It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Solarskye
I'm sorry, but I blame it on uneducated voters that keep these idiots in office long after they should of expired. This one right here scares me to death. And I'm sure there are many more where he came from.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by sos37
No one said you have to choose one. Like you said, they're all guilty. Where did you get that you can only choose one?
In the midst of a financial turmoil that has raised questions, among other things, about fat executive pay packets, a media report listed out 12 top Wall Street bankers who collectively took home over $1 billion (yes, $1 billion!) in the past five years.
The total take-home pay of the 12 bankers, current and former chiefs of some of the biggest names in the US financial space, stands at $1.053.15 billion during 2003-07, as per data compiled by The New York Times.
Text: PTI, Agencies
Image: Richard Fuld, Chairman and CEO, Lehman Brothers. | Photograph: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
The report listed out Citigroup’s India-born chief executive Vikram Pandit, JP Morgan Chase’s James L Dimon and Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd C Blankfein, among others.
Fuld, who is also the chairman of Lehman Brothers, took home $256.41 million.
‘As recently as June 2008, Fuld said he was confident that Lehman was sound even as the bank posted a second-quarter loss of $2.8 billion. But, on September 15, Lehman filed for bankruptcy and began sliding towards an eventual liquidation,’ the report said.
According to the report prepared with data provided by executive compensation research firm Equilar, Bank of America chairman and chief executive Kenneth D Lewis took home $133.36 million, while Dimon pocketed $108.72 million.
However, Pandit’s salary is calculated only for a month, since he joined the banking behemoth only in December 2007. He received a compensation of $250,000 in that month.
Blankfein, chief executive and chairman at Goldman Sachs, pocketed $102.74 million.
Interestingly, at the investment banking giant, Blankfein replaced Henry Paulson Jr, the current US treasury secretary.
Meanwhile, former chief executive and chairman of Morgan Stanley Philip J Purcell had a take-home pay of $95.18 million. He resigned from the post in June 2005.
Current chairman and chief executive of Morgan Stanley John J Mack had a total compensation of $41.15 million. J P Morgan Chase’s former chairman William B Harrison Jr had a compensation of $71.2 million.
According to the New York Times, Merrill Lynch’s former chief executive and chairman E Stanley O’Neal pocketed $80.96 million during 2003-07, while the present chief executive and chairman John A Thain pocketed $15.06 million.
Charles O Prince, the former chief executive and chairman of Citigroup, had a compensation of $65.45 million. He became the chief executive in October 2003 and resigned as CEO and chairman in November 2007.
Alan Schwartz, former chief executive and chairman of Bear Stearns, which was taken over by JP Morgan a few months back, received a total compensation of $82.53 million.
I believe that the executives who profited handsomely from the companies now being bailed out by taxpayers should have to pay back the huge bonuses they received. Stock options? Wiped out. Any personal benefit while the companies were engaging in the behavior that caused the markets to unravel should be taken away from them.
Someone else got all the profits while the companies were successful, and now the taxpayers have to pay for the losses. Where’s my piece of those profits from prior years? I don’t get any. Yet I have to pay to help fix this mess.
If the government must step in and provide any sort of financing or guarantees for any part of a public company’s business, then all officers and directors lose all rights to severance pay and all outstanding vested or unvested options or warrants immediately become canceled. In the event the CEO of such corporation is not fired, but instead chooses to step down voluntarily, then the last 12 months of earnings is considered to be an interest free loan which the CEO must pay back over no more than a 10 year period.
Honestly, i dont think it would have changed the actions of CEOs who have been bailed out. They would have thought it “couldnt happen to them”. But once it happened a couple of times to a couple of big company CEOs, it would be in the decision making process of every CEO running a huge financial company