Post #315,986
10/21/09 5:42:23 PM
|
Looks like they'll be some exec jobs opening up
http://www.cnbc.com/id/33417281
Under the plan, which will be announced in the next few days by the Treasury Department, the seven companies that received the most assistance will have to cut the annual salaries of their 25 best-paid executives by an average of about 90 percent from last year. Their total compensation  including bonuses and retirement contributions  will drop, on average, by about 50 percent.
...
At the financial products division of the insurance giant, A.I.G., the locus of problems that plagued the large insurer and forced its rescue with more than $180 billion in taxpayer assistance, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, a stunning decline from previous years in which the unit produced many wealthy executives and traders.
I've had job offers near that for Manhattan positions...won't pay a mortgage in North Jersey/LI/Conn.
Don't think the CEO is gonna move to an apt in Hoboken.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #315,991
10/21/09 6:00:50 PM
|
If he hasn't stored enough already to be liquid ...
I don't think many of these guys were waiting for the next paycheck to make a mortgage payment.
--
Drew
|
Post #316,011
10/22/09 7:46:16 AM
|
when a clerk makes more ...
I don't think they'll be staying. especially the fund managers.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #315,992
10/21/09 7:05:44 PM
|
Pay for Performance has its downside, too.
|
Post #316,010
10/22/09 7:45:26 AM
|
Interesting take on gov't mandated pay.
pay for performance...sounds good...
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,012
10/22/09 8:02:54 AM
|
It's already in place in many areas.
|
Post #316,015
10/22/09 8:38:40 AM
|
I have no issue...
...with the government setting the pay of people who work for the government.
And no, the bailout money doesn't make CITI a government office.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,016
10/22/09 8:58:13 AM
|
Suppose *anyone else* had fronted the money
Your company is about to fold. The only way to keep the doors open is for someone to give you several tens of billions of dollars. If the government comes up with the money, it's called a "bailout". If any other entity except the government were the one to come up with the money, wouldn't it be called a "purchase"? Hell, at a minimum they'd have ended up with a controlling stake.
--
Drew
|
Post #316,017
10/22/09 9:11:10 AM
|
What world are...
You living in?
Of course its a bailout. Purchase?
Wait, oh... did we do that with GM? or Chrysler?
|
Post #316,018
10/22/09 9:18:45 AM
|
is there a point there?
if the new owner thinks management was the problem, they fire them.
If they don't, they are well compensated.
But not here, we're going to take the top performers (CEO aside) and cut their wages to below mgr levels in NYC.
Whether they have money in the bank or not, do you think that these guys, hire-able by any company and highly sought after, will PAY to work at these firms?
Let's just call this what it is...all these sr execs will swap jobs...and the admin will be able to say they created several hundred more wall street jobs because of the uptick in hiring.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,022
10/22/09 9:33:13 AM
|
Sounds like Circuit City?
We all known what happened to Circuit City.
|
Post #316,024
10/22/09 9:40:39 AM
|
Not really, nobody would give CC any money at all.
and they died because of piss poor service compared to the competition.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,033
10/22/09 11:17:13 AM
|
The time they...
Fired all the Top Sales people.
That is what kicked the down fall into high gear.
|
Post #316,025
10/22/09 10:24:06 AM
|
"Top performers"? Really?
These are the people responsible for needing the bailout in the first place.
If this were a purchase, yes, the management would be fired. Assuming you are right that they are "hire-able by any company and highly sought after", do you think that's because they provide real value, or because they are in the right position in a thoroughly broken system? (Gee, did I display my opinion a bit in that question?)
--
Drew
|
Post #316,027
10/22/09 10:43:46 AM
|
There's no definition attached
saying this is limited to C level management staff. In fact, most of the real money is made by fund managers that were, indeed, making money and making money for many many others.
Want to limit bonuses for a period of time, I'm open for discussion. Want to can sr execs that failed their oversight role, again open to discussion...
But to have the government dictate arbitrary salary levels based on the fact that gov't money is involved...way too slippery a slope for me to jump on.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,028
10/22/09 10:51:42 AM
|
Saying that government money is "involved" ...
... is like saying that a pig is "involved" in making breakfast.
--
Drew
|
Post #316,078
10/23/09 12:09:19 AM
|
Where do you stop?
What he says he wants and what the rules will establish and allow are nearly always 2 completely different things.
Is the next step that noone can bid on government contract unless they agree to some arbitrary gov't pay scheme? Certainly gov't money is "involved" there as well.
Is the followup that a gov't sponsored healthcare plan is built, companies end up enrolling...then, in order to stay in without penalty the gov't forces their wage scale.
This cat won't go back in the bag...and advantage is being taken of the attitude you show of "serves them right" to put us on the slope in the first place.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,082
10/23/09 6:24:18 AM
|
Difference between ownership and contracting
These companies wouldn't exist without the intervention, and the people running them have seemed to different goals than the new owners.
Us.
So it is up to us to make sure they don't screw us AGAIN. Which means make the "top" level unattractive to the sharks. There are VERY few people that this impacts and those people are not necessarily the people that we want in place anyway.
And while I know you think $200,000 is low for some key areas of the country (and I agree with you), is is very high for the regions that have been hit by the car problems. I would expect that a few people get more after they renegotiate, and the perks will be buried without being directly attributable to the person.
If the feds did not come in, the vast majority of these people would be out of work, along with the line workers. You may say they are well recruited, but they also have a LOT of competition from other people, people who don't have the same interests as them, people who know that you need a little constructive destruction before you can stop repeating the same mistakes. So I suspect the feds have many resumes in their pocket, waiting to see what positions open up after the shit settles. No idea if the new people will be better or worse than the old people, but we already know the old people were bad at what they were doing.
I think the term ossified applies.
So this is probably one step of many squeezing them out without firing them directly.
|
Post #316,114
10/23/09 3:53:09 PM
|
Many contractors wouldn't exist
without the government contracts.
And if the goal is to get them out, get them out.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,118
10/23/09 4:35:45 PM
|
Whoa
I said that was the difference.
While I am aware of a variety of rules on contractors as they push diversity, this issue isn't concerning them, just the banks and autos.
The feds own the banks and autos at this point. Simple as that. Without the fed money they would not exist, at least not without a dramatic convulsion of downsizing and brain drain. Whoever signs the paycheck gets to set the rate and tell the employees what their jobs are. Don't like it? Quit. Same thing you'd tell any employee of any entity, right?
|
Post #316,120
10/23/09 4:44:13 PM
|
They don't own controlling interest
they own alot, but not 51% of CITI, for example..number is under 35. So it isn't like the boss coming in and setting wages. While you pretend this is how it is, they are NOT signing the paychecks. May have made it possible for there to be paychecks...but that doesn't mean they are signing them. Sorry.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,124
10/23/09 5:41:12 PM
|
Um...
You agree that they wouldn't exist without the US bailout. Yet you say that the US doesn't have control. You are aware, I'm sure, that the US structured the bailout so that it wouldn't have control, by design. The politics of the arrangement is very different from the actual finances.
Citibank's market cap is $102B - http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=c
The US has effectively dumped over $300B into the firm - http://www.cbsnews.c...main4629267.shtml
It's ours in all but name. The management there may grumble, but they know they have no choice - as a result of their own actions.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #316,143
10/24/09 10:32:16 AM
|
Politics vs Rules
it makes a difference.
It also makes a difference in that some have made attempts to pay back these funds, and some didn't want them in the first place...but now they are all subject to this.
If what these people did was criminal. Put them in jail. Now you are simply allowing your prejudice against their actions drive a change in policy that is simply counter to the fundamentals of the econ system. If I had any confidence that it would stop here, I would likely agree with this group...I have zero, more likely negative faith that it will stop here.
How "washington as usual" does it have to get before you all figure out this "change" thing was a sham?
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,029
10/22/09 10:52:14 AM
|
Details from Bloomberg.
http://www.bloomberg...&sid=a3H8.VP_CHsQ
Oct. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Executives at seven bailed-out companies including Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. will have their pay cut by an average of 50 percent after negotiations with Kenneth R. Feinberg, the U.S. special master on compensation, two people familiar with the matter said.
The cash portion of salaries for the 25 highest-paid employees will be slashed 90 percent, according to a person familiar with the plan who spoke anonymously because the details havenÂt been announced. Some cash will be replaced by shares that employees will be restricted from selling immediately, the same person said. An announcement could come this week.
[...]
25 x 7 = 175 people will be affected. Feinberg's destroying the American Economy!!!!11!! :-/
USAToday has a flash graphic of executive compensation in 2007 - http://www.usatoday....eo-comp/flash.htm
E.g. Pandit at Citigroup made a $250k salary, $0 bonus, and $2.9M in stock and options awards.
They're not going to be hurting, not one bit.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #316,032
10/22/09 11:12:34 AM
|
Wish I could download that
I sorted by compensation change from '06. There seems to be no correlation at all to shareholder value.
Tell me again how we're defining "top performers"? Because it seems to be we're using their current compensation to define it.
--
Drew
|
Post #316,036
10/22/09 11:31:31 AM
|
FlashGot should grab it for you.
It's also available in other places, like the AFL-CIO - http://www.aflcio.or...ceou/industry.cfm
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #316,088
10/23/09 8:49:34 AM
|
Re: There's no definition attached
But to have the government dictate arbitrary salary levels based on the fact that gov't money is involved...way too slippery a slope for me to jump on.
What if gov't money isn't involved?
I can give you a point in US history where gov't not only dictated arbitrary salary levels, but also prices for goods/services (in peacetime, no less).
|
Post #316,089
10/23/09 9:15:07 AM
|
so back to gas lines?
|
Post #316,132
10/24/09 7:00:58 AM
|
Actually your both wrong
This occurred under Nixon, not Carter (or FDR)
Although, someone could argue that it lead to the gas lines under Carter -- naw...that would take the stigma off of Carter.
|
Post #316,142
10/24/09 10:23:51 AM
|
Re: Actually your both wrong
I knew you were talking wage and price freezes under nixon in early 70s. It has been nearly universally accepted as a really bad move.
My response was simply to say we've done stupid things before and we're apparently primed and ready to do stupid things again.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,166
10/24/09 10:00:07 PM
|
Chuckle
Not arguing it was a GOOD idea...
but I do laugh when people (usually Republicans) have complained that "Obama is doing something UNPRECEDENTED".
|
Post #316,173
10/25/09 9:44:31 AM
|
repos that used to be democrats maybe
we had wage and price controls from hoover till kennedy then johnson launched the war on poverty and quickly got enmired I think carter was the first to repeal most of that with reagan repealing the rest. Now we are rapidly going towards the nixon model
|
Post #316,113
10/23/09 3:47:46 PM
|
that makes it all better
just like detention camps. We had those too.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,116
10/23/09 4:09:55 PM
|
That's not what's happening.
These folks get paid by more than just a salary.
http://www.bloomberg...&sid=am08bxRGeopk
Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Obama administration pay cuts ordered at seven taxpayer-rescued companies leave 66 executives -- about half those reviewed -- with total long-term compensation of at least $1 million.
Multimillion-dollar packages were approved for 22 employees at GMAC Inc. and 18 at Citigroup Inc., according to reports yesterday from Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department pay master who ordered cuts that shift pay to long-term stock awards. FeinbergÂs report on New York-based Citigroup, Bank of America Corp. and five other companies getting multiple bailouts didnÂt identify employees or disclose previous compensation.
The figures show that Wall Street, even after compensation was slashed by half in some cases, remains lucrative for top executives. The average American worker earned about $50,000 last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
[...]
The highest approved pay is $10.5 million for Robert Benmosche, chief executive officer of New York-based American International Group Inc., the insurer whose bailout totals $182 billion. That includes a cash salary, a so-called stock salary and long-term restricted stock. Four other AIG executives will get packages exceeding $1 million. BenmoscheÂs pay was previously approved.
Cash v. Stock
ÂThere is entirely too much reliance on cash and thereÂs got to be a better way to tie corporate performance to long-term growth, Feinberg said yesterday in Washington. ÂIÂm hoping that the methodology we developed to determine compensation for these individuals might be voluntarily adopted elsewhere.Â
Feinberg focused on reducing cash pay in favor of stock that can be sold beginning in 2011. For example, the three highest-paid executives at New York-based Citigroup will receive $475,000 each in salary and $9 million in total long-term pay.
[...]
I fail to see what is so draconian about this, especially when many of these folks were making tens-of-millions in total compensation just a year or two ago. Presumably they have substantial savings (unlike most of us). An awful lot of people work in NYC and make an awful lot less than that - after cut - amount. E.g. http://www.printthis...F&partnerID=73272
And is the only alternative to punish management (or to have them share in the pain that the company is going through) to fire them? If so, I guess Jobs has no business working for Apple.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #316,119
10/23/09 4:40:01 PM
|
I'll tell you why!
It's the slippery slope, dammit. I/me/my favorite ethnic group/company/ sports team are next. The brownshirts are coming. Get ready to fight!
Oh, sorry.
Was channeling someone else.
Can you guess who?
|
Post #316,121
10/23/09 4:48:01 PM
|
If you choose not to see it
don't blame me when it spreads beyond this, which it will.
Seems we spent many years fighting a government controlled economy...and now everyone seems just peachy when we start doing exactly the same thing.
Serves those rich bastards right.
From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs.
Done with this thread.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,152
10/24/09 12:43:52 PM
|
I had a great response
And then got this on post:
HTTP Status 500 -
type Exception report
message
description The server encountered an internal error () that prevented it from fulfilling this request.
exception
org.springframework.web.util.NestedServletException: Request processing failed; nested exception is org.iwethey.filter.FilterException: Popped handler does not match the key for this handler: got "" but was expecting "".
org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.processRequest(FrameworkServlet.java:488)
org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.doPost(FrameworkServlet.java:441)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:709)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:802)
sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor50.invoke(Unknown Source)
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
org.apache.catalina.security.SecurityUtil$1.run(SecurityUtil.java:244)
java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
javax.security.auth.Subject.doAsPrivileged(Subject.java:517)
org.apache.catalina.security.SecurityUtil.execute(SecurityUtil.java:276)
org.apache.catalina.security.SecurityUtil.doAsPrivilege(SecurityUtil.java:162)
root cause
org.iwethey.filter.FilterException: Popped handler does not match the key for this handler: got "" but was expecting "".
org.iwethey.filter.AbstractMatchingPoppingHandler.process(AbstractMatchingPoppingHandler.java:60)
org.iwethey.filter.FilterContext.filter(FilterContext.java:103)
org.iwethey.filter.Filter.filter(Filter.java:94)
org.iwethey.forums.web.post.PostValidator.validate(PostValidator.java:132)
org.springframework.validation.ValidationUtils.invokeValidator(ValidationUtils.java:63)
org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.BaseCommandController.bindAndValidate(BaseCommandController.java:373)
org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.AbstractFormController.handleRequestInternal(AbstractFormController.java:263)
org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.AbstractController.handleRequest(AbstractController.java:153)
org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.SimpleControllerHandlerAdapter.handle(SimpleControllerHandlerAdapter.java:48)
org.springframework.web.servlet.DispatcherServlet.doDispatch(DispatcherServlet.java:859)
org.springframework.web.servlet.DispatcherServlet.doService(DispatcherServlet.java:793)
org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.processRequest(FrameworkServlet.java:476)
org.springframework.web.servlet.FrameworkServlet.doPost(FrameworkServlet.java:441)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:709)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:802)
sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor50.invoke(Unknown Source)
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
org.apache.catalina.security.SecurityUtil$1.run(SecurityUtil.java:244)
java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
javax.security.auth.Subject.doAsPrivileged(Subject.java:517)
org.apache.catalina.security.SecurityUtil.execute(SecurityUtil.java:276)
org.apache.catalina.security.SecurityUtil.doAsPrivilege(SecurityUtil.java:162)
note The full stack trace of the root cause is available in the Apache Tomcat/5.5 logs.
Apache Tomcat/5.5
|
Post #316,154
10/24/09 12:56:41 PM
|
To be safe, one needs to use an external editor to post.
I too have lost posts here. Unfortunately, to be safe, for anything complicated you really need to compose your post in an external editor then paste it in your browser. Otherwise, it's too easy for a misplaced keystroke (I've lost posts hitting the Forward or Back keys on my laptop), or an issue with the server to eat it.
If you're just pointing out the error, you probably should post a link in Suggestions. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #316,165
10/24/09 9:55:20 PM
|
Got that too
I got that for some back html i had in a posting.
I noticed this is this was written in Java...are we allowed to look/suggest fixes/etc?
|
Post #316,156
10/24/09 1:22:11 PM
|
So THIS is where tho corner is being turned?
With all the government intervention in the last year alone, THIS is where we get on a slippery slope towards a government controlled economy?
Dude, we've been on that slope for decades if not centuries.
|
Post #316,157
10/24/09 3:03:49 PM
|
This is pretty blatant
as have been most of the decisions made in the past 2 years.
So yes...if there is a corner being turned...we're at it.
Considering we've been a country for just over 2 centuries..might be a tad overzealous there, eh?
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,159
10/24/09 3:30:30 PM
|
Your rose colored glasses are pretty foggy.
Compare what Feinberg did to what the UK has done with RBS. The UK owns 70% of RBS - http://www.thisismon..._id=2&expand=true
Ealier today [10/21/2009] it emerged that Royal Bank of Scotland, bailed out with £20bn of taxpayers' money a year ago, has already amassed a pay bill, including salaries and bonuses, of almost £2bn for its 20,000 investment bankers  a pot that could double by the year's end.
A newspaper report said that RBS has hired dozens of City high-flyers on bumper no-strings-attached bonus deals, in defiance of its promises to rein in profligate pay. The Daily Telegraph claims that 11 bankers were poached from ailing Wall Street bank Merrill Lynch on estimated packages of £500,000 each.
The reports come just hours after a firebrand speech from the Governor of the Bank of England calling for banks to be brought to heel.
In his most outspoken attack yet on the banks, Mervyn King said it was no longer acceptable that UK lenders are allowed to engage in high-risk casino banking under the cover of a taxpayer guarantee.
A separation of investment banking arms from retail operations may be the only way out of the current 'unworldly' situation where taxpayers have to pick up the tab when institutions get into trouble, said King.
King's speech gave voice to mounting public anger over the 'back-to-business-as-usual' arrogance of banks that have benefited over the last year from £1.3 trillion in taxpayer support to rescue the financial system.
And the CEBR figures will fuel the flames, particularly as the banks stand accused of rationing loans to businesses and consumers, while handing out huge pay deals.
That RBS is at the heart of the bonus bonanza will be especially controversial, given that the Government holds a 70% stake in it. RBS declined to comment.
If a substantial owner of a bank demands that management's salaries and bonuses be cut is a sign of creeping nationalization, then isn't a actually nationalized bank that increases management's salaries and bonuses after being bailed out a sign that you're imagining a corner when none is there?
IOW, look at what is actually happening, stop watching Fox, and quit imagining slippery slopes! ;-)
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #316,171
10/25/09 8:43:01 AM
|
I don't watch them
the president told me not too.
And its not imagined.
last I checked, fox guys were ok with this too.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #316,169
10/25/09 4:20:27 AM
|
No, I don't think I'm overzealous
Well, maybe a little, two centuries is on the low end of "centuries". But it is really closer to three.
The Colonial proto-governments were very interested in influencing the economy. The other players were the Crown and from the East India Company rather than American corporate interests, but that's just because the Crown and EIC had done a pretty good job of keeping American businesses from becoming important players.
We started out on the slippery slope, if that's the metaphor you want to use. My reading of history suggests that the situation is more of an ongoing balancing act.
This particular situation, I somewhat agree with you. I don't like this move. Getting a bit micro-managing. I'm more a "suck their brains out with a straw and sell the widows and orphans" guy, firing them outright would have been cleaner. And if China handles the next bailout directly, the one after that may involve taking them out and shooting them. But really, we aren't talking about Nixon's wage and price freeze here, we are talking about regulating one more item in an already heavily regulated situation where the government is already more involved than anybody likes. This isn't the start of anything.
|
Post #316,180
10/25/09 12:40:32 PM
|
Just so I've got this straight ...
"Keep your goddamned government hands off my fiat currency."
Ref -- http://www.huffingto...nme_b_252326.html
--
Drew
|
Post #316,183
10/25/09 3:18:07 PM
|
IRLRPD.
LOUD NOISES!!!
:-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #316,245
10/27/09 6:41:33 AM
|
Dean Baker reminds us of the obvious.
http://www.prospect....thinks_the_govern
David Brooks Thinks the Government Can Only Be Trusted to Hand Out Money to Banks, Not to Put Conditions on It
That is the implication of his complaints about the government setting salaries for the corporations that got big government bailouts. Undoubtedly the government will not get the pay scales exactly right, but it has no choice. By bailing out the likes of AIG and Citigroup the government over-rode the market determination that the correct salary for the bosses at these bankrupt institutions is zero. Since it had over-ridden the market judgment it had to develop some basis for deciding salaries even if that means paying David Brooks' friends less money.
--Dean Baker
:-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #316,316
10/27/09 10:22:00 PM
|
It can't be zero
they're still working.
(Yes, that's supposed to be sarcasm)
|