Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Saw a story that Obama wants to cap pay for executives of companies seeking a bailout at $500k. Seems like a good idea to me. I can't understand how someone should get a multimillion dollar compensation package if the company stock has dropped more than 50%. I mean thats what a guy making 50k will take 10 years to make.
Yep. We all have a stake in these companies, and have a say in how they manage themselves. It is what stockholders do. This was something that should have been implemented when the mutilated version of TARP-I was thrown into effect. I wonder if bonuses and golden parachutes are also a part of this regulation, and they need to be. Latter may be a bit challenging since there may be legalities involved (in which case, the exec might just quit and take a huge package with him/her).
Bonus needs to be solely performance based, and performance judged after scrutiny of the company's (real) health, not one that is fraudulently made public. This seems to be yet another unaddressed issue with this financial debacle... too many companies claiming "strong fundamentals" and profits while they were going under over last few years.
It takes us further down the road of nationalization, but capitalism does stop where socialism begins. You take the money, you pay the consequences.
One positive byproduct of any sort of boundary-setting is that the excessively paid execs might leave to seek greener pastures-- and paydays-- elsewhere. Then their ailing companies can hire someone more productive and less expensive to charter a turnaround. Or the government will simply take over the companies and place government appointees at the helm.
Aren't these the same executives which ran these companies into the ground? Now they come begging for a bailout from the taxpayers? They should be thankful they still have jobs.
Bad idea...free markets...no bailouts...let who fail go out of business...Obama's job isn't about payments to business people...he should stay OUT!
I understand that there should be limits for companies who get government money, for companies who didn't get any money, I'm against government interfering!
Last edited by bentlebee; 02-04-2009 at 09:05 AM..
Bad idea...free markets...no bailouts...let who fail go out of business...Obama's job isn't about payments to business people...he should stay OUT!
I understand that there should be limits for companies who get government money, for companies who didn't get any money, I'm against government interfering!
I think these companies can get around these restrictions by simply paying back the loans and buying back the stock.
Think of this as the ultimate in stockholder power rather than government interference.
I think 500k is too much. What about $40-50k?
Of course the bailouts shouldn't have happened in the first place but too bad we can't take the unused money back.
In order for people to take the job of CEO and take the risk of never getting another job, they need to get paid more for the more education they have had and the more responsibility that comes with the job...there are many examples of great CEO's who did a very good job.
There should be a clause that if a CEO runs a company down they can't get any bonus and/or lose an amount of their salary. But to me to make a cap for all business CEO's is ridiculous....I understand that if government or tax payer money is involved the amounts should be lower but the government has proven not doing a good job overseeing the hedgefunds like Madoff so why should we trust the government right now...specially with Obama who just admitted making a mistake with Dashle and still have the guy with tax issues given the job!
I agree that a great many CEO's are over paid and I don't have a problem with capping salaries of those who are part of any bail out agreement.....but getting into the arena of telling corporations what they can or can not pay their CEO or any other board member/employee is a dangerous line to cross in a free enterprise society. This would have to be approached with precise documentation that doesn't set any future presidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
