Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

US government seeks to rein in executive pay


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
46 replies to this topic

#31 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,114
  • Reputation: 183
HUDDLER

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:36 PM

You post an article saying that the government is seeking to do something, than halfway down the page you say they are already doing it.

Your trailer needs to be HAZMAT inpected.


They're doing it already, on a limited basis ... and now they want to do it more ... do you get that?

#32 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,416
  • Reputation: 2,348
SUPPORTER

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:38 PM

And of course, the rest of the article.....

While the administration has approached the issue too cautiously for many Democrats, a top Republican said its plans amounted to "incessant government intervention."

"The president cannot continue his heavy-handed meddling in the private sector and expect it to function, much less flourish," said Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

Until now, the attention to executive pay has focused almost exclusively on companies that are receiving assistance under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program established last fall to address the financial crisis. With those firms, the administration has shown a greater willingness to restrict compensation.

On Wednesday, it set bonus limits on companies that receive TARP assistance, with the toughest restrictions aimed at seven recipients of "exceptional assistance." They are Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC, American International Group Inc., GMAC LLC and Chrysler Financial.

The regulations followed requirements set by Congress earlier this year when it passed the $787 billion economic stimulus legislation. The regulations will limit top executives of companies that receive TARP funds to bonuses of no more than one-third of their annual salaries. But the administration also went beyond the steps mandated in the legislation.

The administration named Kenneth Feinberg, a lawyer who oversaw payments to families of Sept. 11 victims, as a "special master" with power to reject pay plans he deems excessive at the seven companies with the biggest injections of public money. Feinberg also would have authority to review compensation for the top 100 salaried employees at those companies.


But on Thursday Democrats and administration officials agreed that companies across the private sector need to adjust compensation practices to avoid damaging the economy.

"We believe that compensation practices must be better aligned with long-term value and prudent risk management at all firms, and not just for the financial services industry," Sperling said.

The Federal Reserve, meanwhile, is developing its own set of compensation guidelines for the banks that it oversees. The Fed already has standards for banks that declare that compensation that could lead to material financial losses is considered unsafe and unsound. But regulators are prohibited from using those standards to prescribe specific levels of pay.

The SEC also is considering strengthening its rules, including one that would set new disclosure requirements for shareholders regarding conflicts of interest between compensation consultants and corporate management.

Some firms are already adopting compensation practices that pay greater attention to long-term performance by extending bonuses over a period of time.

"The industry has moved itself quite significantly toward cleaning up that act," said John Benson, CEO of eFinancialcareers.com, a career management firm for financial services professionals. "What the government is doing is putting a voice to that public mood."


Well as you can see from the rest of the article that PL didnt feel like posting:


1. The Administration is taking a middle of the road approach to the debate at this time.
2. The government has already asked for prudence in CEO pay for banks but with no actual guidelines, making it ineffective
3.The SEC is considering doing exactly what I said would be the most likely outcome
4. Public attention has led to some measure of self policing.

#33 Samuel L. Jackson

Samuel L. Jackson

    Banned

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,407
  • Reputation: 1
Banned

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:38 PM

I think we should all do it more... the world would be a better place...

#34 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,114
  • Reputation: 183
HUDDLER

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:39 PM

If they excepted Government bailout money or begged for more. Then I have no problem with the government telling the companies how much they can pay CEOs or whoever, but if they are going to try and tell all companies what they can pay and not pay, well then that is another story. But I think this is about bailout companies, so I have no problem.


They want to expand it beyond bailout companies, though. And the fact is, if you start artificially capping salaries, you're not going to keep or attract the best workers ... those companies who aren't capped are going to steal them away ... and you're going to then put the "government-run" company at risk for not succeeding, thus, we have poured our tax money down the drain yet once again.

#35 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,416
  • Reputation: 2,348
SUPPORTER

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:52 PM

I don't see where this mentions "artifically capping salaries". All I see are mentions of bonuses as a percentage of salary, better disclosure practices, nonbinding shareholder votes....you are making up poo to scare people, but it's evidently working better on yourself.

#36 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:53 PM

I think we should all do it more... the world would be a better place...


I'm sorry but did the words "I think" escape from your lips?

#37 Samuel L. Jackson

Samuel L. Jackson

    Banned

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,407
  • Reputation: 1
Banned

Posted 11 June 2009 - 02:55 PM

I'm sorry but did the words "I think" escape from your lips?


boo... you can do better.. I've seen it..

#38 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,114
  • Reputation: 183
HUDDLER

Posted 11 June 2009 - 03:09 PM

Like that would ever happen ...

Business groups are daring President Barack Obama to impose pay caps on labor union bosses in light of indications the White House will limit how much corporate executives can be paid.

President Obama has argued “corporate greed” has contributed to the economic crisis and appointed a “compensation czar” to review executive pay for several companies receiving taxpayer bailout money Wednesday. Now White House officials have told the press legislation should be enacted to limit executive pay in private companies through nonbinding shareholders votes.


http://www.washingto...pay-for-unions/

#39 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,398
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 11 June 2009 - 03:13 PM

IMO, if the CEO is doing a good job, he deserves to get a lot of money. If he does a bad job, he deserves nothing. I agree that shareholder's should hold more influence. Problem is that most shareholders are board members, senior execs, or institutions.

True. I vote my shares most of the time by proxy vote, but that basically amounts to pissing up a rope.

#40 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,983
  • Reputation: 1
HUDDLER

Posted 11 June 2009 - 03:16 PM

True. I vote my shares most of the time by proxy vote, but that basically amounts to pissing up a rope.


That's not so difficult for us guys.