3
   

Obama Wants Executive Pay Limits

 
 
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 08:17 am
I agree with him here.



_______________________________________________
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29003620

Obama to announce limits on executive pay
Restriction would apply to those getting ‘exceptional’ bailout assistance

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration plans to mandate new executive pay limits on Wednesday for government-assisted financial institutions in a new get-tough approach to bankers and Wall Street.

"If the taxpayers are helping you, then you've got certain responsibilities to not be living high on the hog," President Barack Obama said in an interview Tuesday with "NBC Nightly News".

The president and members of Congress are weighing various proposals to restrict chief executives' compensation as one of the conditions of receiving help under the $700 billion financial bailout fund.

Obama did not reveal details of the administration's compensation caps but CNBC and The New York Times both reported that a $500,000 limit was being considered. Administration officials have said that the restrictions would apply only to those firms receiving "exceptional assistance", such as the American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., and Detroit automakers.

But Obama's chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, has proposed that firms that want to pay executives above a certain threshold would have to compensate them with stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds.

Top officials at companies that have received money from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program already face some pay limits. But elected officials want to place more caps, a sentiment reinforced in recent days by revelations that Wall Street firms paid more than $18 billion in bonuses in the midst of the economic downturn in 2008.

"I do know this: We can't just say, 'Please, please,'" said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who has proposed that no employee of an institution that receives money under the $700 billion federal bailout can receive more than $400,000 in total compensation until it pays the money back.

The figure is equivalent to the salary of the president of the United States.

On Tuesday, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., introduced amendments to the Senate's economic stimulus legislation that would require firms that receive bailout funds to disclose the bonuses they paid during the time they received government funds. The bonuses would be posted on the Internet and included in a report to Congress.

Compensation experts in the private sector have warned that such an intrusion into the internal decisions of financial institutions could discourage participation in the rescue program and slow down the financial sector's recovery. They also argue that it could set a precedent for government regulation that undermined performance-based pay.

"I really don't want the government to take over these businesses and start telling them everything about what they can do," Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said this week. "Then you truly have nationalized the business."

Obama, in an interview with CNN Tuesday, stressed that the restrictions would not amount to excessive government intrusion.

"There are mechanisms in place to make sure that institutions that are taking taxpayer money are not using that money for excessive executive compensation," he said. "It's not a government takeover. Private enterprise will still be taking place. But people will be accountable and responsible. And that's what we have to restore in the financial system generally."

And some Republicans, angered by company decisions to pay bonuses and buy airplanes, have few qualms about restrictions, especially if they are temporary.

"In ordinary situations where the taxpayers money is not involved, we shouldn't set executive pay," said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican in the Senate Banking Committee.

"But where you've got federal money involved, taxpayers' money involved, TARP money involved, and the way they have spent it, with no accountability is getting close to being criminal."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 987 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 08:40 am
@maporsche,
I don't.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 08:54 am
@dyslexia,
Why?
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 11:30 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Why?
the entire issue of executive pay is one of appearance rather than reality and I don't think a pack of scoundrels in washington should be making decisions about salaries be they union workers, doctors or corporate executives unless those same scoundrels want to take responsibility for operating those corps. All in all I think it's all just meddling for the sake of public image.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 11:38 am
As I stated on the other thread on this topic, if it were a corporation paying funds from their own profits there would be no way I would want the government setting limits.

However, when it is public tax payer funds that are needed because the very CEO's getting millions of dollars in compensation are the ones that screwed us/the corporation/investers in the first place... No way I want them being compensated in the millions for NOT doing their job. It's OUR money, not the corporations.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 12:24 pm
@maporsche,
So I guess the question now is, can you get qualified (and effective) people to run these companies for $500k/year? I don't know the answer to that, but I think it alters the basic business model in a very interesting way.

Just how hard is it to run one of these companies and make the "right" decisions? It could be argued that the existing managers didn't make the right decisions so they weren't qualified even at the high prices. On the other hand, most of them were extremely effective at playing by the rules of Wallstreet.

Ultimately I feel that if Tax Payer money is used to support the company, that we deserve the same place on the board of directors as any other investor and we have the right to push for changes to internal management (including salary offerings). However, we have to realize what we are essentially doing, which is to become part of management for these companies. And if that's the case, then the government is going to need to assign a representative to sit at the board of directors meetings and represent the interests of the public/government, and that's a huge change to the business model.

I'm not sure where all this leads.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 01:18 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

I don't.

Same here. I think you will get into a situation much like rent control in reverse. Some companies are limited in what they can pay. Others aren't, so they are free to poach talent from the restricted companies. I'm not really talking about CEO's here since part of their "pay" is the power they reap from their positions. It's the second layer of execs who will jump ship. If you are offered 2x the pay for doing the same job, who isn't going to take that? Restricted companies will become ghettos for underperforming executives living off the public bailout funds.
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 01:32 pm
@engineer,
But, why would someone offer me 2x the pay to do the same job if I just screwed up the one I was doing?

Why would those that have the ability to pay more without restrictions want a failure to come run their profitable business? Why would the shareholders and Boards find that attractive?
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 03:57 pm
@squinney,
The boards all scratrch each others back. They take thier turns at big conpensation. The bankers and big money men are all working together to make money for thier group.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama Wants Executive Pay Limits
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 10:55:28