Brainfade Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 In general, I am against the government dictating these things to the private sector, but I like the fact that he has restricted the CEO salary cap ONLY to companies that are receiving federal bailouts. If a company does not want to comply with the CEO salary cap,they can kiss federal money goodbye. A very, very good move, in my opinion. I have a problem with 2 things, though: (a) The amount - $500 K - is somewhat low for a job like that. Don't get me wrong - it is over 10x what I make - but for a job like that? It may result in these companies not attracting the best talent. ( Just the general concept of the government getting involved in everything is a bit disconcerting.
triam Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 In general, I am against the government dictating these things to the private sector, but I like the fact that he has restricted the CEO salary cap ONLY to companies that are receiving federal bailouts. If a company does not want to comply with the CEO salary cap,they can kiss federal money goodbye. A very, very good move, in my opinion. I have a problem with 2 things, though: (a) The amount - $500 K - is somewhat low for a job like that. Don't get me wrong - it is over 10x what I make - but for a job like that? It may result in these companies not attracting the best talent. (b) Just the general concept of the government getting involved in everything is a bit disconcerting. I dont know if limiting the CEO's with salary cap will really have an impact, anyways the way they make their money is through huge bonuses and other benefits, not direct salaries, does this salary cap extend to benefits and bonuses? Is there a time period for this salary cap? It appears more like a publicity move, lets see how it shapes out.
punjabi_khota Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 In general, I am against the government dictating these things to the private sector, but I like the fact that he has restricted the CEO salary cap ONLY to companies that are receiving federal bailouts. If a company does not want to comply with the CEO salary cap,they can kiss federal money goodbye. A very, very good move, in my opinion. I have a problem with 2 things, though: (a) The amount - $500 K - is somewhat low for a job like that. Don't get me wrong - it is over 10x what I make - but for a job like that? It may result in these companies not attracting the best talent. (b) Just the general concept of the government getting involved in everything is a bit disconcerting. 1). Apple CEO takes home 1$. 2). Best talent? If these people had best talent, would they be where they are right now ? They couldn't attract best talent for 20+ million dollars per annum, so what do you expect. Anyways, bonus and stock options boost it up to millions in good times.
Ram Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 In general, I am against the government dictating these things to the private sector, but I like the fact that he has restricted the CEO salary cap ONLY to companies that are receiving federal bailouts. If a company does not want to comply with the CEO salary cap,they can kiss federal money goodbye. A very, very good move, in my opinion. I have a problem with 2 things, though: (a) The amount - $500 K - is somewhat low for a job like that. Don't get me wrong - it is over 10x what I make - but for a job like that? It may result in these companies not attracting the best talent. (b) Just the general concept of the government getting involved in everything is a bit disconcerting. I don’t think you should take this as a sign of govt. intervention in private enterprises. This is more the govt. saying ‘You screwed up, we bailed you out. But there’s a price to pay for all the excesses and largesse all these years. And that is a considerable reduction in your pay. Salvage your company, repay taxpayer money and then you can do what you want. But as long as you survive of taxpayer money, you cant take multi-billion dollar bonuses’. I find that quite reasonable. This will also test the loyalty of many of the top executives and will show how many are truly wedded to their organizations. Interestingly, 9 executives from Merrill (which has received TARP money) have quit and joined Deutche Bank (which has received no assistance)
Ram Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Btw CA, have you noticed, Tom Daschle is out.. so is Obama's nomination for commerce secretary.
cochise Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 If there was a CEO that deserved it, I wouldn't question it at all. So far, all I have seen is the sh*it rise to the top. The really deserving guys are normally too decent and too busy to ar*se kiss, brown nose or annihilate the competiton as a primary aim. The whole construct is f*ucked...this is but a symptom. Your argument must go to a more fundamental level. Let's take it there and have a more interesting discussion.
Ram Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Personally, I’d NEVER be sympathetic of high-flying executives who paid themselves $18 billion dollars in bonuses in 2007, whiletheir companies were going down, economy was contracting and they spent more time in Washington D.C, begging Capitol Hill for financial assistance rather than at their own offices, doing business. What kind of message does that send? I understand that’s its important not to over-react to these executive largesse, but how can ANY company sponsor expensive vacation retreats and fat-bonuses from cash they got from the taxpayer? That is shocking. The whole culture in Wall Street is so screwed up. No one’s really interested in building a sustainable organization. All they do is make all sorts of mal-investments, offer flawed products and services that make no sense in the long term, just for short term gains in their balance sheet so that the stock prices go up and they can cash in on it. If anything, these people should be prosecuted for willful neglect and mismanagement of public finances.
Ram Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Although, I must add, this Obama vs Wall Street battle is generating quite a lot of heat in the media. Many are saying that Obama has unfairly villified the Wall-street brass, in an effort to deflect attention from the foibles of his own administration. Remember, three of his cabinet appointees have withdrawn because of previous tax-evasion while Tim Geitner still staying despite similar charges. It is VERY odd for a President of the United States, a country that spawned new-age capitalism, to speak so openly against executive culture.
fineleg Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 For companies that get Fed bailout help, this is the right move.
Macj Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Gutsy and bold move. Yes pay should be limited only to those companies benefitting from public bailout money.
TheBoyPlunger Posted February 6, 2009 Posted February 6, 2009 (a) The amount - $500 K - is somewhat low for a job like that. Don't get me wrong - it is over 10x what I make - but for a job like that? It may result in these companies not attracting the best talent. I don't see how anybody could have done worse :giggle:. And Wall Street shouldn't be complaining. It's the Govt's(rather people) money, so Govt conditions. You don't like the conditions, don't take the money.
Brainfade Posted February 6, 2009 Author Posted February 6, 2009 Thanks to all for your views on this - some interesting views. Just want to clarify one thing - I stated at the very beginning of my OP that I am fully in favor of this move at this time. I think it is a great move - especially the part where it is tied to bailouts. I was just presenting some possible downsides, and possible slippery slopes with government dicta. You know - seeing both sides of an issue and all ... :-)!!
punjabi_khota Posted February 6, 2009 Posted February 6, 2009 Thanks to all for your views on this - some interesting views. Just want to clarify one thing - I stated at the very beginning of my OP that I am fully in favor of this move at this time. I think it is a great move - especially the part where it is tied to bailouts. I was just presenting some possible downsides, and possible slippery slopes with government dicta. You know - seeing both sides of an issue and all ... :-)!! Desperate times, desperate measures. If the stimulus works, all this controversy will be forgotten. If it doesn't, there will be issues of far more importance than whether the CEO of some comany got to **** in a golden commode. The point is, this is a symbolic gesture, somethign the public can easily understand and relate to. Other than that, it is practically a no issue.
TheBoyPlunger Posted February 7, 2009 Posted February 7, 2009 Desperate times, desperate measures. If the stimulus works, all this controversy will be forgotten. If it doesn't, there will be issues of far more importance than whether the CEO of some comany got to **** in a golden commode. The point is, this is a symbolic gesture, somethign the public can easily understand and relate to. Other than that, it is practically a no issue. The 'stimulus' bill has a very little chance of working and IMO will not work. He's doing the same BS as FDR like protectionism and doing more of things which haven't ever worked.
Brainfade Posted February 7, 2009 Author Posted February 7, 2009 The 'stimulus' bill has a very little chance of working and IMO will not work. He's doing the same BS as FDR like protectionism and doing more of things which haven't ever worked. Spending is out of control. Congressmen and Senators all have their "pet" projects that they cannot/will not sacrifice. Government waste is appalling. Borrowing money from China and from future generations is the norm. We need a true, tough fiscal conservative at the helm. Either that or a Congress that forces the President to balance the budget. Neither seems to be on the horizon. Most unfortunately, the message of "I will cut back spending" holds no charm. "Hope!" "Change!" "We're at war!" Buzzwords with no substance help raise money and get one elected.
Brainfade Posted February 7, 2009 Author Posted February 7, 2009 Btw CA' date=' have you noticed, Tom Daschle is out.. so is Obama's nomination for commerce secretary.[/quote'] The sheen is starting to wear a bit. Running a country is not like running a campaign, I suppose.
Brainfade Posted February 7, 2009 Author Posted February 7, 2009 Now, this is the slippery slope I fear: http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090203/REG/902039977/1003/TOC&template=printart Key sentence: He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies. Absolute horse-poop.
cowboysfan Posted February 7, 2009 Posted February 7, 2009 Now, this is the slippery slope I fear: http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090203/REG/902039977/1003/TOC&template=printart Key sentence: He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies. Absolute horse-poop. i dont agree to that.this is veering towards socialism .cut pay to the firms who have received bailout but this is not right.
TheBoyPlunger Posted February 8, 2009 Posted February 8, 2009 I don't think they will be able to enforce a limit on CEO pay on companies not taking the Govt funds. This is just playing to the gallery.
Recommended Posts