Should CEOs of wrecked companies have to pay back the billions in salary and bonuses they took home on the way down? (wages, illegal)
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.
Taking care of their families doesn't cost 50 million dollars, which is the cost of some of the bonuses (meaning that is in addition to their already multi-million dollar annual salaries) that these CEOs got while their companies laid off thousands. CEOs shouldn't be getting compensated millions upon millions of dollars while they are firing thousands of employees who could have remained employed if the CEO gave up just a couple million of their bonus. It may not be criminal, but it sure as hell should be.
Was surprised to see that Peter Kraus was not on the list. He was a top exec for Merrill Lynch for 3 months and got $25 Million, in a round-about way, from the bailout money - our tax dollars.
Quote:
Before Merrill hired Kraus as an executive vice president, he negotiated a $50 million pay package ... with the bulk of that guaranteed to him if the company was sold.
.... did not officially start work until September, Kraus hit the jackpot after just a couple of days, when Merrill CEO John Thain sold the company to Bank of America for $50 billion amid the stock-market meltdown.
The sale automatically triggered the $25 million payout under Kraus' contract. He left Merrill this month. The amount represents about 0.1 percent of Bank of America's $25 billion capital injection from the government as part of Congress' rescue package. FAT-CAT PALACE IS A 'CRA$H' PAD - New York Post
Well, the main problem with CEO compensation the way it's currently structured is that the relationships between the various top CEO's and the various Board of Directors is somewhat "incestuous" - with all too often the CEO of company A on the Board of Directors of company B and the CEO of company B on the Board of Directors of company C and the CEO of company C on the Board of Directors of company A - thus providing a "round robin" sort of club where "I'll scratch your back - and you can scratch his back - and he'll scratch my back". It's a very tangled web of relationships where the end result is that it's to every member of "club"s advantage to keep escalating CEO salaries - because the members of the Board of Directors deciding those salaries are often CEO's of OTHER companies - and who's salaries are driven by the "prevailing rate" of CEO salaries. Thus by driving up the salaries of OTHER CEOs they are in effect driving up their OWN salaries the next time it is negotiated. In effect, the Board of Directors - who have been entrusted with watching out for the shareholders' interests - are instead watching out for the interests of other members of "the club" - and thus themselves.
This leads to situations where company CEOs are sometimes driven to drive companies into the ground by focusing on short-term gain so that their own income is raised - at the expense of the long-term health (or even existence) of the company they oversee - and all the while the Board of Directors just sits there and lets them do it because the Board of Directors are no longer watching out for the shareholders.
It's all pretty disgusting and is in truth simple theft on a GRAND scale - with CEOs looting companies and the Board of Directors simply letting them do it.
Well, the main problem with CEO compensation the way it's currently structured is that the relationships between the various top CEO's and the various Board of Directors is somewhat "incestuous" - with all too often the CEO of company A on the Board of Directors of company B and the CEO of company B on the Board of Directors of company C and the CEO of company C on the Board of Directors of company A - thus providing a "round robin" sort of club where "I'll scratch your back - and you can scratch his back - and he'll scratch my back". It's a very tangled web of relationships where the end result is that it's to every member of "club"s advantage to keep escalating CEO salaries - because the members of the Board of Directors deciding those salaries are often CEO's of OTHER companies - and who's salaries are driven by the "prevailing rate" of CEO salaries. Thus by driving up the salaries of OTHER CEOs they are in effect driving up their OWN salaries the next time it is negotiated. In effect, the Board of Directors - who have been entrusted with watching out for the shareholders' interests - are instead watching out for the interests of other members of "the club" - and thus themselves.
This leads to situations where company CEOs are sometimes driven to drive companies into the ground by focusing on short-term gain so that their own income is raised - at the expense of the long-term health (or even existence) of the company they oversee - and all the while the Board of Directors just sits there and lets them do it because the Board of Directors are no longer watching out for the shareholders.
It's all pretty disgusting and is in truth simple theft on a GRAND scale - with CEOs looting companies and the Board of Directors simply letting them do it.
Ken
We have to get the money to help the common folk of America, may as well come from the robber barons.
I said NO. because if you are willing to say yes, then you should also be willing to say yes to having the federal goverment refund the trillions of dollars they have misused in the public trust. also all incomes that all politicians should also be returned as they abused the public trust as well.
after all they are working for the citizens of the USA and they have done a very poor job at it since 1932.
I said NO. because if you are willing to say yes, then you should also be willing to say yes to having the federal goverment refund the trillions of dollars they have misused in the public trust. also all incomes that all politicians should also be returned as they abused the public trust as well.
after all they are working for the citizens of the USA and they have done a very poor job at it since 1932.
Oh no, no, no. The money you say the gov 'wasted' went to create jobs - you against that too?
WHY would they pay it back? WHO would make them pay it back?
No, the plan worked. They got what they planned on getting and have no reason to give it back.
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.
