Pay czar going after CEO pay

#1
volfanjustin

volfanjustin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
22,654
Likes
23,622
#1
NewsRadio 1510 WLAC

Looks like Obama's pay czar is going after CEOs of companies that took bailout money. First of all I am against all bailouts to all companies, no matter how big or small. If you can't make it on your own you deserve to fail.

I also think this is a very slippery slope, with cap and trade, bailouts, controlling CEO pay and healthcare I think all of this is more of government control. Where does it stop, will they be coming after mine and your pay next?
 
#2
#2
volfanjustin said:
NewsRadio 1510 WLAC

Looks like Obama's pay czar is going after CEOs of companies that took bailout money. First of all I am against all bailouts to all companies, no matter how big or small. If you can't make it on your own you deserve to fail.

I also think this is a very slippery slope, with cap and trade, bailouts, controlling CEO pay and healthcare I think all of this is more of government control. Where does it stop, will they be coming after mine and your pay next?
Click to expand...


Is the criteria that they still owe the bailout money to be paid back or just that they took bailout money at all, even if they paid it back? Also, is it the "salary" or the "bonus" that is being discussed here?
 
#3
#3
lawgator1 said:
Is the criteria that they still owe the bailout money to be paid back or just that they took bailout money at all, even if they paid it back? Also, is it the "salary" or the "bonus" that is being discussed here?
Click to expand...
does it matter? The FDIC forced banks to take fed money.
 
#4
#4
lawgator1 said:
Is the criteria that they still owe the bailout money to be paid back or just that they took bailout money at all, even if they paid it back? Also, is it the "salary" or the "bonus" that is being discussed here?
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure any company that took bailout money. But I don't think it matters either way. Also what does it matter if it was salary or bonus. They are wanting to cap salaries. Its none of this admins business what people get paid, salaries or bonuses.
 
#6
#6
Pretending this garbage doesn't stem from Obama is stupid. This has been vetted and sanctioned in every way.

It's absolutely stupid as a plan, but the gov't has a right as a substantial stakeholder to demand change, idiotic or no. The rub for me is the fact that the gov't is using regulatory agencies to force these companies to keep the gov't capital.
 
#8
#8
BigPapaVol said:
Pretending this garbage doesn't stem from Obama is stupid. This has been vetted and sanctioned in every way.

It's absolutely stupid as a plan, but the gov't has a right as a substantial stakeholder to demand change, idiotic or no. The rub for me is the fact that the gov't is using regulatory agencies to force these companies to keep the gov't capital.
Click to expand...

Yea everyone knows he is behind this crap, hell he appointed this clown.

The problem for me is that they ever gave them a bailout at all. But they want control over them and us. It starts with limiting their salaries, but we are next. They have no right to tell them what they can get paid.
 
#9
#9
I do not understand why the shareholders themselves aren't clamoring for this. I fully admit there is something that makes me sit up and go "huh?" about the government dictating private company salaries. It is unnerving, to say the least.

What I don't get is why people who ownstock in these companies, and who have watched management come close to bankrupting them, don't go nuts over these bonuses and salaries and try to up-end the boards of these companies, demanding new leadership. I mean, if I am watching profitability decline and debt get taken on by the head honchos, and the stock price has plummeted, I'd be a wee bit miffed as a shareholder to see these bonuses get paid out.

Is it that the task of going after a board is simply too large for individual shareholders to take that kind of action?
 
#10
#10
BECAUSE THE SALARIES AREN'T WHAT BANKRUPTED THE FRIGGIN COMPANIES

AND

the majority of people getting bonsues were generating BIG PROFITS for the companies.
 
#12
#12
droski said:
BECAUSE THE SALARIES AREN'T WHAT BANKRUPTED THE FRIGGIN COMPANIES

AND

the majority of people getting bonsues were generating BIG PROFITS for the companies.
Click to expand...

you literally have no idea what you are talking about do you?
 
#14
#14
droski said:
i know a lot more about this crap than you do buddy. or have you been a bank analyst before?
Click to expand...

actually I work for a hedge fund and worked for several investment banks before this, so I think I have a fair understanding.

LG is making the point that it is unusual that shareholders arent demanding change at the top considering that the massive profits they were making were based on ridiculously badly priced cdos. If I were a shareholder in a major bank, and traders were raking in huge bonuses for making 'profits' on securities that turned out to almost bankrupt the company, then I would be pissed off by this.
 
Last edited:
#15
#15
pejp said:
actually I work for a hedge fund and worked for several investment banks before this, so I think I have a fair understanding.
Click to expand...

and i give a crap why?

i know plenty of dumb****s who work for hedgefunds and you are obviously one of them.
 
#17
#17
droski said:
and i give a crap why?

i know plenty of dumb****s who work for hedgefunds and you are obviously one of them.
Click to expand...

wow, that is an excellent retort!

I dont agree with you so therefore I must be dumb! At last, you've made it clear to me!
 
#18
#18
droski said:
either state your case as to why i am wrong or STFU
Click to expand...

i did on the previous page.

People were making large profits, but on totally mispriced securities. Dont get me wrong, I'm not in favour of pay being capped, but you seem to be missing the point that LG was making.
 
#19
#19
pejp said:
LG is making the point that it is unusual that shareholders arent demanding change at the top considering that the massive profits they were making were based on ridiculously badly priced cdos. If I were a shareholder in a major bank, and traders were raking in huge bonuses for making 'profits' on securities that turned out to almost bankrupt the company, then I would be pissed off by this.
Click to expand...

ah i see and your contention is the majority of people at these banks making large bonuses were responsible for buying said securities. thank you for proving you don't know crap about banking.
 
#20
#20
pejp said:
i did on the previous page.

People were making large profits, but on totally mispriced securities. Dont get me wrong, I'm not in favour of pay being capped, but you seem to be missing the point that LG was making.
Click to expand...

so you have 20 guys buying mortgage backs making big bonuses, most of whom have been fired, and we need to cut the pay of the other 95%. Makes sense to me.
 
#21
#21
droski said:
ah i see and your contention is the majority of people at these banks making large bonuses were responsible for buying said securities. thank you for proving you don't know crap about banking.
Click to expand...

Does it matter if they were responsible or not? They work for the bank, and it tanked. They should go into business for themselves if they don't like the ebb and flow of the institution as a whole.
 
#22
#22
droski said:
ah i see and your contention is the majority of people at these banks making large bonuses were responsible for buying said securities. thank you for proving you don't know crap about banking.
Click to expand...

Are you intentionally being stupid?
 
#23
#23
rjd970 said:
Does it matter if they were responsible or not? They work for the bank, and it tanked. They should go into business for themselves if they don't like the ebb and flow of the institution as a whole.
Click to expand...

so therefore as a shareholder (which the taxpayers are) you want your best and brightest leaving the companya dn the only people left to be the ones too crappy to find another job? is obama trying to ensure they never pay back the tarp money?
 
#24
#24
droski said:
so you have 20 guys buying mortgage backs making big bonuses, most of whom have been fired, and we need to cut the pay of the other 95%. Makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

It does to me. It's how it works everywhere else. You can still reward the top performers, but the bonus pool shouldn't be as big as it is a year removed from institutional disaster.
 
#25
#25
pejp said:
Are you intentionally being stupid?
Click to expand...

respond directly to the post:

BECAUSE THE SALARIES AREN'T WHAT BANKRUPTED THE FRIGGIN COMPANIES

AND

the majority of people getting bonsues were generating BIG PROFITS for the companies.


What did i say that is FACTUALLY incorrect douchebag?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top