Pay czar going after CEO pay

[vols4sure]

So none of these financial employers have a non-compete clause in their "rainmakers" employment contract? They can just say, "I'm outta here and taking my book of sales to your competitor"?

So you want the government to be able to meddle with employment contracts and ignore compensation provisions and then turn around and try to enforce non-compete provisions?

 

[droski]

So none of these financial employers have a non-compete clause in their "rainmakers" employment contract? They can just say, "I'm outta here and taking my book of sales to your competitor"?

non compete clauses are completely unenforcable. i've signed multiple non competes over the years and wouldn't think twice about switching firms.

 

[droski]

. Nevermind that those companies intellectual property and financial ingenuity created an enormous portion of the wealth in America by providing liquidity to markets that hadn't seen it before and didn't deserve it.

exactly. we keep hearing this argument that "heads i win, tails you lose" but no one mentions how much the average american has benefited from CDOs over the past 20 years. this is simply obama and the poor wanting their pint of blood from their rich overlords.

 

[volinbham]

If the basic premise is because these companies are using tax payer funds then we (through our gov) can set their pay and basically punish them for poor performance...

WHY hasn't Congress taken a pay cut? Hell, they got a raise and an increase in their budgets for staff etc.

No way do I support selective application of this "principle". It smacks of targeting and in the end it doesn't make the government's "investment" in these companies any more secure.

It's a purely political move therefore it serves no valid purpose.

 

[BigPapaVol]

It's a purely political move therefore it serves no valid purpose.

it definitely serves a purpose and some fervently believe it's valid. I would guess that V. Lenin would find it more than valid.

 

[droski]

can set their pay and basically punish them for poor performance...

their punishing them for poor performance of the company, not the individuals poor performance.

 

[UT IE 95]

non compete clauses are completely unenforcable. i've signed multiple non competes over the years and wouldn't think twice about switching firms.

I find it ridiculous that a "rainmaker" would leave a company and take tens of millions in sales to a competitor and not have a non compete enforced. Maybe these execs are as stupid as they look in the media.

 

[droski]

I find it ridiculous that a "rainmaker" would leave a company and take tens of millions in sales to a competitor and not have a non compete enforced. Maybe these execs are as stupid as they look in the media.

they are his clients, not the firms, otherwise he wouldn't be able to "take" the sales away from the firm. if his clients of their own free will want to change firms the old firm has no legal right to stop his clients edit: just like coke has no legal right to make you not switch to pepsi.

 

[UT IE 95]

they are his clients, not the firms, otherwise he wouldn't be able to "take" the sales away from the firm. if his clients of their own free will want to change firms the old firm has no legal right to stop his clients edit: just like coke has no legal right to make you not switch to pepsi.

And that's the rub. I know a software sales executive that left one firm and went to a competitor. He contacted some customers of his previous employer, to see if they would like to switch. His days in that line of work are over since he is now unemployable.

 

[BigPapaVol]

And that's the rub. I know a software sales executive that left one firm and went to a competitor. He contacted some customers of his previous employer, to see if they would like to switch. His days in that line of work are over since he is now unemployable.

it's different when you're talking about people who have built trust and rapport enough to convince folks to let them help invest capital. Very unique, especially at the high net worth level, which is where the money is.

 

[droski]

it's different when you're talking about people who have built trust and rapport enough to convince folks to let them help invest capital. Very unique, especially at the high net worth level, which is where the money is.

It's different when the product you are selling is yourself and your expertise. In the software example you know if you don't switch you will get the same product, the same cannot be said for investment advice.

 

[T-TownVol]

And that's the rub. I know a software sales executive that left one firm and went to a competitor. He contacted some customers of his previous employer, to see if they would like to switch. His days in that line of work are over since he is now unemployable.

non-competes are not worth the paper they written on, there has to be another reason that he is unemployed, he probably went to the new company and told them about all the business he could bring them, then did not deliver....i am just guessing

 

[UT IE 95]

non-competes are not worth the paper they written on, there has to be another reason that he is unemployed, he probably went to the new company and told them about all the business he could bring them, then did not deliver....i am just guessing

He was only with the new company for about 6 months before his legal troubles started. It was the lawsuit that went on for about a year and the black-balling that went along with it is the reason he can't even get an interview for a software AE position. Who wants to hire a guy that bailed on a company and got another one sued?

 

[UT IE 95]

It's different when the product you are selling is yourself and your expertise. In the software example you know if you don't switch you will get the same product, the same cannot be said for investment advice.

Yeah, there's a difference, but it still seems like a pretty shatty business and some spineless execs to have unenforceable non competes. Say you hire a "rainmaker" and pay him 10MM up front bonus - as you claimed happens. Three months later he walks down the street and gets a job with an 11MM bonus and leaves you with nothing. Is that "just part of the business"?

 

[droski]

Yeah, there's a difference, but it still seems like a pretty shatty business and some spineless execs to have unenforceable non competes. Say you hire a "rainmaker" and pay him 10MM up front bonus - as you claimed happens. Three months later he walks down the street and gets a job with an 11MM bonus and leaves you with nothing. Is that "just part of the business"?

the upfronts they give them are forgivable loans meaning they have to pay it back if they leave before the end of the loan period (usually 5-7 years). Edit: also these days most of them have clauses saying they have to bring over a certain % of the business or they have to pay back a portion of the loan or they don't get the deferred comp.

i'm sure if these guys thought they could find a way to enforce the noncompetes that they would gladly do so.

you act like these guys intentionally are allowing money to go down the toilet. that's a great way to not get your own bonus or get fired if you are a manager.