Good News Comrades: Exec Pay Capped by the Dems

[almaty 19]

well, they should be docked pay based on f##king up and needing gov't hand-outs to avoid bankruptcy..the greedy chopshitskis

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Interesting perspective on this from the other side of the pond:

The Americans Are Not As Stupid As We Thought

Oh, how we in London laughed a few months back when President Obama upped the rhetoric and started banker-bashing.

How we smiled as we saw US lawmakers engage in Stalin-like 'show trials' of Wall Street titans, as they pulled out all the stops in an attempt to convince their electorates that they were worthy (at last) of another term in office.

How we couldn't believe our good fortune when we heard that a few mindless idiots, encouraged by US government-sponsored bailout outrage, had hired buses to go on a tour of the homes of AIG executives in order to harass them.

How we saw such opportunity when US-based AIG staff were advised not to wear name badges, or anything that could identify where they worked, as there was a danger that they would be stopped in the streets and attacked.

London, we knew, would benefit from all this. Bankers wouldn't want to work where they were not appreciated, and banks would not operate where they were not wanted. Our position as a leading financial center, we thought, would only benefit from all this nonsense from over the Atlantic. Let the Americans indulge in political posturing if they wanted, as we would see the benefit in terms of more business for our City, and additional tax revenues for our nation. And, indeed, the World Economic Forum acknowledged this in a recent report, which placed the UK top of the heap in terms of leading financial centers (the US limped in third behind Australia).

But fast-forward a few months, and the situation is rapidly changing. Obama and the US lawmakers who started this banker-bashing trend, have clearly learned a bit about political and economic realities since February. America's political elite appear not to be as stupid as we thought they were. They seem to have recognised the link, after all, between Wall Street and Main Street, and how interconnected everything is. They have realised that demonizing bankers will eventually adversely impact tax revenues, and that encouraging bailed-out banks to cut back on bonuses will make matters worse, not better, for the little people.

Take New York state, for instance, which is already looking at a $3.1bn revenue shortfall, and may soon run out of cash. The politicians know that, unless you get the tax revenues and spare cash from bankers flowing through the New York system, it will be the little people who will lose out, as local and state government is forced to cut back on essential services.

And so Obama and the rest over there have toned down the rhetoric on banker bonuses. Oh yes, they have pay czar Kenneth Feinberg imposing pay cuts on 75 Wall Street executives at the three financial institutions that bagged 'exceptional' government aid (AIG, Bank of America, Citi), but these guys won't starve and are hardly motivated by money in the first place (former AIG CEO Gordon Liddy did the job for $1, and Citi boss Vikram Pandit is currently working for nothing). So US politicians have got themselves out of the hole that they dug themselves in. Face has been saved by the pay czar's meaningless gesture. Over in the UK, however, politicians of both parties look intent on committing commercial and fiscal suicide.

'What happened with Goldman Sachs last week (presumably having the audacity to earn money and allocating some of it to the bankers who helped it do so) sends the wrong signals', says UK Chancellor Alistair Darling. 'We are willing to take action if necessary (on big bonuses)', City Minister Lord Myners threatened this week. And even Tory shadow Chancellor George Osborne has not ruled out a super tax on banks or bankers (or maybe both).

So, as the Americans appease their public by making token gestures, UK politicians continue to pursue populist policies that may win votes, but won't help any of us out of our economic malaise. Make no mistake, banks and bankers are picking up on your signals, Mr Darling. They know they are no longer welcome in the UK, and they may take their business elsewhere. And if they do, UK plc is screwed, as we have no quick means of replacing those tax receipts, and can certainly do without tens of thousands more bankers, recruitment consultants, estate agents, sandwich shop owners, management consultants, lawyers, and God know who else, on the dole.

[HAL 9000 96]

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

And the Communists will soon crawl out from their Bolshevik hiding places to eat our young.

[jcg303 1]

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.

agreed - if these companies are going to crawl up to the alter of obama with their hats in their hands, they should do as they're told. don't like it? don't take the money.

now, if the government forced the money on these organizations, then that's a different (and MUCH scarier) scenario altogether.

however, i still think that many (not all) of the problems in the housing markets are due to the various fair housing laws that have been enacted over the last 30 years. for example, i have a mortgage with a regional bank. the ink was barely dry before it was bundled and sold to freddie mac, where it remains today. the government, which cannot go bankrupt for intents and purposes, effectively guaranteed the loan leaving the bank in control of the terms and conditions of the loan.

if big brother is going to stand behind every loan, why not dish out some risky loans here and there? increasing your earnings and assets sure looks nice on those balance sheets. and after all, the job of every executive in every public firm in every industry is to create and increase value for the shareholders. poor decisions by executives (i.e. risky loan decisions) normally would be kept in check by the market. borrowers that default on their loans would lead banks to create tighter standards or risk a drop in value to their shareholders.

but as we have seen, companies like freddie and fannie are not immune to bankruptcy, and they can only take so much before a small dip in the economy triggers an avalanche. so i think that the government helped to get these into this mess, but now they're using them as a scapegoat.

[1jahlet 0]

wow this is interesting the banks are making a ton of money off of the bail out money and then turn round and screw us at both ends, people that lost their jobs that paid into that bail out money can't find a job because the banks won't loan small biz money but they made enough money to sit back and laugh and pay millions of dollars to people who helped us get into this issue and you are upset because Obama ordered a cap on their a$$. Seems like you would rather the U.S become a class nation and not a capitalistic nation and the reason he had to do that is because we have to go back to the basic so everyone has to a chance to succeed in America.

[almaty 19]

wow this is interesting the banks are making a ton of money off of the bail out money and then turn round and screw us at both ends, people that lost their jobs that paid into that bail out money can't find a job because the banks won't loan small biz money but they made enough money to sit back and laugh and pay millions of dollars to people who helped us get into this issue and you are upset because Obama ordered a cap on their a$$. Seems like you would rather the U.S become a class nation and not a capitalistic nation and the reason he had to do that is because we have to go back to the basic so everyone has to a chance to succeed in America.

spot on....

[HAL 9000 96]

I wonder what a business decision to drive up profits from unchecked derivatives trading has to do with blaming the government and particularly, shoring up scares of Obama the Socialist. I guess its OK to cry Socialism as long as big business is the one privatizing the profits of nationalized losses.

[Niels Bohr 72]

You have ADD or your abstraction is skewed?

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

[moelarrycheese 0]

You have ADD or your abstraction is skewed?

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

It's funny -- whenever liberals run out of logic they always resort to personal attacks. Just answer the fu*king question and quit changing the subject!

Edited October 22, 2009 by moelarrycheese

[HAL 9000 96]

Ruh-Oh

[Niels Bohr 72]

I didn't change any subject. The subject is clear. It's those who lacks analytical skills really.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[moelarrycheese 0]

Then respond to the subjects contained in my last post.

[moelarrycheese 0]

I didn't change any subject. The subject is clear. It's those who lacks analytical skills really.

What's those who lack analytical skills really? What does that mean?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Then respond to the subjects contained in my last post.

The post you responded to was a heck of a lot more detailed than yours (and was a heck of a lot less personally derisive).

Why is it you think you are owed respect, when you don't show it to others?

Perhaps its a conservative thing (since you're so obsessed with partisanship and all).

[Kevin and 10]

I don't like that the .GOV is telling them to cap pay, but banks got in bed with the .GOV when they took the bailout money, so now they have to play by .GOV rules. The same way schools have to play by the No Child Left Behind rules if they want .GOV funding. If they don't like it they shouldn't have taken the handout.