money. A strategy that will only work to drive the talented ones away to seek other, better paying jobs, leaving behind the hacks to run the company. A virtual guarantee that the money will never be paid back.

Your statement above epitomizes "penny-wise, pound-foolish". Why don't you think before you write this drivel?

[Niels Bohr 72]

Ridiculous. Who was in charged of predatory loans? Was it the government or was it the banks and their agents? These execs ate a fine 6 figure income. How many execs/bank? An average teller at the bank get at most $15/hour. So, they have talent? There are more tellers than execs.

Take that! You shouldn't have increased the interest rates, and your shouldn't double the withdrawel fees. And, you shouldn't have gave yourselves bonuses after taking money from taxpayers.

So, what you're saying is.. let's loan this company lots of money to save themselves, then let's cut the pay offered to prospective and/or current employees of that company charged with recouping and paying back that money. A strategy that will only work to drive the talented ones away to seek other, better paying jobs, leaving behind the hacks to run the company. A virtual guarantee that the money will never be paid back.

Your statement above epitomizes "penny-wise, pound-foolish". Why don't you think before you write this drivel?

Edited October 22, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[Craneman 2]

Total compensation cap of $200,000, on a good year I top that.

You will get some real talented top excutives for those wages.

We are doomed.

[almaty 19]

Total compensation cap of $200,000, on a good year I top that.

You will get some real talented top excutives for those wages.

We are doomed.

yeah..we had some great ones prior..that is why the taxpayors ahd to bail the banks out..200,000 is too much...they need to be payed the median wage of most americans

[moelarrycheese 0]

Ridiculous. Who was in charged of predatory loans? Was it the government or was it the banks and their agents? These execs ate a fine 6 figure income. How many execs/bank? An average teller at the bank get at most $15/hour. So, they have talent? There are more tellers than execs.

Take that! You shouldn't have increased the interest rates, and your shouldn't double the withdrawel fees. And, you shouldn't have gave yourselves bonuses after taking money from taxpayers.

So, what you're saying is.. let's loan this company lots of money to save themselves, then let's cut the pay offered to prospective and/or current employees of that company charged with recouping and paying back that money. A strategy that will only work to drive the talented ones away to seek other, better paying jobs, leaving behind the hacks to run the company. A virtual guarantee that the money will never be paid back.

Your statement above epitomizes "penny-wise, pound-foolish". Why don't you think before you write this drivel?

OK, so much material, so little time...

Who was in charge of the predatory loans?? How about the fools who agreed to the terms? There are two parties in every contract. If a bank offers a loan with crappy terms and variable interst rates, and it's on a house with a value ten times their annual income, how can the person accepting syuch terms be regarded as anything except an irresponsible and greedy fool. WHy didn't they just say no thank you sir, and go on renting until they found something more affordable?

Regarding bank fees, if they're too high, look for another bank, or don't do overdrafts or whatever it is that causes the fee to be incurred. Once again, this information is all laid out to the prospective consumer before he agrees to the loan. Why doesn't he say no and go on his way? There is no way in hell that a person who agrees to a bad contract gets what he got in for-- a bad contract!!

And regarding bank tellers-- what the hell are you talking about?? That's not the subject of this thread, but once again, if they are so good and talented, why are they working for $15 an hour? Why don't they go and get a better job?

[Niels Bohr 72]

And who was the fool to accept those loans?

I doubt the execs are any more capable than an economics professor who gets paid 100k+, and also won the Nobel Prize in Economics.

If they're talented, they should've known about these stuff. I find that illogical. These people have so many analysts working for them it's ridiculous. I will give you the detail structure of a typical bank with the details of not just the outside influence (lobbying, public service, etc...) but the inside influence as well (HR, etc..).

These execs makes like 1 million or more in one year. Yet, they are only making decision based on numerous analysis from their analysts.

Consider a typical CEO job. Their job is to manage their people.

Ridiculous. Who was in charged of predatory loans? Was it the government or was it the banks and their agents? These execs ate a fine 6 figure income. How many execs/bank? An average teller at the bank get at most $15/hour. So, they have talent? There are more tellers than execs.

Take that! You shouldn't have increased the interest rates, and your shouldn't double the withdrawel fees. And, you shouldn't have gave yourselves bonuses after taking money from taxpayers.

So, what you're saying is.. let's loan this company lots of money to save themselves, then let's cut the pay offered to prospective and/or current employees of that company charged with recouping and paying back that money. A strategy that will only work to drive the talented ones away to seek other, better paying jobs, leaving behind the hacks to run the company. A virtual guarantee that the money will never be paid back.

Your statement above epitomizes "penny-wise, pound-foolish". Why don't you think before you write this drivel?

OK, so much material, so little time...

Who was in charge of the predatory loans?? How about the fools who agreed to the terms? There are two parties in every contract. If a bank offers a loan with crappy terms and variable interst rates, and it's on a house with a value ten times their annual income, how can the person accepting syuch terms be regarded as anything except an irresponsible and greedy fool. WHy didn't they just say no thank you sir, and go on renting until they found something more affordable?

Regarding bank fees, if they're too high, look for another bank, or don't do overdrafts or whatever it is that causes the fee to be incurred. Once again, this information is all laid out to the prospective consumer before he agrees to the loan. Why doesn't he say no and go on his way? There is no way in hell that a person who agrees to a bad contract gets what he got in for-- a bad contract!!

And regarding bank tellers-- what the hell are you talking about?? That's not the subject of this thread, but once again, if they are so good and talented, why are they working for $15 an hour? Why don't they go and get a better job?

Edited October 22, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[one...two...tree 2,762]

great news!...f##k those fat cat tax sucking pricks

lol

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Damned if they do and damned if they don't. That's all I got to say.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

TARP Chair Elizabeth Warren: Execs 'Can't Party On Like It's 2007' .

Appearing on a nationally broadcast interview, Elizabeth Warren said reports of pending slashes in executive salaries are "real."

Asked on CBS's "The Early Show" whether reports of the rollback amounted to a relations stunt, Warren, who heads the Targeted Asset Relief Program's oversight committee, replied, "It's real in the sense that it says, 'Guys, you have to understand that you can't party on like it's 2007. If you're going to take taxpayer dollars, then the game has to change. In that sense it's real.' "

Warren's appearance came a day after it was disclosed that the Treasury Department is expected in the next few days to order companies that received huge government bailouts last year to slash the base salaries of their top executives by an average of 90 percent and cut their total compensation in half.

A person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press that the cuts apply to the 25 highest paid executives at the seven companies that received the most assistance. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. Smaller companies and those that have repaid the bailout money, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., are not affected.

Kenneth Feinberg, the special master at Treasury appointed to handle compensation issues as part of the government's $700 billion financial bailout package, is making the pay decisions.

Treasury said that Feinberg scheduled a news conference at the department to discuss the matter in early afternoon Thursday.

The seven companies are Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.

"I think the fact that the government has given so much in TARP money is going to make these executives think and think again" before they say no to Washington's demands to substantially lower executive compensation, Warren said.

She said that companies need to focus less on short-term, quarter-by-quarter profit-and-loss sheets and look more toward "the long-term health of the company and the long-term health of the economy."

"You really begin to wonder what it's going to take to get the attention of the people in charge of these very large corporations," Warren said. "They have taken taxpayer money ... and yet the executives want to say, 'I take your money when I make mistakes and I still want to compensate myself richly because I'm in charge of this big company' ... and I think that what this means is, you take the pain, in terms of the taxpayer."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009...ing.php?ref=fpa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Surely noone forced them to take the taxpayers money, and they can hardly have expected it to come with no strings attached, especially if you're declaring profit on the back or the bail out.

Seems fairly cut and dried really. Don't want the government imposing pay regulation, don't take public money.

[moelarrycheese 0]

And who was the fool to accept those loans?

I doubt the execs are any more capable than an economics professor who gets paid 100k+, and also won the Nobel Prize in Economics.

If they're talented, they should've known about these stuff. I find that illogical. These people have so many analysts working for them it's ridiculous. I will give you the detail structure of a typical bank with the details of not just the outside influence (lobbying, public service, etc...) but the inside influence as well (HR, etc..).

These execs makes like 1 million or more in one year. Yet, they are only making decision based on numerous analysis from their analysts.

Consider a typical CEO job. Their job is to manage their people.

Ridiculous. Who was in charged of predatory loans? Was it the government or was it the banks and their agents? These execs ate a fine 6 figure income. How many execs/bank? An average teller at the bank get at most $15/hour. So, they have talent? There are more tellers than execs.

Take that! You shouldn't have increased the interest rates, and your shouldn't double the withdrawel fees. And, you shouldn't have gave yourselves bonuses after taking money from taxpayers.

So, what you're saying is.. let's loan this company lots of money to save themselves, then let's cut the pay offered to prospective and/or current employees of that company charged with recouping and paying back that money. A strategy that will only work to drive the talented ones away to seek other, better paying jobs, leaving behind the hacks to run the company. A virtual guarantee that the money will never be paid back.

Your statement above epitomizes "penny-wise, pound-foolish". Why don't you think before you write this drivel?

OK, so much material, so little time...

Who was in charge of the predatory loans?? How about the fools who agreed to the terms? There are two parties in every contract. If a bank offers a loan with crappy terms and variable interst rates, and it's on a house with a value ten times their annual income, how can the person accepting syuch terms be regarded as anything except an irresponsible and greedy fool. WHy didn't they just say no thank you sir, and go on renting until they found something more affordable?

Regarding bank fees, if they're too high, look for another bank, or don't do overdrafts or whatever it is that causes the fee to be incurred. Once again, this information is all laid out to the prospective consumer before he agrees to the loan. Why doesn't he say no and go on his way? There is no way in hell that a person who agrees to a bad contract gets what he got in for-- a bad contract!!

And regarding bank tellers-- what the hell are you talking about?? That's not the subject of this thread, but once again, if they are so good and talented, why are they working for $15 an hour? Why don't they go and get a better job?

You're beginning to come unglued. Your last post makes no sense at all. You doubt they know any more than an econ professor? So the sun should rise and set based on your doubts? WHo are you, the king of the sh!tpile?

You'll give me a detailed structure of a typical bank?? OK go ahead then.. give it to me!

As far as their pay... They are paid to make decisions based on information collected, in many cases, by others. That's why it's called an organization. Different people do different jobs, each is compensated differently according to the importance of their individual responsibility. NOT everyone the same all paid the same