Fannie , Freddie Regularor Blocks ' Golden Parachutes ' for CEOs

Fannie , Freddie Regularor Blocks ' Golden Parachutes ' for CEOs

www.bloomberg.com

``We find it way out of line that these two executives will be rewarded with millions of dollars in bonus compensation at a time when taxpayer dollars may have to be deployed to cover any financial losses caused by errors in management,'' Schumer and Reed, both Democrats, wrote in a Sept. 9 letter to Lockhart.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Recently Obama had sent a request that the FED Regulators not only could close the banks but also have the power to block ' golden parachutes ' and should do so.

www.bloomberg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

With all due respect to the OP, I don;t think this is a partisan matter.

Multimillion dollar severance for incompetent or negligent leadership is a slap in the face to the investors he or she was charged with serving.

It doesn't take a politician to claim credit for that position. It is an ethical matter not subject to partisan opinion.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Maxmars]

reply to post by Maxmars

Well, I kinda feel like some people would look at it in a partisan way as well seeing how "kenny boy" Lay and Jeff Skilling made out. Don't forget the strong ties between the current admin. and a lot of these CEO's. People don't forget that fast......

reply to post by Grafilthy


Actually , you're right. I shouldn't be too quick to disregard the fact that these politicians all have 'friends' in these 'high' places.

Originally posted by Grafilthy
reply to post by Maxmars

 

... Don't forget the strong ties between the current admin. and a lot of these CEO's. People don't forget that fast......

Like this guy????

and David Moffett, 56, a Carlyle Group executive

And my message to the guys who screwed the pooch?

BWAHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

My guess is it's election time, otherwise most democrats ethical constraints are so small they couldn't find them with a microscope. When they do something right, it's usually by accident. While there are virtually no ethical democrats there may actually be one or two ethical republicans, though they are rather scarce as well.

My guess is that their attempt to squelch the golden parachutes will not stand up in court. However something I found even more interesting is who has been chosen to replace the executives,

Lockhart and Paulson tapped Herbert Allison, 65, former CEO of TIAA-CREF, to lead Washington-based Fannie, and David Moffett, 56, a Carlyle Group executive and former vice chairman of U.S. Bancorp, to lead McLean, Virginia-based Freddie.

Now it makes more sense. A bankster from the Carlyle group is tasked to run this ship (aground). No doubt the NWO has found yet another way to enlave America, this time through debt.

EDIT
(2stepsfrom top beat me to the punch by a few minutes!)

[edit on 15-9-2008 by SevenThunders]

The problem with denying executives severances, is the only way to accurately gauge who should and should not have their severances would be in knowing who was incompetent, and who was trying to do their job and simply not listened to.

I agree that there was a severe level of incompetence in these companies.

But there are also bound to be people who struggled to try and keep the companies afloat and were blocked or ignored by their counterparts.

But... on the other hand, the world isn't a fair place, and all members of a failing company had the right to jump ship when their efforts were being unheeded.

I read an article once justifying excessive CEO pay because they take such professional risks managing Fortune 500 companies.

Seems like shareholders and tax payers were the ones really taking the risks.

One has to wonder if the excessive money paid to CEO's - and spent on houses, yachts, luxury vacation homes, cars, world travel and lavish lifestyles - would produce enough capital to stave off financial ruin for these companies.

reply to post by johnsky


Why should they get a bonus when all the shareholders are left standing there holding the proverbial bag??

They should get what all the shareholders and employees that lose their jobs get.....

NOTHING.

reply to post by kosmicjack


Seriously doubtful. The income of the CEO's compared to the actual value of the company itself is likely pocket change.

You 'could' make an example of them by redistributing their worth...
but with the chance of making a fortune, comes the risk of being in debt by a fortune as well, CEO's are nerve racked by this throughout their career, usually.

It's a tough call to make.

You have to look at it from a person to person point of view...
Are they criminally negligent?
Or were they simply hit by the unavoidable?

Originally posted by Grafilthy
reply to post by johnsky

 

Why should they get a bonus when all the shareholders are left standing there holding the proverbial bag??

They should get what all the shareholders and employees that lose their jobs get.....

NOTHING.

That's why I stated "on the other hand".


I was stating both sides of the argument... as I often do.

You are correct, investors, just like CEO's, know they carry the risk of their investments failing. They enter into it regardless, and should be prepared to face the outcome of their investments failing them.

It's like gambling really... if you can't stand to lose the money you put into it, the loss you experience is completely your problem, and no-body elses.

reply to post by johnsky

Didn't mean to come off as a jerk Johnsky......this is just a topic that gets me excited in all the wrong ways...

I just don't have any sympathy really for any of these guys. When someone makes thousands of times more than the average person.....they should have to get out of their own mess....as I know I would. The average person would not even be offered a severance payment if the company tanked.....and they are barely scraping by on the crumbs they are tossed off those same CEO's silver platters.

I in fact do hope they have to sell a few of those lodges in Vail....and Villas in the Mediterranean....just to keep the heat on.

reply to post by Grafilthy


Don't worry, I didn't take offense to it.

I argue both sides of an argument quite often. Which means you simply agreed to one half of me, lol.

This is always one of the most galling aspects of when 'Big Business' fails. It's utterly mind-boggling that large national/international business can appear to fail badly or even go to the wall completely, yet somehow the slimy swines at the top seem to get away with golden handshakes, early retirement due to 'poor health' - a classic 'get out of jail free' card if there's a legal culpability issue - or other cash-lined 'safety nets'.

It's the first thing I look for now in these kinds of news reports. I wonder whether it's actually explained in these firms' Human Resources in some flow chart which rung of the ladder you have to reach where making a balls-up that could cost millions actually provides you a golden handshake and early retirement as opposed to just being fired and a job reference that includes the term 'incompetent pillock: DO NOT EMPLOY'. Worse still is the way some of these people seem to step into another job a few months later!

I must be doing the handshakes wrong or something!