Author Topic: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay  (Read 3529 times)

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« on: March 22, 2009, 11:21:43 PM »
The NY Times had an interesting tidbit today about the Obama administration's consideration to regulate the compensation of executives of financial companies.

I thought the section below was particularly interesting. Just how far will they go, and who will they regulate?

Quote
One proposal could impose greater requirements on company boards to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to ensure that compensation was aligned with the financial interest of the company.

The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The full story can be found here

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2009, 11:29:23 PM »
Saw that coming...

 :mad:

Gowen

  • Metal smith
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,074
    • Gemoriah.com
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2009, 11:30:13 PM »
They've already started going down this road.  Taxing the bonuses of AIG employees at 70-90% was just the first step.  Don't get me wrong, I am as ticked off as the next guy with AIG, but I don't like this president. First it's the executive pay, then it's you I and the bagger at the local grocery store.
"That's my hat, I'm the leader!" Napoleon the Bloodhound


Gemoriah.com

taurusowner

  • Guest
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2009, 11:31:50 PM »
Legislation befitting Wesley Mouche.

Human beings always have based their own actions off of self benefit and reward.  When you cap reward, you cap effort.  No one will put more effort into something then they will be compensated for.  Failure to understand this has and will continue to ruin the lives of many.

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,659
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2009, 09:04:48 AM »
I don't mind heavily taxing the pay of executives at companies that get Federal bailout money.

Personally, I'd like those guys to be GONE - the CEO, the CFO, and the entire Board of Directors; people who dig a company into a hole that deep have NO business getting their slimy fingers on billions of taxpayer dollars, at least a small portion of which came out of MY pocket.  :mad:

As for government meddling in pay at profitable companies that are NOT bankrupt and NOT receiving bailouts . . . uh uh. Much as I dislike these absurd awards on a variety of levels, I like the idea of this type of government meddling even less.  =(
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,977
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2009, 09:10:14 AM »
I don't mind heavily taxing the pay of executives at companies that get Federal bailout money.

Personally, I'd like those guys to be GONE - the CEO, the CFO, and the entire Board of Directors; people who dig a company into a hole that deep have NO business getting their slimy fingers on billions of taxpayer dollars, at least a small portion of which came out of MY pocket.  :mad:

As for government meddling in pay at profitable companies that are NOT bankrupt and NOT receiving bailouts . . . uh uh. Much as I dislike these absurd awards on a variety of levels, I like the idea of this type of government meddling even less.  =(

I disagree.

If they are given a check as bailout but the company has not been nationalized, they should not be harassed by government any more than any other company.

Either have the bawlz to admit your intentions to nationalize/socialize the business, or stay the heck out of its way.  You want control?  Buy it.

Of course, the bailouts are morally reprehensible on their own.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,799
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2009, 09:53:56 AM »
Rather than worry about execute pay of companies receiving bailout money, I'd rather stop giving bailout money.  :)
β€œIt is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2009, 11:16:32 AM »
What makes anyone believe this stops with financial companies...or corporate executives?  Have you not been listening to Obama's homiletic rhetoric?
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

Standing Wolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,978
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2009, 01:54:56 PM »
Quote
Human beings always have based their own actions off of self benefit and reward.  When you cap reward, you cap effort.  No one will put more effort into something then they will be compensated for.  Failure to understand this has and will continue to ruin the lives of many.

It may ruin the lives of many, but it advances the cause of leftist extremist statism. It's a question of priorities.

Quote
What makes anyone believe this stops with financial companies...or corporate executives?  Have you not been listening to Obama's homiletic rhetoric?

AIDS doesn't kill overnight.
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,659
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2009, 02:21:07 PM »
I disagree.

If they are given a check as bailout but the company has not been nationalized, they should not be harassed by government any more than any other company.
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd apply the Golden Rule - you take my gold, you follow my rule. Don't like it? DON'T TAKE MY GOLD!!

And my rule says guys who run a company into the red to the tune of tens of billions of dollars don't get a penny - in fact, they get nothing except the boot.

Because only a small part of the bailout is my gold, the guys are getting off easy by not being fired out of hand.
You want control?  Buy it.
Just did, to the tune of $170,000,000,000 for AIG. The bumpkins in Washington just didn't fill out the right paperwork.
Of course, the bailouts are morally reprehensible on their own.
We do have a point of agreement after all.
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

dogmush

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,936
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2009, 02:45:46 PM »
Hold on, Hank.  Run with me on this one.

Lets assume for a second you have a mortgage or car loan.  (if you don't just play along, those are pretty common consumer loans).  Would you be open to your bank either A.) Telling you you make to much money, or B.) changing the fee structure of your accounts after the loan is signed to take 70-90% of your checking account?  We didn't buy the companies.  We gave them a loan.  I think we on this site all pretty much agree that the loan was a Bad Idea(tm), but we gave it to them.  And they are spending the money exactly in accordance with the loan agreement.   The government doesn't get to just rewrite contracts because the media has manufactured some outrage.  (well apparentlly the do, actually.  but they shouldn't)

I won't even get in to how monumently scary the idea is that congress can just pick some folks that are unpopular at the moment and tax them that high.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,125
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2009, 03:14:57 PM »
Hank -- I agree with you in theory. If a failing company is going to take my tax dollars to keep from failing (when in a free economy they SHOULD fail), I should not have to pay bonuses, and if they're using my (and your) money the taxpayers should have some say in the use of the funds, and paying bonuses for failure is not what I would approve of.

The problem I have here is that the contracts to give bonuses were specifically written into the bailout by lawmakers. Had they provided the document in some readable format (versus non-searchable Acrobat image format), and given people time to read the thing, that provision could have been discovered and removed before the bailout was implemented. Instead, the bailout was pushed through, the provision was discovered after the fact, and to get themselves out of hot water, lawmakers blamed AIG instead of themselves when all AIG is doing is following the terms of the bailout.

Now we have the pushing through of 90% tax rates to "unpopular" people (the AIG execs now, maybe you and me later). This could set a very dangerous precedent, and in fact implementing the tax in this manner may very well be unconstitutional.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,659
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2009, 04:13:47 PM »
dogmush - I see what you're getting at, but the analogy doesn't hold; if my debts greatly exceeded my assets, NO bank would be loaning me ANYTHING. If I owned a small business going bankrupt or into receivership, and someone wanted to bail me out, I'd expect ALL KINDS of stringent conditions attached . . . and I'll bet I wouldn't like them one bit. But as I said, the bumpkins in Washington didn't do the paperwork correctly. (And I believe AIG made contributions to some of them . . . which raises the spectre of bribery. Is bribery grounds for invalidating a contract?)

Ben - as far as the constitutionality of instituting taxes . . . I believe that ex-post-facto laws are prohibited, EXCEPT for tax laws. Now, I'll admit I may be wrong on this, but from my readings, raising taxes for any income paid after 01/01/2009 would appear to be Constitutional, so long as it's made "general" . . . saying "John Doe of AIG will pay 90% of his bonus to the Treasury" would probably be verboten. (Bill of Attainder?) On the other hand, saying that "All bonus income in excess of $100,000 paid by any companies receiving TARP funds shall be taxed at 90%" may well pass muster.

I'll bet there are a lot of lawyers sharpening their pencils right now, eager to get into the middle of this.

The more I think about it, the more it seems that what Congress & Obama are doing is about as much of a solution as trying to extinguish a fire by pouring gasoline on it . . .
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2009, 07:17:27 PM »
I disagree.

If they are given a check as bailout but the company has not been nationalized, they should not be harassed by government any more than any other company.

Either have the bawlz to admit your intentions to nationalize/socialize the business, or stay the heck out of its way.  You want control?  Buy it.

Of course, the bailouts are morally reprehensible on their own.

If you take the King's shilling, you are the King's man.

Whether or not it is right, if you are morally corrupt enough to take hundreds of billions in direct handouts from the US federal government, you should know it will come at a steep price.  TANSTAAFL
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,125
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Administration proposing to regulate executive pay
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2009, 09:07:48 PM »
And here we go -- let's not take them over and have the taxpayers mad at us. Let's just shut them down if we don't like what they're doing. How very Hugo Chavez....

---------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090325/bs_nm/us_financial_aig_11

U.S. government seeks powers to shut firms like AIG
By Glenn Somerville and David Alexander Glenn Somerville And David Alexander 54 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration on Tuesday mounted a full-scale push for government authority to shut down troubled institutions like insurer AIG to avoid the need for future bailouts.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, testifying before lawmakers still fuming about big bonuses for executives at bailout recipient AIG, called on Congress for new powers to take over big non-bank financial firms that run amok.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke strongly backed Geithner in testimony before the same committee, and President Barack Obama took the case public in remarks to reporters.

"In the absence of that capacity you end up with the situation we've been in ... an institution that poses systemic risks to the system but a lack of capacity to close it down in an orderly fashion, renegotiate contracts, sell off bad assets," Obama said.

AIG ran a global insurance company but also had a division dealing in derivatives contracts that has been likened to a hedge fund. That unit took a big hit when the U.S. housing sector imploded, putting the entire firm at risk of a collapse that could have endangered the whole financial system.

Geithner said the government needed the same types of tools to deal with failing non-bank institutions that it already has to deal with struggling banks. Under his proposal, the Treasury chief would determine whether emergency action was needed in consultation with the Fed and the relevant regulator.

"As we have seen with AIG, distress at large, interconnected, non-depository financial institutions can pose systemic risks just as distress at banks can," he told the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee.

Congress has already begun working on a revamp of financial regulations that is expected to include authority to wind down non-bank firms. Aides at the House panel said on Monday the committee would likely vote on a bill as soon as March 31.

House Republican leader John Boehner told reporters the Treasury's request for authority to shutter non-banks sounded like "an unprecedented grab of power."

But other lawmakers were more supportive.

"I welcome it," Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told reporters. "We've got to figure out a way to deal with this.

AIG POSTER CHILD FOR WIND DOWN AUTHORITY

AIG, which has been propped up with up to $180 billion from taxpayers, has become the poster child for U.S. regulatory reform. Geithner, Bernanke and New York Federal Reserve Bank President William Dudley all painted a dire picture before lawmakers of what could have happened if AIG had failed.

"Conceivably, its failure could have resulted in a 1930s-style global financial and economic meltdown, with catastrophic implications for production, income and jobs," Bernanke said.

Fury at the $165 million in bonuses recently paid by the insurer threatens to undercut efforts to stabilize the rickety financial sector.

Geithner laid out a plan on Monday to sop up as much as $1 trillion in toxic assets sitting on bank books, but success hinges on the willingness of investors to participate.

Last week, the House passed legislation to claw back most of the AIG bonus money, and investors are wary of partnering with the government out of fear the rules could later change.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said on Tuesday the Senate put the AIG bonus bill "on pause," suggesting lawmakers were having second thoughts, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said action was still possible.

The proposal sketched by Geithner would let the government step in to act as a receiver for troubled non-banks. It would be able to deal with non-banks in the same way the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, a banking regulator, does with banks.

When the FDIC seizes a bank, it typically holds it until it gets it in shape to reopen under new ownership or to be taken over by a healthy bank. FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair has hinted that her agency might be suited to play a similar role for other financial firms.

Officials say if they had authority to shut non-bank firms, the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which touched off the most virulent phase of the credit crisis, could have been avoided.

(Additional reporting by Alister Bull, David Lawder, Corbett B. Daly, Karey Wutkowski and Susan Cornwell; Editing by Dan Grebler)
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."