Key Obama Officials Reveal Executive Pay Limits, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
Topic started on 4-2-2009 @ 06:49 AM by skeptic1
Source



Executives of companies receiving federal bailout money will have their pay capped at $500,000 under a financial compensation plan that President Barack Obama is expected to announce Wednesday, two senior administration officials said.

Under the president's plan, companies that want to pay their executives more than $500,000 will have to do so through stocks that cannot be sold until the companies pay back the money they borrow from the government, according to administration officials.




Now, this is an idea that I can go along with.

If a company is receiving TARP funds or bailout money (otherwise known as our tax dollars), they shouldn't be able to use it to pay their executives outrageous bonuses.


reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 07:40 AM by skeptic1
Another story on this....

Source



Compensation experts in the private sector have warned that such an intrusion into the internal decisions of financial institutions could discourage participation in the rescue program and slow down the financial sector's recovery. They also argue that it could set a precedent for government regulation that undermined performance-based pay.

"I really don't want the government to take over these businesses and start telling them everything about what they can do," Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said this week. "Then you truly have nationalized the business."





reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 07:51 AM by skeptic1
reply to post by FlyersFan



I feel that if they are sooooo bad off that they need bailout funds, then they are soooo bad off that their executives don't need to use that money to get tens of millions in bonuses every year.

The bailout money should go to helping the company get back on its feet, not making sure that the executives got the same bonuses they got before the company fell on hard times.


reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 09:05 AM by skeptic1
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



Both stories say that bonuses and/or pay over and above the $500,000.00 will have to be done with stock that can't be sold until the companies pay back the money they borrowed from the government.



reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 09:22 AM by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by skeptic1



Actually, they don't say that, specifically, that I could see. And that's what concerns me. These articles talk about "pay", which, to me, means salary.

Only when they talk about "total compensation" can we be sure they're including bonuses, as Claire McCaskill proposed here:


"I do know this: We can't just say, 'Please, please,'" said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who has proposed that no employee of an institution that receives money under the $700 billion federal bailout can receive more than $400,000 in total compensation until it pays the money back.


This worries me, too:


The administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the plan had not yet been made public, said the most restrictive limits would apply only to struggling large firms that receive "exceptional assistance" in the future. Healthy banks that receive government infusions of capital would have more leeway.

Banks and other financial institutions that receive capital infusions, but are considered healthy, could waive the $500,000 salary cap and the stock restrictions under the new Obama rules.


If they were "healthy banks", they wouldn't have needed government infusions. EVERYONE who received TARP funds should be capped. They have proven that they can't handle it themselves and would have failed without the government.

Source

I'm wondering if this is just for show... I'll have to see the details.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]


reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 09:29 AM by skeptic1
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



You are right. A lot of corporations, though, do view annual bonuses as "pay". But, like you, I'll err on the side of caution and say that more details are needed where bonuses are concerned.

Another question....I would think that any company/institution which received/receives TARP money or bailout money would not be considered "healthy". So, I wonder just what the government's definition of "healthy" is.....especially if it involves receiving federal funds.

[edit on 2/4/2009 by skeptic1]


reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 10:23 AM by skeptic1
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



Good.

I don't think that the government should stick their noses in the business world and say how companies should run themselves and pay their employees and executives.

But, if these places are receiving bailout funds, TARP funds, or government funding, then I honestly have no problem with the government stepping in and saying that it can't be "business as usual" any longer.


reply posted on 4-2-2009 @ 11:29 AM by skeptic1
reply to post by jam321



Did it have any stipulations or terms at all??

Wasn't every thing left up to the discretion of the Treasury Secretary and/or the Fed Chairman??
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^