It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Czar Blocks Bank Of America Chief's Pay

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Czar Blocks Bank Of America Chief's Pay


www.huffingtonpost.com

NEW YORK — Capping a year in which he faced shareholder fury, regulatory scrutiny and was stripped of his chairman post, outgoing Bank of America Corp. CEO Ken Lewis will get no salary or bonus for 2009 under an agreement with the government's pay czar.

Kenneth Feinberg, the U.S. Treasury Department's special master for compensation who is scrutinizing pay packages at bailed-out banks, suggested that Lewis should get no pay for the year. Lewis agreed, Bank of America spokesman Robert Stickler said Thursday.

In fact, Lewis will pay back about $1 million he has received so far out of a
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   

"He will write a check to the company," Stickler said, adding that Lewis agreed to the proposal because he felt it was not in the bank's best interest "to get into a dispute with the paymaster."

The clawback provision doesn't apply to Lewis' previously negotiated retirement package, estimated to be worth tens of millions of dollars.

Wall Street has been eagerly awaiting Feinberg's decisions about pay for 75 of the highest-earning executives at seven firms that got the most taxpayer money. Other companies under Feinberg's scrutiny include American International Group Inc., General Motors, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.

Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams declined to comment on Lewis' compensation, saying only that Feinberg would seek to "strike the right balance" in setting pay for top executives of firms that received significant government help.



Read more at: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Before I get started on how fundamentally wrong I think this whole process has become, I would like to state that it does not escape me that this money is our money - the taxpayer's money - and that someone should be watching where it goes.

My point, however, is that it should not be ther role of the President nor should it be the role of one man.

With the addition of Obama's czars, we have in essence created a new "branch" or department of government.

The czars report directly to Obama. There are no checks and balances. There is nobody between the President and the czar.

We now have a man, the "pay czar", Feinberg, that has the power to determine the pay "for 75 of the highest paid executives". This is asking for some serious trouble in my opinion.

It seems to me that Obama has managed to completely circumvent the way the government is supposed to work.

Government is supposed to answer to the people. Obama has given these czars, that WERE NOT VOTED into office, complete discretion as to whom and how much money each company and it's CEO and employees should be paid.

Are we not supposed to see where this can lead to total payoffs for the President and/or czars? How can this possibly not turn into a decision-for-profit when one man, that answers to no citizen of this country, has complete control?

Hmmmm...should he get $1M or $2M......well, he DID back healthcare reform.....and they are working to restore the public's faith in banks.....

I'm sure you can all see where I am going with this.

There are more than 20+ czars running around this country in various areas of business with complete control and nobody to answer to -- but the President.

Doesn't this at all concern anyone else?

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



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
First I am surprised that this info came from Huffington. Second, I think Lewis and BofA are part of the game in the first place. Lewis is cooperating to send a message to the other CEO's that will be targeted by the Pay Czar. Lewis is suggesting "Just write a check, it's not so bad" He'll get his pay on the back side when the check is never cashed
.

Needless to say as a former long time customer of B of A back when they were known as Nation's Bank, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could through them. They are one of the few true Power Banks in existence.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


I agree that Lewis and BoA are major players and working with the government in order to "show the banks who's boss" so to speak.

However, I personally have a problem with the government holding so much power. To have the banks in their pocket, and to be able to dictate how much pay they get -- which notice has not been disclosed to be on any kind of scale, but rather an arbitrary figure -- stinks of payoff to me.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join