bah. They will get their money some other way then. Meaningless.

These company took the govs money, now they have to do what the people paying there checks say. Sounds like every job i have ever had. I have ZERO issue with this. If they didnt want the gov involved they shouldnt have taken its money.

"Planning to"? WTF! I'll believe I when I see it! Until then I can insult everyone who tells me something I don't know.

-Wisgod

Still making an ass out of yourself, I see. But I imagine your capable of doing that while your asleep.

Oh but now all the talented people will go work somewhere else and bankrupt them. These companies won't have anyone left who knows how to run them into bankruptcy.

An 'ass' is someone who denies a linked national story anyone with a computer can read.

How can I get out of bed and go to work today knowing that CEOs might, at some point in the future, be making less billions than they are today? Capitalism tells me that if I work really hard then I can be a CEO someday and I want more billions.

Somebody has to drive that monkey around while making deliveries to the local deli's.
Get to work, shitheap.
10-4

First rule of America:

BANKS NEVER LOSE.

They own the government. Both parties. They own america. Literally.

This wont affect anyone who caused the crisis.

This is wIndow dressing and a low brow appeal for votes from the subservient politicians who want to APPEAR that theyre standing up to the fascist bankers and making CHANGE. When in fact this crisis made banks bigger and more invincible.

An 'ass' is someone who denies a linked national story anyone with a computer can read.

#6 | Posted by Timex

An ass is someone who claims the pay cuts are a done deal when the findings are not going to release by the Czar until October 30th. Now STFU for 8 days.

Danni et. al.

Do you guys not understand that this is the same as Communisium where the Government set the pay scales of everyone? If the Government has the power to set the wages of these guys - they have the power to set YOUR WAGES!

When EVER did a LENDER have the right to tell a business what they could pay their employees?

OK...so the government loans these businesses money...then tells them what they can pay their executives...which causes the executives to leave that company to go to another...the company that the government loaned the money too now loses the leadership talent and the company starts spiraling down...and cannot pay back the loans because all the people that knew how to make money left to go someone else that paid them.

These guys are not Slaves ..a person (right now) has the right to walk off the job and go do something else...will the Government force these guys to stay where they are? Notice that they killed bonuses for a LOT of the smaller paid employees - they did not create the issue...but thier families have to suffer for it.

Our forefathers fought and died to prevent this sort of government control over our lives..it is called FREEDOM.

That is why we have a Constitution to LIMIT government....but you guys are applauding this????

Here, shit for brains AKA Timex....

Feinberg, whose actions only impact companies that received "exceptional assistance" from the government, said on Tuesday that he may publicly disclose his rulings before the October 30 deadline. He could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.

"This wont affect anyone who caused the crisis."

Bank of America is a big player, so is Citi.

This is ruining a perfectly fine time for some of these people.

Ok, I understand the pay cut.

What is going to happen to the money that isn't going to the exec?

If the compensation is slashed 90% on someone who makes $10 million, then $9 million is going back into the business.

What is going to be done with that money?

I wonder if anyone will be told what happens to it.

"and cannot pay back the loans because all the people that knew how to make money left to go someone else that paid them."

The same guys who were running the companies when they had to ask for help from the government...they won't be missed.

"Do you guys not understand that this is the same as Communisium where the Government set the pay scales of everyone?"

Do you understand that whenever the government is forced to take over a bank, or in this case bail them out, they come in and fire all the management and appoint government employees to run it until new investors can purchase said bank???
Do you understand we have done it that way since the inception of FDIC????

If an exec was hired with a contract, did the exec waive his contract for the gov't bailout?

If not, the company cannot break the contract because they made another contract (with the gov't)

I see a lawsuit in State Court with the exec against the company for breach of contract.

The Fed cannot break the contract that exists under State law - the company didn't go to bankruptcy court.

Did the exec waive their contract?

BTW, which president froze wages for everyone???

Hint, no one called him a commie....

I give up. Who? And please provide a link.

I'm wondering how the government even has the right to cut pay at these companies. Did the banks agree to be subject to such regulation when they accepted the bailout funds? Even if they did, Petrous makes another good point regarding any employment agreements that already existed. This should be interesting.

Danni -

There were a number of young professionals, including myself, who were totally pissed when Nixon froze our wages in the early 70s. So what did we do? Being highly marketable, we just quit and took other jobs at higher salaries.

I suspect these individuals will do the same and the TARP banks will go out of business like they should have been forced to do initially. The only difference will be the $750B of taxpayer money dumped down the sewer. BTW, I blame Bush for this as much as the Dems in congress.

Sorry, Joe. Young Timex claims this has all been finalized. What's been finalized, he doesn't know.

I suspect these individuals will do the same and the TARP banks will go out of business like they should have been forced to do initially. The only difference will be the $750B of taxpayer money dumped down the sewer. BTW, I blame Bush for this as much as the Dems in congress.

#21 | POSTED BY REDMAN

Hopefully they can't find work for a looooonnnnnnggg time. So long they end up living under a bridge.

Hopefully they can't find work for a looooonnnnnnggg time....

#23 | Posted by jackass

That's not the way free markets work. They'll all have jobs next week because other non-TARP banks will hire them.

They will have to compete for these jobs like everyone else. Jobs are hard to find. Why would a bank hire somebody who didn't do a good job at their last bank? Market is tough. They may be out of work for a while. I hope most are.

Well Obama may not be the spokesman for communism but he sure governs like he is

ButtPlugHolder320, are you the spokesman for Idiots Anonymous?

Unlike the Treasury plan, the Fed proposal would cover thousands of banks, including many that never received a bailout. But the central bank would not actually set compensation. Instead, the Fed would review and could veto pay policies that could cause too much risk-taking by executives, traders or loan officers.

it's not just going to be the ones that took money,that's just the first step.

Jackass,

From the bank's perspective they may have done a good job at their last bank and companies steal their competitors key personnel all the time, even in this market.

An executive who just had his $1M salary cut to $100K will not be real happy with the government and will probably quickly take another offer for $500K just to tell them to screw themselves. The hiring bank will think they got a bargain hiring at top exec at half price.

Ass ...instead of some biased industry trade rag that would benefit (or thinks they would benefit) with higher tariffs...try something that is a bit less biased.

Norway: Norway attracts many tourists annually. Cruises to Norway are a popular way of seeing the country. Cruises to Norway are enjoyable as they provide a variety of entertainment, all under one roof.

Sweden: In Sweden real estate market sees a regular growth. The Sweden real estate market sells affordable and luxurious properties. The people lead a high quality of life in Sweden.

Canada: There are many jobs in Canada that attract people to the country. The jobs in Canada provide a high quality of living and the country too is a peaceful place to stay in. Know more...

Iceland: One can enjoy an arctic time by going for holidays in Iceland. Holidays in Iceland provide with stays in hotels made completely out of ice making one believe in magic.

Netherlands: In Netherlands one never can feel the time passing by. One can see the scenic countryside or live in one of the Netherlands hotels that are built to please tourists. The Netherlands hotels provide just the warmth and comfort one needs to enjoy one's vacation in Netherlands. Know more...

Japan: Tourists who travel to Japan never want to come back as the people and the beauty of the place are so captivating. Tourists travel to Japan and are locked in the fusion of the timelessness and modernity of the country. Know more...

All those countries have semi-socialistic properties.

From a link Timex put up on another thread...

Consider the source. Timex is a license palm reader.

LIVEORDIE there is a good reason for the changes on the stock options. They want the executives to focus on the company's long term success instead of short term stock market gains which is partly what has caused much of the problem in American companies. All the focus has been on stock prices instead of creating products and services which would sell in the marketplace and turn a profit.

It would be good if you stepped back and look at how Western Europe fared under Democratic socialism and then compared it to us...and then realised Western Europe is recovering from the recession much faster than us.

It would be good if you stepped back and look at how Western Europe fared under Democratic socialism and then compared it to us...and then realised Western Europe is recovering from the recession much faster than us.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-22 04:29 PM

"That's not the way free markets work. They'll all have jobs next week because other non-TARP banks will hire them."

I seriously doubt they will even quit from the jobs they have right now. These people are not geniuses, they didn't see the housing bubble bursting and many other people did, including me and I'm no financial expert. These people are overpaid cronies of other overpaid cronies.

These people are overpaid cronies of other overpaid cronies.

#38 | Posted by danni

Some might consider them criminals. Especially those who lost everything.

I would agree with them.

The hiring bank will think they got a bargain hiring at top exec at half price.

#29 | Posted by Redman at 2009-10-22 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Until they get the CEO's "leadership" and their bank falls apart.

fuck those greedy bastards!

I mean who isn't in obama's targets?
Energy companies
Utilities
Pharma
Insurance
Traders
Conservatives
Any media not ho'ing the line
Honduras
Capitalists
Republicans
GW
First Amendment
Constitution
CIA
Stupid cops
Anybody not muslim
Olympic committee
Jerry Brown
Rasmussen
Democracy

"It's not surprising . . . they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them . . ."

Last we checked, Freddie Mac (FRE) was still operating under a conservatorship, having received over $51 billion in taxpayer money. And, we seem to recall lots of chest-beating last year about sharply lower salaries and fewer perks for the new group of top executives charged with setting Freddie (and Fannie Mae) back on the path to prosperity.

So you can imagine our surprise when we came across this employment contract yesterday for Freddie's newly named CFO, Ross J. Kari. Here's a few key bullets:

* annual compensation of $3.5 million (this includes $675K in salary, $1.6 million in something called "additional annual salary" and $1.1 million in a target incentive
* a $1.95 million signing bonus
* immediate buyout of Kari's house (or perhaps houses)
* reimbursement for travel between Washington D.C. and Kari's residences in Ohio, Washingto

"The top earners won't get more then 200,000."

Top earners who can bring in 10 million in business will leave these companies in droves. They can walk on water and are highly sought after.

What's left are marginal players. Reminds me of the guy Spitzer forced in at AIG. you get what you pay for. The giant swooshing sound will be exec's leaving in droves.

That being said I have always felt the top people are over comped. Happens at my firm. the top 20 take more then their share....and when the divide total comp by # of emplyees the average per employee is sky high....which is a bogus number.

BUT the next top 100 people are extremely valuable and very well compensated. THEY EARN IT. Personally I don't want a gov lackey setting payrolls. NOT an good situation.

"The giant swooshing sound will be exec's leaving in droves.

Posted by DavetheWave"

Well good riddance then. They are the same exec's who drove their co.'s into the shitter in the first place, then went begging at the gov't door for handouts. Buh bye.

While theoreticaly I have some issue with the government setting wages if people refuse to self-govern in a rational manner then I don't really see an answer other than government setting wages.

Of course the best thing to do would have been to let the TARP banks fail and not flush billions in a giant hole. What is even more retarded is that these banks probably all own government bonds that they purchased with their own fiat made by the fractional reserve system.

Nationalize the Fed destroy all the bonds held by them. Get rid of fractional reserve allowing banks to do the governments job of creating currency. Let the government create a bank of the US and create curency by loaning it out at a cost based interest not a profit based interest.

Is this level of government control (done by a czar, no less) not only constitutional but a good idea?

If my son gets a student loan or some grant, should he be made to take certain classes?

From a practical standpoint, this serves as a teachable moment on many levels.

If I'm a top dog in a company and I have my salary/comp in writing, why should I accept gov't monies? Tank the company and keep the $$.

What about shareholders?

I can see where it's easy to say, "screw 'em" to these execs. But what happens when this progresses to you? It's like borrowing from the mafia.

If my son gets a student loan or some grant, should he be made to take certain classes?

Playing devil's advocate here, oorah -- yes he does. I know when I was sucking the government's tit and milking my GI bill, I had to have a degree plan which had certain requisite courses. I've never been foolish enough to take out a student loan, but I'll bet they have similiar requirements. (some student loan person correct me if I'm wrong)

Tank the company and keep the $$.

Good point

An ass is someone who claims the pay cuts are a done deal when the findings are not going to release by the Czar until October 30th. Now STFU for 8 days.

#10 | Posted by wisgod

"Parse" rhymes with "Arse"

Goat,

Yes and no you have to be enrolled in a degree earning program but beyond that really not many other rules. So you can't get a student loan and run around just taking electives in underwater basketweaving but you could get a degree in basketweaving

Yes and no you have to be enrolled in a degree earning program but beyond that really not many other rules. So you can't get a student loan and run around just taking electives in underwater basketweaving but you could get a degree in basketweaving

That's what I was asking. Same with the GI bill. Thanks for replying

#16 Danni

Taking over a bank and firing people is significantly different than saying "you are only worth X". The FDIC did not take over the banks - the banks were LOANED MONEY by the Government to make them liquid - out of TARP (that was supposed to pay for toxic assets..which it did not do)

So...taking over a bank and changing management STILL did not entitle the FDIC to say how much the NEW management would make - did it?

FO,

No it didn't nor was it used as it was loaned to be used.

Wonder what would happen if a bank loaned me money to buy a car then I bailed and bought a big screen and surround sound system for 20k instead?

Find out then we can talk about what the gov can and can't tell these ass wipes.

"the banks were LOANED MONEY by the Government to make them liquid - out of TARP (that was supposed to pay for toxic assets..which it did not do)"

Toxic assets = worthless paper

loaned money = took them over without officially announcing it so as not to start a run on the banks.
Any way you cut it, the Feds can do whatever they want with these banks and obviously are. If the banks have a leg to stand on then why aren't they?

All that really happened is that we had massive bank failures and didn't want a panic but now the officers in those banks still thought it was business as usual and now they know it's not.

#57---- "loaned money= took them over --- Danni you're a little confused. The tarp money was given mainly to investment banks due to solvency issues as related to derivative exposure, counterparty risk, commercial paper problems, credit lockup, etc. and not a fear of "a run on the banks". The fear of a "run on the banks" is primarily related to the commercial banking industry and the average consumer like yourself--- essentially doesn't have much to do with TARP funds but instead to the "FDIC"-- that whole system of a potential run on the banks had to do with the FDIC and not the loans of TARP funds. Just thought I would clarify that for you.matsop

Wait till CIT blows up
FDIC Friday will probably crack 100 banks done
exec pay is the least of the problems at this moment

As Marc Faber (D. Gloom) said recently--- this recent blowup is only the appetizer for the meal to come (and boy, is he right). I can't believe what's going on in Washington-- The law of unintended consequences is going to be huge-- total incompetence and no evident leadership--- the agenda pushed, if enacted, will result in accelerating deficits and huge new taxes. If those who work for a living and have any net worth left think they're squeezed now wait for what's coming.

Good start. Keep it up.
These people are crooks.
They have actively participated
in the robbing of America.

(yeah, yeah, I know, I know,
some Republican somewhere will
hate this, and declare that
not letting some insanely
rich CEO raid the Federal Treasury
at Tax Payer expense is tantamount
to Socialism, Communism, or some
other ISM I haven't thought of yet...)

Can anyone really defend that position?
And if so, doesn't that make them like,
more evil than Darth Vader, the Grinch,
or Dick Cheney?

I know, I know, shouldn't be dissin'
on the Grinch like that...(grin)

The bald-face threat of stripping antitrust immunity from insurance companies by Senator Leahy and other bullies in this administration could not be more clear. Either you bend your knee to us, or we will destroy you. However, there is a broader message that all of us should take in, and that is the power of this government and the willingness of this administration to destroy anything and anyone in the way of its plan to take over one sector of this economy after another.

The reaction of many will be applause or relief that this time the insurance companies will get the shaft. But in the end, it is those of us who depend on those insurance companies to cover most of our medical bills who will suffer because they will simply go out of business. Make no mistake. That is precisely what this administration has as its end game, that is, giving us one choice for our health care: the government.

This administration has taken over or is regulating out of existence one sector after another of our capitalist system. It is by design. First they came for the financial services industry, then the auto industry, now the insurance industry. Today they are regulating pay for executives, but tomorrow they may extend that regulation by fiat to the rest of us despite the fact that it is none of their business nor can it possibly be Constitutional.

In fact, the Constitutionality of any of this is lost on this administration with no controls by a colluding Congress.

By not standing with these companies against these thugs in the Senate, chances are good that when they come for our livelihoods and deprive us of our ability to build individual prosperity, there will be no one willing and no one able to stand with us against them as they strip our freedoms from us. First they came for the Jews...

"Parse" rhymes with "Arse"

#52 | Posted by Timex

Nice to see you finally get something correct.

Companies cut pay all the time when their profits go down, let alone when they lose so much money the taxpayer has to bail them out.

Only thing unique about this situation is that the people responsible are actually the ones having their pay cut instead of lower level people who have less responsibility.

(yeah, yeah, I know, I know,
some Republican somewhere will
hate this, and declare that
not letting some insanely
rich CEO raid the Federal Treasury
at Tax Payer expense is tantamount
to Socialism, Communism, or some
other ISM I haven't thought of yet...)
#61 | Posted by earthmuse at 2009-10-23 06:29 AM

Can anyone really defend that position?
#61 | Posted by earthmuse at 2009-10-23 06:29 AM

#14 | Posted by Petrous at 2009-10-22 03:23 PM
#17 | Posted by Petrous at 2009-10-22 03:27 PM
#20 | Posted by JOE at 2009-10-22 03:33 PM

#62 | Posted by Kissntell

The bald-face threat of stripping antitrust immunity from insurance companies by Senator Leahy and other bullies in this administration could not be more clear. Either you bend your knee to us, or we will destroy you. However, there is a broader message that all of us should take in, and that is the power of this government and the willingness of this administration to destroy anything and anyone in the way of its plan to take over one sector of this economy after another.

The reaction of many will be applause or relief that this time the insurance companies will get the shaft. But in the end, it is those of us who depend on those insurance companies to cover most of our medical bills who will suffer because they will simply go out of business. Make no mistake. That is precisely what this administration has as its end game, that is, giving us one choice for our health care: the government.

This administration has taken over or is regulating out of existence one sector after another of our capitalist system. It is by design. First they came for the financial services industry, then the auto industry, now the insurance industry. Today they are regulating pay for executives, but tomorrow they may extend that regulation by fiat to the rest of us despite the fact that it is none of their business nor can it possibly be Constitutional.

In fact, the Constitutionality of any of this is lost on this administration with no controls by a colluding Congress.

By not standing with these companies against these thugs in the Senate, chances are good that when they come for our livelihoods and deprive us of our ability to build individual prosperity, there will be no one willing and no one able to stand with us against them as they strip our freedoms from us. First they came for the Jews...

----------------------
Kissntell well said, Elections have consequences, and this one will last for a long time.

There may be a silver linning in all this, campaign donations to the Democrats from Corporate America/Wall Street will shrink, which will hurt them in thier re-election bid.

"By not standing with these companies against these thugs in the Senate, chances are good that when they come for our livelihoods and deprive us of our ability to build individual prosperity, there will be no one willing and no one able to stand with us against them as they strip our freedoms from us. First they came for the Jews..."

I can't stop laughing at the Beckishness of this incredibly idiotic post.

BTW, how do you like the word I just invented???

#11 | Posted by foshaffer

Our forefathers fought and died to prevent this sort of government control over our lives..it is called FREEDOM.

That is why we have a Constitution to LIMIT government....but you guys are applauding this????

----------------------
I agree with everything you are saying here, but what were these companies thinking, this is one of the most liberal governments ever elected.

This might not be constitutional.

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), widely described as the stimulus bill, was signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009. ARRA significantly expands the executive compensation requirements previously imposed under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), which established the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). "

Article I Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States:
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

An ex post facto law is one which changes the function or criteria of the law after the fact and is applied retroactively.

Since many of the companies that accepted TARP funds did so, prior to February 17, 2009, applying facets of the 2009 law to the 2008 law, is inherently ex post facto.

Could get interesting!

I really don't care what the government does with those companies, the real question will be what they will do with Goldman Sachs, which is the real root of the problem.

I think we have 4 solutions:
1.) Break up Goldman Sachs, there should be no such thing as too big to fail.
2.) Change the reserve requirement so their leverage decreases and severely restrict and monitor OTC derivatives
3.) Do no restrict pay, but pass a law about how long earnings have to be retained before they can be paid out to ensure that the 'earnings' were real. If you look at GS, they paid out $25B in compensation a year - if they had forced a 4 year vesting period on all bonues, they would not have had a capitalization problem.
4.) Tie pay restrictions to the ability to borrow money at the fed window. If you don't like the fed policies, then you should not get to borrow unliminted amounts of money at zero % interest rates.

Or, you could do a combination of all of these. In fact, I think GS should propose them because we are at the tipping point of vigilante justice in this country.

from above....(better respond to my fan mail)

lol, says the bailout cheerleader.

#65 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-23 09:45 AM

Nice. If you are going to paint an individual,
do like Live_or_Die and paint with a WIDE BRUSH...

first. In most cases I am not for bailing out
several of these companies. Don't assume you
know me. I don't believe in Privitizing Profits
and Socializing Debts. Yet again, the
"supposed experts" (and you'll notice i put that
in quotes) said that some of these companies were
too big to be allowed to fail. AIG comes immediately
to mind.

Some even went so far as to say that if we let several
of them go bankrupt that it would have spilt into the retirement fund sector, you know, Mom and Pops 401k...
and I think most all of us would agree, that would have
been VERY bad.

Do I know that the O adminstration made the right
choice? No, not for certain. But then again I do
believe he, and the people working for him mitigated
the worst of the disaster, and made a catastrophic
situation into a merely bad one.

Let's face it, with the "Bag of Poo" he was handed
with the outgoing Bush Administration, things have
been bad, but they easily could have been much worse.

Do I think CEO's and Banks and all of these Golden
Parachute packages are signs of an industry up to
its ears in corruption? You bet I do.

Do I think that the executive compensation system
needs to be reformed and re-evaluated? You bet I do, certainly not afraid to say it.

Do I think the insurance system is like the banking
system in that it is almost entirely about profit
now days, and filled with corrupt individuals as well--
and also in need of regulation of some sort?
You bet I do.

Greed is out of control in this country. And too
few corporate big shots have too much power. Every
once in a great while, you have set limits to that
power.

...there....now u know what I think...

p.s. I don't really care how u feel about it.

can anyone gather much symphathy for these guys

but there IS the slippery slope that is always a danger when the govt takes its tenticles out.

An ass is someone who claims the pay cuts are a done deal when the findings are not going to release by the Czar until October 30th. Now STFU for 8 days.

#10 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-10-22 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

OOOOOH NOOO!

A CZAR!!

How very communist sounding.......

You ass-clowns will work yourselves into a frenzy over the dumbest things.

"but there IS the slippery slope that is always a danger when the govt takes its tenticles out."

The slope isn't very slippery when the rules about compensationare only applied to companies that the taxpayers bailed out and who still owe the taxpayers.

of course.
but there are rumblings all the time about obama expanding that to include some who didnt take bailouts.

and since when do rules really concern these people.
rangel is still there and the democrat in charge of the irs is a tax cheat.

A CZAR!!

How very communist sounding.......

You ass-clowns will work yourselves into a frenzy over the dumbest things.

#73 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-10

YEAH whata wrong with us

now we find that there are TWO obamamanics who ADMIRE MAO and chavez and castro
what could possibly be wrong with that???

These company took the govs money, now they have to do what the people paying there checks say. Sounds like every job i have ever had. I have ZERO issue with this. If they didnt want the gov involved they shouldnt have taken its money.

#2 | POSTED BY FENDERWA41 AT 2009-10-22 02:29 PM | REPLY | FLAG

You may or may not be surprised, however, to know that some of the companies were forced to take the money from the government. BofA is an example. They were not given a choice. Nor were they given a choice about Merrill. They were set to pull the plug before it closed when Paulson said "I think not."

The Government that is powerfull enought to give you everything can take everything away, just ask the bank execs.