Government to cut Bailout Companies exec pay

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
If you want to see the amount of corruption there is between CEO's and who decides how much they're compensated, look no further than this Angelo Mozillo:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/...ntrywide--mozilo_N.htm

Countrywide's hires a compensation consultant to figure out how much he should be paid in a new contract, and the consultant figures the performance targets in Mozillo's current contract are too easy to meet and thinks his pay should more match performance. Mozillo doesn't like it and hires his OWN compensation consultant (on the company's dime even) and they get his pay raised over what was initially suggested by the other consultant.

Mozilo responds: "I appreciate your input. ? Boards have been placed under enormous pressure by the left-wing anti-business press and the envious leaders of unions and other so-called CEO Comp Watchers, and therefore Boards are being forced to protect themselves irrespective of the potential negative long-term impact on public companies."

Yeah, how dare someone hold CEO pay accountable and keep it in line with how the company performs. Fuck meritocracy!

Dear Spidey07: Fuck you and your attempts to destroy this country.

Maybe you should be saving your fuck yous to corrupt politicians like Chris Dodd (D - Countrywide) who knowingly got into bed with Mozilo under the "Friends of Angelo" program where he got below market mortgages in exchange for covering for Countrywide. Dodd is one of the ranking members of the Senate Banking Committee (currently chairs it) that oversaw the collapse of the financial industry.

And this has what to do with Mozillo's compensation? Did Dodd intervene with the corporate board on Mozillo's behalf? If not, then you're talking out of your ass. This has everything to do with a broken free market system were MOST Ceo's are in bed with the board of directors and get to influence the compensation they get.

What you posted has NOTHING to do with what i posted and you're basically just noise.

And who is that oversees that these CEOs and Board of Directors are acting on the up and up? Why <shock> that would be politicians like our esteemed Senator Dodd and esteemed tax cheat Timoth Geithner (who was the President of the NY Federal Reserve Bank) who are more interested in protecting the perks they receive from people like Mozillo instead of acting in the interests of the taxpayers.

Politicians like Dodd are doing more to destroy this country than random forum postings by spidey. That was the point of my post in relation to your post.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
If you want to see the amount of corruption there is between CEO's and who decides how much they're compensated, look no further than this Angelo Mozillo:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/...ntrywide--mozilo_N.htm

Countrywide's hires a compensation consultant to figure out how much he should be paid in a new contract, and the consultant figures the performance targets in Mozillo's current contract are too easy to meet and thinks his pay should more match performance. Mozillo doesn't like it and hires his OWN compensation consultant (on the company's dime even) and they get his pay raised over what was initially suggested by the other consultant.

Mozilo responds: "I appreciate your input. ? Boards have been placed under enormous pressure by the left-wing anti-business press and the envious leaders of unions and other so-called CEO Comp Watchers, and therefore Boards are being forced to protect themselves irrespective of the potential negative long-term impact on public companies."

Yeah, how dare someone hold CEO pay accountable and keep it in line with how the company performs. Fuck meritocracy!

Dear Spidey07: Fuck you and your attempts to destroy this country.

Maybe you should be saving your fuck yous to corrupt politicians like Chris Dodd (D - Countrywide) who knowingly got into bed with Mozilo under the "Friends of Angelo" program where he got below market mortgages in exchange for covering for Countrywide. Dodd is one of the ranking members of the Senate Banking Committee (currently chairs it) that oversaw the collapse of the financial industry.

And this has what to do with Mozillo's compensation? Did Dodd intervene with the corporate board on Mozillo's behalf? If not, then you're talking out of your ass. This has everything to do with a broken free market system were MOST Ceo's are in bed with the board of directors and get to influence the compensation they get.

What you posted has NOTHING to do with what i posted and you're basically just noise.

And who is that oversees that these CEOs and Board of Directors are acting on the up and up? Why <shock> that would be politicians like our esteemed Senator Dodd and esteemed tax cheat Timoth Geithner (who was the President of the NY Federal Reserve Bank) who are more interested in protecting the perks they receive from people like Mozillo instead of acting in the interests of the taxpayers.

Politicians like Dodd are doing more to destroy this country than random forum postings by spidey. That was the point of my post in relation to your post.

Oh, so you think the Senate should have a hand in how CEO's and Board of Directors run their business now? Thanks for agreeing with me that the free market doesn't work well by itself!

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh, so you think the Senate should have a hand in how CEO's and Board of Directors run their business now? Thanks for agreeing with me that the free market doesn't work well by itself!

There's a difference in oversight and 'have a hand'. Government should be on the side acting as the referee. And that's as far as it should go. It shouldn't be setting pay scales for anyone except employees of the government. Especially not to banks that it forced to take TARP money while it lets government sponsored entities like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who had a big hand in the financial collapse pay their execs as they please.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
If you want to see the amount of corruption there is between CEO's and who decides how much they're compensated, look no further than this Angelo Mozillo:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/...ntrywide--mozilo_N.htm

Countrywide's hires a compensation consultant to figure out how much he should be paid in a new contract, and the consultant figures the performance targets in Mozillo's current contract are too easy to meet and thinks his pay should more match performance. Mozillo doesn't like it and hires his OWN compensation consultant (on the company's dime even) and they get his pay raised over what was initially suggested by the other consultant.

Mozilo responds: "I appreciate your input. ? Boards have been placed under enormous pressure by the left-wing anti-business press and the envious leaders of unions and other so-called CEO Comp Watchers, and therefore Boards are being forced to protect themselves irrespective of the potential negative long-term impact on public companies."

Yeah, how dare someone hold CEO pay accountable and keep it in line with how the company performs. Fuck meritocracy!

Dear Spidey07: Fuck you and your attempts to destroy this country.

Maybe you should be saving your fuck yous to corrupt politicians like Chris Dodd (D - Countrywide) who knowingly got into bed with Mozilo under the "Friends of Angelo" program where he got below market mortgages in exchange for covering for Countrywide. Dodd is one of the ranking members of the Senate Banking Committee (currently chairs it) that oversaw the collapse of the financial industry.

And this has what to do with Mozillo's compensation? Did Dodd intervene with the corporate board on Mozillo's behalf? If not, then you're talking out of your ass. This has everything to do with a broken free market system were MOST Ceo's are in bed with the board of directors and get to influence the compensation they get.

What you posted has NOTHING to do with what i posted and you're basically just noise.

And who is that oversees that these CEOs and Board of Directors are acting on the up and up? Why <shock> that would be politicians like our esteemed Senator Dodd and esteemed tax cheat Timoth Geithner (who was the President of the NY Federal Reserve Bank) who are more interested in protecting the perks they receive from people like Mozillo instead of acting in the interests of the taxpayers.

Politicians like Dodd are doing more to destroy this country than random forum postings by spidey. That was the point of my post in relation to your post.

Now were getting to the real problem.
It's the influence of corporate money in our political system.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: techs
Now were getting to the real problem.
It's the influence of corporate money in our political system.

The more you get the government involved, the more powerful the influence of lobbyist/corporate money becomes.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh, so you think the Senate should have a hand in how CEO's and Board of Directors run their business now? Thanks for agreeing with me that the free market doesn't work well by itself!

There's a difference in oversight and 'have a hand'. Government should be on the side acting as the referee. And that's as far as it should go. It shouldn't be setting pay scales for anyone except employees of the government. Especially not to banks that it forced to take TARP money while it lets government sponsored entities like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who had a big hand in the financial collapse pay their execs as they please.

Oh ok, i get it now, so CEO's and Boards SHOULD be allowed to collude with each other in how the CEO's get paid and CEO's should basically be allowed to rob the companies they work for... and CEO's of financial institutions should be allowed to basically put the entire global economic system at risk?

You do realize that if these wall street CEO's didn't have such a big say in how they were paid and their compensation was more based on future performance that these assholes would have put a lot more effort into managing risk, right? You might still have had a mess, but it would have been at a much smaller scale if most of the executive earnings were deferred and there were more 'clawback' provisions in their compensation packages for poor performance.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: mugs
My question was "Which laws are you referring to?"

I noticed that he didn't answer the question as well. I think there were some laws about interlocking directorates and how many boards an individual could sit on that were reversed or allowed to expire, but I'm not sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorates

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh, so you think the Senate should have a hand in how CEO's and Board of Directors run their business now? Thanks for agreeing with me that the free market doesn't work well by itself!

There's a difference in oversight and 'have a hand'. Government should be on the side acting as the referee. And that's as far as it should go. It shouldn't be setting pay scales for anyone except employees of the government. Especially not to banks that it forced to take TARP money while it lets government sponsored entities like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who had a big hand in the financial collapse pay their execs as they please.

Oh ok, i get it now, so CEO's and Boards SHOULD be allowed to collude with each other in how the CEO's get paid and CEO's should basically be allowed to rob the companies they work for... and CEO's of financial institutions should be allowed to basically put the entire global economic system at risk?

You do realize that if these wall street CEO's didn't have such a big say in how they were paid and their compensation was more based on future performance that these assholes would have put a lot more effort into managing risk, right? You might still have had a mess, but it would have been at a much smaller scale if most of the executive earnings were deferred and there were more 'clawback' provisions in their compensation packages for poor performance.

How many CEOs sit on the boards of the companies which the board members are CEOs of?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh, so you think the Senate should have a hand in how CEO's and Board of Directors run their business now? Thanks for agreeing with me that the free market doesn't work well by itself!

There's a difference in oversight and 'have a hand'. Government should be on the side acting as the referee. And that's as far as it should go. It shouldn't be setting pay scales for anyone except employees of the government. Especially not to banks that it forced to take TARP money while it lets government sponsored entities like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who had a big hand in the financial collapse pay their execs as they please.

Oh ok, i get it now, so CEO's and Boards SHOULD be allowed to collude with each other in how the CEO's get paid and CEO's should basically be allowed to rob the companies they work for... and CEO's of financial institutions should be allowed to basically put the entire global economic system at risk?

You do realize that if these wall street CEO's didn't have such a big say in how they were paid and their compensation was more based on future performance that these assholes would have put a lot more effort into managing risk, right? You might still have had a mess, but it would have been at a much smaller scale if most of the executive earnings were deferred and there were more 'clawback' provisions in their compensation packages for poor performance.

:roll: Yes, my statement that government should act as referee means exactly that. CEOs should be allowed to stack their boards anyway they pleased so that they can fleece and rob their company however they wish.

Of course I didn't say any such thing. Geez. Stop assigning strawman arguments to me that I didn't make.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh, so you think the Senate should have a hand in how CEO's and Board of Directors run their business now? Thanks for agreeing with me that the free market doesn't work well by itself!

There's a difference in oversight and 'have a hand'. Government should be on the side acting as the referee. And that's as far as it should go. It shouldn't be setting pay scales for anyone except employees of the government. Especially not to banks that it forced to take TARP money while it lets government sponsored entities like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who had a big hand in the financial collapse pay their execs as they please.

Oh ok, i get it now, so CEO's and Boards SHOULD be allowed to collude with each other in how the CEO's get paid and CEO's should basically be allowed to rob the companies they work for... and CEO's of financial institutions should be allowed to basically put the entire global economic system at risk?

You do realize that if these wall street CEO's didn't have such a big say in how they were paid and their compensation was more based on future performance that these assholes would have put a lot more effort into managing risk, right? You might still have had a mess, but it would have been at a much smaller scale if most of the executive earnings were deferred and there were more 'clawback' provisions in their compensation packages for poor performance.

:roll: Yes, my statement that government should act as referee means exactly that. CEOs should be allowed to stack their boards anyway they pleased so that they can fleece and rob their company however they wish.

Of course I didn't say any such thing. Geez. Stop assigning strawman arguments to me that I didn't make.

That's essentially what happens. How does the government being a 'referee' even help.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh, so you think the Senate should have a hand in how CEO's and Board of Directors run their business now? Thanks for agreeing with me that the free market doesn't work well by itself!

There's a difference in oversight and 'have a hand'. Government should be on the side acting as the referee. And that's as far as it should go. It shouldn't be setting pay scales for anyone except employees of the government. Especially not to banks that it forced to take TARP money while it lets government sponsored entities like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who had a big hand in the financial collapse pay their execs as they please.

Oh ok, i get it now, so CEO's and Boards SHOULD be allowed to collude with each other in how the CEO's get paid and CEO's should basically be allowed to rob the companies they work for... and CEO's of financial institutions should be allowed to basically put the entire global economic system at risk?

You do realize that if these wall street CEO's didn't have such a big say in how they were paid and their compensation was more based on future performance that these assholes would have put a lot more effort into managing risk, right? You might still have had a mess, but it would have been at a much smaller scale if most of the executive earnings were deferred and there were more 'clawback' provisions in their compensation packages for poor performance.

How many CEOs sit on the boards of the companies which the board members are CEOs of?

I'll tell you about IBM (where i used to work). Sam Palmisano (the CEO) is also the chairman of the board. Boy, i bet that board has lots of independence!

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh, so you think the Senate should have a hand in how CEO's and Board of Directors run their business now? Thanks for agreeing with me that the free market doesn't work well by itself!

There's a difference in oversight and 'have a hand'. Government should be on the side acting as the referee. And that's as far as it should go. It shouldn't be setting pay scales for anyone except employees of the government. Especially not to banks that it forced to take TARP money while it lets government sponsored entities like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who had a big hand in the financial collapse pay their execs as they please.

Oh ok, i get it now, so CEO's and Boards SHOULD be allowed to collude with each other in how the CEO's get paid and CEO's should basically be allowed to rob the companies they work for... and CEO's of financial institutions should be allowed to basically put the entire global economic system at risk?

You do realize that if these wall street CEO's didn't have such a big say in how they were paid and their compensation was more based on future performance that these assholes would have put a lot more effort into managing risk, right? You might still have had a mess, but it would have been at a much smaller scale if most of the executive earnings were deferred and there were more 'clawback' provisions in their compensation packages for poor performance.

:roll: Yes, my statement that government should act as referee means exactly that. CEOs should be allowed to stack their boards anyway they pleased so that they can fleece and rob their company however they wish.

Of course I didn't say any such thing. Geez. Stop assigning strawman arguments to me that I didn't make.

That's essentially what happens. How does the government being a 'referee' even help.

In this case, it didn't help out at all because the government abdicated it's referee/watchdog duties because key people were disgustingly corrupt instead of stepping in and calling foul before Countrywide ended up in the horrendous shape that it did. The government further abdicated it's referee/watchdog duties by pushing for the kind of subprime loans that Countrywide specialized in and sold to an eager Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who were being run into the ground by their own corrupt CEOS.

Executive pay would have never been an issue if the government did it's duty in enforcing regulation and oversight.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
Your thoughts?

All I can say is. . .

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Read an article in Readers Digest that once pissed me off.
A big, fat, dumb CEO got hold of a moderately successful company. He ran it straight into the ground. In addition to his horrid mismanagement, he also milked that place for everything it was worth. He was only getting paid 400,000 a year, but he racked up expenses to the tune of 600,000 a year (95% of which were actually his teeny-bopper wifes). He did that for a long time and then the board of directors finally voted and kicked his ass out.
When they fired him they gave the asshole a golden parachute of about 20 million dollars, all in a Swiss bank account.


I dont wanna sound like a communist but I am totally fine with the government regulating the paychecks of top-level executives.
EDIT:
Especially if they got taxpayer dollars just to stay in business.

I don't mean to pick on you shortylickens, but I honestly hope that people that believe this crap get to work in a Fortune 500 someday. Until you have first hand experience with individuals that have real executive managerial talent, it's hard to appreciate the intelligence, knowlege base, and communication abilities of a F500 exec.

If anyone thinks that corporate leadership is unimportant, or not worthy of a large salary, please work in a F500.

The picture that popular culture paints of executives: fat cats that are disconnected from the daily workings of their organizations, using lots of meaningless buzz words and promoting others based on nepotism and office politics is laughably far from the mark. Yes, there are a trajic few companies whose management is so bad that it becomes like this, and they are destroyed within a few years.

I appreciate you not picking on me. I will do the same for you. (Normally a post like yours would be entitled to a serious flame fest.)
I had 9 years in the Navy and the 3 years after that in microchip factory and please believe me when I tell you I not only know the difference between good leadership and bad, I also apreciate it.
What I said was:
The guys salary was 400,000, yet he racked up expenses closer to 600,000 on the company ticket, most of which were for his spoiled trophy wife and had nothing to do with the company.
He almost ran the company into the ground entirely.
They took a vote and fired him.
When he left he got 20 million.

Please tell me how any of that is good leadership/management.

...

...

...

Thank you very much for your kindness & patience and I wish more people on the forums were like you.

[/quote]

Perhaps I chose the wrong post to quote. It's hard for me to comment on this specific situation based only the anecdote provided. I will say that this kind of thing can happen and it's sickening. But I also think it's very unusual, and that companies that throw millions of dollars at poor performing CEOs are generally not long for this world.

My point was that people (not necessarily you) will see a story like this and think it's typical.

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I promise you, in the service no one is even allowed to come close to fucking up that badly and then getting rewarded on top of it.

I have no first hand experience here, but my brother was in the Marines and believes that Marine offices in the past have been wreckless with the lives of the men under their command in the interest of advancing their careers or gaining glory for themselves.

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Also, I cant agree with your "few tragic" comment because too many companies have actually done it over the years. And now my tax dollars are supporting them.

In relative terms, I'd say it's extremely rare. Medium sized companies with poor management fail quietly all the time, long before anyone has heard of them. Probably hundreds per year. Keep in mind that when you're talking about the financial industry, the business environment of 13-14 months ago was unprecedented. Not a single blue chip financial firm came away unscathed.

Originally posted by: shortylickens
And I sincerely hope you are not using the argument "you cant talk about it until you do it" because that was long ago established as a logical fallacy.

I wouldn't call it a logical argument. I'm sure there are some things about the Navy that make little sense to a civilian like me, but make a lot of sense to someone spent 6 years in the institution.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh, so you think the Senate should have a hand in how CEO's and Board of Directors run their business now? Thanks for agreeing with me that the free market doesn't work well by itself!

There's a difference in oversight and 'have a hand'. Government should be on the side acting as the referee. And that's as far as it should go. It shouldn't be setting pay scales for anyone except employees of the government. Especially not to banks that it forced to take TARP money while it lets government sponsored entities like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who had a big hand in the financial collapse pay their execs as they please.

Oh ok, i get it now, so CEO's and Boards SHOULD be allowed to collude with each other in how the CEO's get paid and CEO's should basically be allowed to rob the companies they work for... and CEO's of financial institutions should be allowed to basically put the entire global economic system at risk?

You do realize that if these wall street CEO's didn't have such a big say in how they were paid and their compensation was more based on future performance that these assholes would have put a lot more effort into managing risk, right? You might still have had a mess, but it would have been at a much smaller scale if most of the executive earnings were deferred and there were more 'clawback' provisions in their compensation packages for poor performance.

:roll: Yes, my statement that government should act as referee means exactly that. CEOs should be allowed to stack their boards anyway they pleased so that they can fleece and rob their company however they wish.

Of course I didn't say any such thing. Geez. Stop assigning strawman arguments to me that I didn't make.

That's essentially what happens. How does the government being a 'referee' even help.

In this case, it didn't help out at all because the government abdicated it's referee/watchdog duties because key people were disgustingly corrupt instead of stepping in and calling foul before Countrywide ended up in the horrendous shape that it did. The government further abdicated it's referee/watchdog duties by pushing for the kind of subprime loans that Countrywide specialized in and sold to an eager Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who were being run into the ground by their own corrupt CEOS.

Executive pay would have never been an issue if the government did it's duty in enforcing regulation and oversight.

1st: This is probably the 100th time i posted this, but your analysis of Fannie/Freddie is way off:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

2nd: You still haven't said what the government should have done to curtail abusive CEO compensation. If you basically say they should have stepped in, then you'd be agreeing with me.

 

[thatguy82]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: thatguy82

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: Farang
I did read this story but I must have missed this part. What I am wondering is what exactly gives the administration the authority to make these cuts? The way it is reported is seems like they can do it on a whim.

Because the executives took a bail out instead of flushing the company down the toilet. They are now in service with the government.

The problem with this line of thinking is that some financial institutions were forced to take the TARP money under the Bush administration by Paulson (Geithner was there as well) whether they wanted it or not. And at one point, the Obama administration refused to take TARP paybacks until later this past summer.

Any word on whether or not the executive pay at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be cut along with this? How about a pay cut for any of the politicians that tried to cover for these corporations while racking up the lobbyist dollars?

jpm and goldman sachs paid back their money and are not longer under such salary restrictions, the other corps just need to pay their money back or stfu

JPM and Goldman Sachs didn't really need to take the TARP money at the time the government forced them to take it. So, it was easier for them to pay the money back. They were trying to pay the money back earlier this year but the feds wouldn't let them.

And what about Bank of America? Not only were they pressured by the feds into taking the TARP money when they didn't need it but they were pressured into buying Merril Lynch which is pretty much the cause of BofA's current financial troubles.

yeah if boa was forced to buy merril that's messed up, I don't think that's settled yet but granted it will be unlikely that something like that would come out.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Phokus
1st: This is probably the 100th time i posted this, but your analysis of Fannie/Freddie is way off:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

2nd: You still haven't said what the government should have done to curtail abusive CEO compensation. If you basically say they should have stepped in, then you'd be agreeing with me.

1) I never said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 'triggered' the financial crisis. But they did have a huge hand in the whole mess and were being run just as corruptly as Countrywide...complete with executive compensation abuse. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are probably worse though (IMHO) because these are government sponsored entities that the government had direct oversight over and had a say in things like executive pay as a result. What did they do as the warning signs over their death spiral began to emerge at the beginning of this decade? Nothing. In fact, they allowed to two to run even more wild with sub-prime loans.

Knowing that. What confidence do you have that the government would have stepped in and done something about the pay of Angelo Mozilo?

2) Stepped in and raised a flag that how they are running the business is wrong? Made it public so that both the public and shareholders are aware? Absolutely.
Mandate executive pay? Absolutely not.

I don't know of any laws that would allow the government to come in and tell a private business how to pay it's employees short of making sure we all pay our taxes. And I don't think I ever want to get to that point either.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: thatguy82yeah if boa was forced to buy merril that's messed up, I don't think that's settled yet but granted it will be unlikely that something like that would come out.

"boa" was not forced to do anything. Hank Paulson told Ken Lewis that he would be forced out of his position if he didn't go through with the acquisition.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: thatguy82yeah if boa was forced to buy merril that's messed up, I don't think that's settled yet but granted it will be unlikely that something like that would come out.

"boa" was not forced to do anything. Hank Paulson told Ken Lewis that he would be forced out of his position if he didn't go through with the acquisition.

"Take this deal are we are going to use the power of the federal government to replace you."

That's not force?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: her209
How many CEOs sit on the boards of the companies which the board members are CEOs of?

I'll tell you about IBM (where i used to work). Sam Palmisano (the CEO) is also the chairman of the board. Boy, i bet that board has lots of independence!

You have that too, but I was mainly referring to when person A is a board member at a company which person B is the CEO. And person B is a board member at another company which person A is the CEO.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Phokus
1st: This is probably the 100th time i posted this, but your analysis of Fannie/Freddie is way off:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

2nd: You still haven't said what the government should have done to curtail abusive CEO compensation. If you basically say they should have stepped in, then you'd be agreeing with me.

1) I never said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 'triggered' the financial crisis. But they did have a huge hand in the whole mess and were being run just as corruptly as Countrywide...complete with executive compensation abuse. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are probably worse though (IMHO) because these are government sponsored entities that the government had direct oversight over and had a say in things like executive pay as a result. What did they do as the warning signs over their death spiral began to emerge at the beginning of this decade? Nothing. In fact, they allowed to two to run even more wild with sub-prime loans.

Knowing that. What confidence do you have that the government would have stepped in and done something about the pay of Angelo Mozilo?

2) Stepped in and raised a flag that how they are running the business is wrong? Made it public so that both the public and shareholders are aware? Absolutely.
Mandate executive pay? Absolutely not.

I don't know of any laws that would allow the government to come in and tell a private business how to pay it's employees short of making sure we all pay our taxes. And I don't think I ever want to get to that point either.

1. No they didn't. You have to read the WHOLE article. This whole blaming Freddie/Frannie is basically a conservative talk radio lie:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks ? not Fannie and Freddie ? dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

2. Haha, everyone KNOWS that executive compensation across all industries is completely fucked. You need a government entity to tell you that? Suddenly boards of directors and CEO's will start behaving well because the mean old government is saying mean old things to them? Give me a break. Let me give you an example of some meaningful reform: Some countries (i think in either europe or japan) have laws where stockholders get a non-binding resolutions towards executive compensation. Also, some countries require compensation committees on the boards to have union or worker reps. Not surprisingly, the CEO-to lowest paid worker gaps are smaller in those countries than here in the US.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: thatguy82
yeah if boa was forced to buy merril that's messed up, I don't think that's settled yet but granted it will be unlikely that something like that would come out.

"boa" was not forced to do anything. Hank Paulson told Ken Lewis that he would be forced out of his position if he didn't go through with the acquisition.

That's just as wrong as Merril Lynch handing out the bonuses knowing that the company was going under and being bought by BoA.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: her209
How many CEOs sit on the boards of the companies which the board members are CEOs of?

I'll tell you about IBM (where i used to work). Sam Palmisano (the CEO) is also the chairman of the board. Boy, i bet that board has lots of independence!

You have that too, but I was mainly referring to when person A is a board member at a company which person B is the CEO. And person B is a board member at another company which person A is the CEO.

Actually IBM sorta did have that as well. I can't find this now, but Sam Palmisano was (and is currently) on the board of Exxon Mobile. BUT there *WAS* a board member on IBM who was also an ex-Exxon executive as well. He doesn't seem to be on IBM's board anymore.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: thatguy82yeah if boa was forced to buy merril that's messed up, I don't think that's settled yet but granted it will be unlikely that something like that would come out.

"boa" was not forced to do anything. Hank Paulson told Ken Lewis that he would be forced out of his position if he didn't go through with the acquisition.

"Take this deal are we are going to use the power of the federal government to replace you."

That's not force?

No, that's coersion. Ken Lewis acted in his own self interest and in apparent direct conflict with his fiduciary responsability to the banks shareholders.

Force would have been if the government told Ken Lewis that he had to complete the transaction or they would liquify B of A.

 

[FeuerFrei]

Originally posted by: WingZero94
Why the fuck did we bail them out in the first place??? And the gov shouldn't be able to cut ANY PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS PAY - PERIOD!!!

Yeah, really. Two wrongs don't make a right. This would be a very dangerous precedent. Though the U.S. government might get away with overstepping its bounds in this case, because the public thinks the execs deserve it, don't want to squander bailout funds, etc. This would set the stage for more power grabs by the Obama administration in the future.
:thumbsdown::frown: