Government cuts pay for bailed-out executives

[LaughingCat]

Let's have some fun. This will test our true loyalty to capitalism, anti-socialism and free markets.

I love the decision to cut their pay. They ran the companies to the verge of bankruptcy, begged Paulson and Geithner to bail them out with our tax-payer money and now they extract huge compensation and bonuses and haven't paid any money back.

If my little company was in trouble, such that my Daddy had to bail me out, you can bet he'd kick my a$$ if I took his money and starting paying myself huge bonuses before paying him anything.

I think the initial move of bailing them out was needed, but should've had much bigger strings attached. Once they pay off their debts, they can bonus the heck out of themselves.

Let's have a vote.

[Ratickle]

They should have been replaced as a contigency to getting the loans from us. Instead, they continue to operate as if nothing happened. This is BS. Just as them getting the money in the first place was BS. The Gov screws up all it touches. Period.....:boxing_smiley:

[Wrinkleface]

I vote we shoot most of'm!! I think most of that crap is likened 2 blatant thievery/fraud, & whatever other felonious terms U want 2 use!!:(

[Big Time]

The problem with not paying any bonus is that you can not retain talent with that attitude because people can easily go elsewhere. There has to be some sort of compromise. Don't get me wrong, I voted to give the money back first in the above poll, but there has got to be some sort of compromise. I think the Administration is starting to understand this. I've seen Obama's rhetoric against banking bonus' ease up a bit in the last month or so....


LaughingCat...let me add to your scenario. Let's say your best sales guy is going to leave and take his clients with him if he doesn't get a bonus. You tell your dad that you think you won't be able to pay him back because once your best sales guy leaves you may not be able to pay him back as quickly....

[Ratickle]

Let's say your best sales guy is going to leave and take his clients with him if he doesn't get a bonus. You tell your dad that you think you won't be able to pay him back because once your best sales guy leaves you may not be able to pay him back as quickly....

Let's say your best sales guy mis-represented policy, and the law, to customers and almost made your business go bankrupt. And that's why he was your best sales guy.

To save it, you had to go borrow money from your Uncle at 0% interest, invested it in something with a 6% return, and made money because of that.

Does he get to keep his job? And get a bonus because the business made money????? And you haven't paid your Uncle back yet? (Or even if you had???)

[cigdaze]

First off, I disagreed with the financial bailout in the first place. It was clearly a bad idea then, and is an even worse idea now, hindsight being 20/20. If you ran your company into the ground, then so long, good bye. That's free market capitalism!

The retaining talent argument holds no water with me. The talent is no way in hell worth that much from the onset. If one of these "talents" runs a company into the ground, then they clearly have no talent and should not be paid anything. Furthermore, if you can't retain this "talent" because you can't afford it, then so long, good bye, you obviously can't compete and shouldn't. That's some more free-market capitalism.

The shear idea of a financial capitalist bailout is not only absurd but audacious - imagine helping out an institution whose own careless, predatory, and greedy policies of lending to the under-qualified and financially unstable bit them in the ass. Propping up a crutch to an organization who has greedily and carelessly raped and pillaged the borrowing public for decades is lunacy. How much of that money actually made it back to the taxpayers in the form of relief. NONE! A few short months after the bailout, most of these institutions paid us back with sky-rocketing interest rates. Thanks.

Back to the original question, no I sure as hell don't support these phuckers who paid themselves back with my money. One should pay back their debtors first before making further investments in themselves. And if they make any moved to the contrary (bonuses), it's time to hand out some ramifications along with those bailouts.

[BBB725]

We should have a free system, government should have zero control or input, otherwise where does it stop?

[ROGUE]

We should have a free system, government should have zero control or input, otherwise where does it stop?

Exactly, government should have no say over how much private companies pay anyone. They shouldnt have given them our tax dollars either.

[Uncle Dave]

The problem with not paying any bonus is that you can not retain talent with that attitude because people can easily go elsewhere. There has to be some sort of compromise. Don't get me wrong, I voted to give the money back first in the above poll, but there has got to be some sort of compromise. I think the Administration is starting to understand this. I've seen Obama's rhetoric against banking bonus' ease up a bit in the last month or so....


LaughingCat...let me add to your scenario. Let's say your best sales guy is going to leave and take his clients with him if he doesn't get a bonus. You tell your dad that you think you won't be able to pay him back because once your best sales guy leaves you may not be able to pay him back as quickly....


As a 25 year sales proffesional, I get it.

I wouldn't expect a bonus working for a company in the negative operating on borrowed money. True talent can find all kinds of private and pubic sector jobs where their efforts actually get rewrded with their earnings, as opposed to getting paid by taxpayer money.

If that much talent was aggregated in one place then we likely wouldnt be bailing them out.

I get there are exceptions, and we need to monitor the comp plans of companies we own as taxpayers to determine remotely what is and what isnt worth a bonus.

Letting the inmates draw up comp plans with bonuses built in when they couldn't control themselves to begin with is like the fox guarding the henhouse.

I see both sides on this, but voted NO

UD

[LaughingCat]

LaughingCat...let me add to your scenario. Let's say your best sales guy is going to leave and take his clients with him if he doesn't get a bonus. You tell your dad that you think you won't be able to pay him back because once your best sales guy leaves you may not be able to pay him back as quickly....

My answer to this was going to be similar to the other responses. However, if you have a really good salesperson who was in no way tied to the mess, I think it's a subjective situation that a unilateral government restriction would negatively impact. But in the case of some entities, like Citigroup, etc, rumor has it they are right back at the shady dealings. And I don't want to bonus the salespeople or the executives who are once again, building up a mess that could collapse.

With that said, I am curious to see whether the general argument about these executives moving will hold water. if I was running a business that avoided this mess and got a resume from one of the execs that ran one into the ground, I'd be pretty reluctant to let him/her mess with my company.

Example: You're trying to hire a good salesperson and the resume in front of you is from a guy named Long Duck Dong. . . :sifone:

[LaughingCat]

UD,

I read your entire post thinking you were a 25 year old sales professional. Thought you were very wise for yor age. Then realized you've been selling for 25 years. Now you're just average. :rofl:

I kid you. Good post.

[Big Time]

Let's say your best sales guy mis-represented policy, and the law, to customers and almost made your business go bankrupt. And that's why he was your best sales guy.

To save it, you had to go borrow money from your Uncle at 0% interest, invested it in something with a 6% return, and made money because of that.

Does he get to keep his job? And get a bonus because the business made money????? And you haven't paid your Uncle back yet? (Or even if you had???)

My scenario was pretty black and white...of course you can spin it anyway you like. The problem with the gov't coming in and putting a blanket limit on bonus' is that the hard working, policy/law abiding worker that did everything right now falls under the no bonus policy.

I personally know a person who oversaw risk for one particular section of an investment bank. Everything was covered, never lost a cent for the bank overall but was targeted by this type of policy. What did he do? He quit his job and retired in his early 40's. While he enjoyed his job, the payoff wasn't there and he just figured he would spend more time with his family. I would venture to say that the bank is at a loss not having him (even got the honros of risk manager of the year a few years back). Literally one of the top in the business, no longer working because of it. Now he wants to be a math teacher...go figure.

Its just not a black and white question.

My comments are more towards the banks...AIG can take a hike.

[Uncle Dave]

UD,

I read your entire post thinking you were a 25 year old sales professional. Thought you were very wise for yor age. Then realized you've been selling for 25 years. Now you're just average. :rofl:

I kid you. Good post.

Thanks! Trying to look at things holistically.

To Big times mail about the guy working at the bank.

Thats an unfortunate reality of how it works both at public companies and or any gov insured, or sponsored entity. IF you really want to make the big bucks, and control your own desitiny you must either stay private, or get out after an IPO.

You absolutely cannot control your own destiny from any position at any public company anymore- it is what it is. Salespeople need to become "lawyers" of the comp plan and unfortunately we as a group now factor in getting screwed by the system. Sux, but thats the way it works.

Don't like it take your talent somewhere else.

As a sales manager with a million dollar a week number . (scary but true) ...

Post Enron (which in retrospect seems like a drop in the bucket now) - Sarbannes Oxley regs changed the face of public governance as much or more than bailouts did to companies who "couldnt fail". There is little to no flexibility, or creativity, or dealmaking allowed- revenue recognition has become the rule of the land and you are constantly kept in check by finance who strive to keep receivable and DSO 'slow, and wont grant terms. Then the rev-rec cops dont allow cash received to even be called income under many conditions.

In terms of working for public companies - weve regulated ourselves into a downward spiral we literally cant recover from until the repeal or modification of SARBOX.





Uncle Dave

[LaughingCat]

My thoughts:

Reinstate Glass-Steagle Act
Reinstate Naked Short Selling Restriction
Reinstate Up-tick Rule
And since we cannot seem to avoid them, any government bail-out should only come by voluntary request, which should require the immediate termination of management. Salary limitations should apply.

[Uncle Dave]

My thoughts:

Reinstate Glass-Steagle Act
Reinstate Naked Short Selling Restriction
Reinstate Up-tick Rule
And since we cannot seem to avoid them, any government bail-out should only come by voluntary request, which should require the immediate termination of management. Salary limitations should apply.


1Which glass steagle one or two?
2 agreed
3 eh mostly agreed.

Voluntary? I dont know-

Remember none of these Douchbags "had a problem" everything was FINE

Right up the point where it wasnt anymore.....

Merril
Citi
Wachovia
Indymac
Fannie Freddie
Lehman- (should have been bought out but politics stopped it)
AIG (who we bought wholesale to cover these morons with their AAA rated BS)


We watched each one of their CEOs, CFO's and boards deny everything right to the point of bankruptcy.

I do believe you are spot on that a takeover shoudl net and immediate replacement of directors and begin an investigation.

UD

[BBB725]

For everyone wanting to limit pay, how much is too much and who decides?

[phragle]

if you get pid to do a job, your expected to due the job..period... I can see a bonus for someone that goes majorly above and beyond.. but the fact is you jet hired because somebody thinks you can do a job., then you get paid to do it. you either do it well or you will be looking for a new job. I sure as hell am not going to pay someone $10 an hour to build me a fence, then give them a $5000 bonus because they actually built the damn fence.

[Scarab KV]

We should have a free system, government should have zero control or input, otherwise where does it stop?

And for their next trick......they want to regulate every one's pay.

[Uncle Dave]

For everyone wanting to limit pay, how much is too much and who decides?


Good question- complicated answer but manageable.

Is your answer to let the management regime that bankrupt the entity to begin with pay itself whatever it wants with our money?

Once an entity becomes public it should be the responsibility of the SEC to step in govern it, and insure its being run to standard GAAP principals.
This forces all principals of the entity to SIGN and be responsible for their actions and face jail if they deceive the shareholders- I have to sign one of these a quarter and If I break the law I can go to jail.

http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml-

In my opinion salaries should be capped and controlled by the SEC using the "best accepted practice" model of the most successful business in that industry that all print their directors salaries and options as well as relative payscales- In other words the market decides what the right %'s are based on whos is best in class in their field.

an institution once bailed out or leveraged to 51% from taxpayer money should be reclassified as a public institution- after all the people own it right?

Curious if the bailed out companies are repaying the money early and posting profits- where are my dividend checks?

Why arent the new public entities classified as owned by the citizens of the United States? Every man woman and taxed child in the US should be getting quarterly reports on our new investments!




UD

[Uncle Dave]

We should have a free system, government should have zero control or input, otherwise where does it stop?

Even when taxpayer money(MY money) is funding a failed organization?

That's public funded incompetency- are you for this? really?



Dave

[jhenrie]

Give it to them where they breathe , overpaid *****s they are.

[BBB725]

Even when taxpayer money(MY money) is funding a failed organization?

That's public funded incompetency- are you for this? really?



Dave

The government never should have done any loans, let the free markets take it course. That being said and not happening I'm not for funding failed organization I'm really against the government control, because they won't stop.

Speaking of government funded incompetency where everyones outrage at ANY government program, their all bankrupt. Maybe we can fire all the politicians and start over:sifone:

[Uncle Dave]

Maybe we can fire all the politicians and start over:sifone:

That would be radical progress.


Only 2 kinds of politicians these days.


One guy takes my money and gives it to his friends.

The other guy takes my money and hands it out to everyone but me.


UD

[LaughingCat]

Give it to them where they breathe , overpaid *****s they are.

First of all, thank you for joining the party, Yoda.



For everyone wanting to limit pay, how much is too much and who decides?

I do not have a solid answer for this. But here's my overall rationale, the company wouldn't exist, and the high paid salesman/executive wouldn't be working for the compnay if not for the bail-out. So if they are going to ask for government cheese, one 'penalty' is a restriction on income. Otherwise, it contradicts most people thoughts of the government socializing and spending our tax money wild.

Using my logic, it means anyone who supports higher bonuses and compensation for the valuable executives of these bailed out companies are directly supporting SOCIALISM.

[GregP]

Limiting pay at bailout companies is obvious and a start but more needs to be done to convince managers to reinvest more money back into the company, use it to create more jobs, and even pay it out the the real owners, stockholders, in dividends instead of giving it to themselves. Since average executive compensation has gone up 10x compared to the rest of the economy, from 40x their average employees pay to 400x their companies average employees pay we need to start by finding ways to reduce their compensation packages by at least 90% (even going back to 40x seems pretty excessive).

My simple minded approach to "encourage" more reasonable compensation is to start by using the tax code to at least stop taxpayers from subsidising their excess compensation.

1. ALL employees of any company that received government bailout should be limited to $175k/yr (Congress salary seems a convinent figure) until ALL funds are repaid with interest.

2. ALL companies, public and private, should only be allowed to claim the first $175k of an employees compensation as a business expense. Anything above that must come from after-tax profits. For shareholder companies it must be reported as unrealized dividends to make it obvious what their compensation excess is costing the shareholder. If there is no booked profit, there is no above the line compensation. That includes severance/pension packages.

3. For publicaly owned/traded companies ALL above the line compensation should be subject to mandatory clawback provisions. If the company decreases employees by more than 10%, decreases in stock price by more than 20%, applies for any form of bankrupcy, or is purchased by another company all above the line compensation from the preceeding 3 years is automatically recalled.

4. If none of the above has any impact, then add a 100% co-tax on any compensation paid above 1M so at least there is some $ taken back to cover their next screw-ups.

-Greg

[BBB725]

I understand that without the bailout most of these companies would have went under. I also agree that the CEO's COO's etc. shouldn't reward themselves with hugh bonuses. Now where do you draw the line? SBA loans same thing apply? Educational loans? What about sports and teams getting government money for a new stadium, limit players salary? I know these aren't the same and may be a little ridiculous but when government gets involved where does it end?

[Chris]

The argument that if you don't pay the bonuses the best talent will leave is partially invalid. Yes, they'll leave. But that's probably not a bad thing.

We bolstered those companies to avoid a crash. But if they continue to have fundamental flaws that prevent them from flourishing, maybe it's best that their top talent goes elsewhere. When they happens, the business these rainmakers generated will surely follow them and pretty soon we're back to a free market where the best and strongest flourish. Crash averted, market stabilized, the strong survive.

[Chris]

For everyone wanting to limit pay, how much is too much and who decides?

In my world, the guy that sets the pay is the guy paying the bills. If that's the U.S. taxpayer, maybe we have some right to do so.

If these companies were finacially imprudent enough to mis-manage their companies to collapse in the first place and we were forced to reinforce them to prevent a ripple effect in our greater national economy, then it's not outside the realm of reason to expect some intervention in their decision-making processes. The banks that took money to prevent their collapse used it in some cases to purchase other healthy banks. Is that what we had in mind? Based on that, maybe we need to question some of the other things they're doing.

I know it's tough to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but these are the things we needed to think about before shovelling a couple hundred billion to these clowns. If you were to come to me for cash to save your failing business, I'd have a lien on your assets and a contract for your services with a major recourse.

[BBB725]

In my world, the guy that sets the pay is the guy paying the bills. If that's the U.S. taxpayer, maybe we have some right to do so.

If these companies were finacially imprudent enough to mis-manage their companies to collapse in the first place and we were forced to reinforce them to prevent a ripple effect in our greater national economy, then it's not outside the realm of reason to expect some intervention in their decision-making processes. The banks that took money to prevent their collapse used it in some cases to purchase other healthy banks. Is that what we had in mind? Based on that, maybe we need to question some of the other things they're doing.

I know it's tough to put the toothpaste back in the tube, but these are the things we needed to think about before shovelling a couple hundred billion to these clowns. If you were to come to me for cash to save your failing business, I'd have a lien on your assets and a contract for your services with a major recourse.

I agree completely with that, where the problem comes in is we the people with the money never approved this loan and we the tax payers aren't determining the pay our elected officials are. Most of these people in Washington couldn't hold a real job much less run a company and now they're going to determine pay?

[LaughingCat]

Posts 27 and 29 are very strong points. I especially like how #29 points out that some of the most incompetent people in American are in control of the most critical parts of our country simply by being the most popular fisherman at teh club and getting the most votes. I think the ideas of limiting pay are valid and necessary. As an Chris said in post 27, the good talent should take their clients to strong companies so we can let the crap co's reach their final demise. But that fact that we have a bunch of brainless nimwits (both political parties) running the show is scary.

[Chris]

I agree completely with that, where the problem comes in is we the people with the money never approved this loan and we the tax payers aren't determining the pay our elected officials are. Most of these people in Washington couldn't hold a real job much less run a company and now they're going to determine pay?

Executive Service Corps. We enlist accomplished management executives from the business community. They spend a certain period serving their country by providing management, consulting and oversight. They have no political affilliation or connection to anyone- have them report to the GAO. They make the management decisions based on pre-set guidelines and principles. Their compensation is a lifelong income tax reduction based on length of service. Their employer gets some benefits too.

[BBB725]

Executive Service Corps. We enlist accomplished management executives from the business community. They spend a certain period serving their country by providing management, consulting and oversight. They have no political affilliation or connection to anyone- have them report to the GAO. They make the management decisions based on pre-set guidelines and principles. Their compensation is a lifelong income tax reduction based on length of service. Their employer gets some benefits too.

You got my vote, you running in 2012 or 2016?:biggrinjester:

[Ratickle]

But that fact that we have a bunch of brainless nimwits (both political parties) running the show is scary.

It always blows my mind when a politician talks about how some business is bad so they have to manage it. :ack2: I cannot think of one government run program on budget, helpful for the money spent, has a long-term, in-the-black, forecast, or is not run by some failure as a honest person.

List some and cheer me up......

[BBB725]

It always blows my mind when a politician talks about how some business is bad so they have to manage it. :ack2: I cannot think of one government run program on budget, helpful for the money spent, has a long-term, in-the-black, forecast, or is not run by some failure as a honest person.

List some and cheer me up......

OSHA and EPA:biggrinjester:

[Ratickle]

OSHA and EPA:biggrinjester:

Yeah, right.......:ack2:

[LaughingCat]

FDIC. . . Oops, just went into the red.
PBGC. . . will likely be in the red.

I got nothin'

[Chris]

You got my vote, you running in 2012 or 2016?:biggrinjester:

If it were up to me, every American would have a period between the ages of 18 and 26 where they'd have to serve a minimum of 2 years in either the military or some service branch of government. Then you become a full citizen. If you don't (barring some exemption for cause) you become a resident with far fewer rights and benefits. Like voting.

[BBB725]

I'd like to see a tax payer ID card if you pay taxes you can vote if not too bad.:26:

[MarylandMark]

Some places like Greece do that. I agree- if only to make people more aware of what sacrifices our troops make. And don't get paid dirt in the cases I know for doing it...

I'm on Andrews AFB weekly- most there don't have a pot to **** in. See some "junk" in the trash pile- it is gone by lunch to someone elses house that had even worse/less.

[Ratickle]

If it were up to me, every American would have a period between the ages of 18 and 26 where they'd have to serve a minimum of 2 years in either the military or some service branch of government. Then you become a full citizen. If you don't (barring some exemption for cause) you become a resident with far fewer rights and benefits. Like voting.

Many countries are that way. My brother lives in Germany and all of his kids have too. It's part of getting your college tuition paid for.