I hate government intervention into private companies, but this is not that. My read is that IF the company wants taxpayer money to bail them out, they have to do a few things for the tax payer:
- limit to $500K salary for execs
- limits to bonus plans
Many questions still to be answered, but on the surface I like it.
I hate government intervention into private companies, but this is not that. My read is that IF the company wants taxpayer money to bail them out, they have to do a few things for the tax payer:
I would go one step farther, if a company wants a bailout, then it's CEO and board of directors should be made to resign. Why should I believe that a management team would be any better with my money than they were with their own???
__________________
Future DNC Message - From this point, all illegal aliens will be referred to Unregistered Democrats.
I would go one step farther, if a company wants a bailout, then it's CEO and board of directors should be made to resign. Why should I believe that a management team would be any better with my money than they were with their own???
+1
Sounds much better thangiving those who trashed their banks more money to play with.
I would be on the look-out for unintended consequences. This sounds good . . . but what if it means that experienced, well connected, well educated executives flee these companies for other companies where they can get their true market value salaries? I'm sure some people would jump at the opportunity for a $50,000/annual salary and health benefits, but its been 12 years since I would even think about working for that pittance of a salary. I cannot speak knowledgably about the market salaries for these cats, but I do suggest that if this prevents these bailout companies from competing for high caliber executives, it is liable to cost more in loses than paying out those higher salaries. I know the hoi poloi don't like to hear that, but that's the way it is. Sure, this will prevent some incompetent, unethical, blood-sucking bastards from being overly compensated. The question is will it also impact competent, ethical, high value-add executives who will skeedaddle to ACME for substantially better compensation and cost his former employer $10,000,000 in loses because his compensation limited successor didn't have the right stuff? Something to think about. Personally, I trust the market better than the government to decide such things.
And if you are going to analyze and interpret this subject from the hypothesis that these executives are motivated by some altuistic mission of improving our nation, our society, our world, our earth, saving the whales, or preserving the spotted owl and hence are not going to be detered by sub-market compensation. . . you're on the wrong page.
I'm available.I'll be happy to run any company into the ground and take billions in taxpayer money to bail it out for $500k a year.In fact I'll do it for $400k and pay for my own health insurance.
It's $500k, not $50 k, isn't it? Frankly, companies needing bailouts are failing by definition. So boot their execs and lavish union benefits and salary and begin competing!
It's $500k, not $50 k, isn't it? Frankly, companies needing bailouts are failing by definition. So boot their execs and lavish union benefits and salary and begin competing!
DougMD: I was making an analogy. It is quite possible that offering $500 K salaries to top level finance and investment banking executives constitutes bottom fishing that is only going to catch carp, suckers, and other such coarse fishes. You are talking some top shelf positions here. These guys can probably go run Fortune 50 companies where their executive compensation would be in the millions, not the $500 K range. Do you want to bottom-fish for these key positions? Do you want to have brain surgery done by the low bidder?
Obama limits exec pay/bonus for bailout firms
