The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
excessive compensation! https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=734 |
Page 1 of 4 |
Author: | Uncle Fester [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:55 pm ] |
Post subject: | excessive compensation! |
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1257132 ... TopStories The outrage of this excessive compensation in these hard economic times, by BIG EDUCATION, is an affront to the people of the US, and a special educational pay Czar will be appointed to distribute appropriate education. (sorry bad attempt at humor) |
Author: | LadyKate [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:03 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: excessive compensation! |
Those are private college stats, not public institutions. If they want to pay their presidents that much, I don't see what the big deal is. |
Author: | Rafael [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:06 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: excessive compensation! |
LadyKate wrote: Those are private company stats, not public institutions. If they want to pay their presidents that much, I don't see what the big deal is. I agree. |
Author: | Corolinth [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:08 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
So were banks. |
Author: | TheRiov [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
banks have a far more broad reaching impact on the economy as a whole. *shrug* |
Author: | Corolinth [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:10 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Yes, that would seem to justify why the president of a bank would make in excess of a million dollars. |
Author: | Rafael [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
TheRiov wrote: banks have a far more broad reaching impact on the economy as a whole. *shrug* Maybe true, maybe not. I don't think it's possible to really substantiate this either way. Regardless, such a statement, its certifiability aside, doesn't establish the "rightness" or "wrongness" of what is in question. |
Author: | Corolinth [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
It does when you want to classify banks as greedy, money-laundering demons who wrecked the economy by stealing money from hard-working Americans. Otherwise socialization of financial lending is a hard sell. It doesn't matter what the colleges do anymore, because we've already socialized education. |
Author: | Khross [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
TheRiov wrote: banks have a far more broad reaching impact on the economy as a whole. *shrug* ...Does the President have the right and authority to tell you how much you should make? |
Author: | Corolinth [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
No. Only the bank CEOs. |
Author: | TheRiov [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:51 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
so there is a moral absolute at work here? |
Author: | Khross [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:59 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: excessive compensation! |
TheRiov: It's a 'yes' or 'no' question. Does the President of the United States have the right and authority to set your salary cap? |
Author: | TheRiov [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:02 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I must have missed an executive order caping salaries. |
Author: | Khross [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:07 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: excessive compensation! |
TheRiov: Why won't you answer the question asked? |
Author: | Corolinth [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Willful ignorance is still ignorance. |
Author: | DFK! [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
TheRiov wrote: I must have missed an executive order caping salaries. Pay Czars don't need executive orders: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124416737421887739.html Quote: JUNE 5, 2009 White House Set to Appoint a Pay Czar By DEBORAH SOLOMON WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to appoint a "Special Master for Compensation" to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter. The administration is expected to name Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the federal government's compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to act as a pay czar for the Treasury Department, these people said. Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw payouts to 9/11 victims, will keep tabs on executive pay at companies in bailout. Mr. Feinberg's appointment could be announced as early as next week, when the administration is expected to release executive-compensation guidelines for firms receiving aid from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Those companies, which include banks, insurers and auto makers, are subject to a host of compensation restrictions imposed by the Bush and Obama administrations and by Congress. Wall Street has been anxiously awaiting more details on how the rules will be applied. "The law is confusing and a bit ambiguous, and so we're looking for certainty as to how to structure pay incentives," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade association. The move comes amid a series of sometimes-overlapping efforts to curb pay at financial firms following perceived industry excesses that led to the lending boom and bust. The Obama administration earlier this year issued guidelines that include limiting salary for top executives at some firms receiving TARP funds and requiring that additional pay be in the form of restricted stock, vesting only after the company repays its debt, with interest, to the government. Congress then chimed in with even tougher rules curbing bonuses for top earners at firms receiving TARP money. As part of that effort, lawmakers barred those firms from paying top earners bonuses that equal more than a third of their total compensation. The White House has been wrestling with how to marry those two efforts, which in combination are more punitive than administration officials had intended. The government is also pursuing a separate revamping of financial-sector rules that could change industry compensation practices more broadly. For instance, the Federal Reserve is considering rules that would curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank. Mr. Feinberg is expected to focus on pay restrictions related to firms receiving TARP bailout funds, helping companies to interpret the rules and ensure that they are being followed. For instance, companies have been confused about whether to pay 2008 bonuses, since restrictions on incentive pay didn't go into effect until early 2009. Some firms have made the payments while others have held off. Many firms are also unsure whether the "top earners" targeted by Congress include rank-and-file employees or just executives. Journal Communitydiscuss“ Obama is establishing a new cabinet of officials who are accountable only to him. This is an unprecedented power grab. ” — Kathryn Reagan Mr. Feinberg will report to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, but he is expected to have wide discretion on how the rules should be interpreted. Firms likely won't be able to appeal decisions that Mr. Feinberg makes to Mr. Geithner, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Feinberg, founder and managing partner of the law firm Feinberg Rozen LLP, spent several years overseeing payouts totaling more than $7 billion to victims of the 9/11 attacks. He personally reviewed every claim, approving or denying awards and allocating sums to be paid out of the Treasury. Write to Deborah Solomon at deborah.solomon@wsj.com Underlined most important sections for emphasis. Some Congressmembers want to go beyond just TARP and bailout recipients: http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs. ... 7/1003/TOC Quote: Barney Frank: TARP's comp curbs could be extended to all businesses
Would be part of broader bill limiting hedge funds, credit-raters, and mortgage securitizers; 'deeply rooted anger' By Neil Roland February 3, 2009 3:01 PM ET Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said. “There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,” the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today. He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies. The provision will be part of a broader package that would likely give the Federal Reserve the authority to monitor systemic risk in the economy and to shut down financial institutions that face too much exposure, Mr. Frank said. Also included in the legislation: registration requirements for hedge funds and proposals aimed at curbing conflicts of interest at credit-rating agencies such as Standard & Poor’s. The bill, which the committee is working on in consultation with the Obama administration, also will require financial institutions that bundle mortgages into securities to share in potential losses. This would give banks and mortgage-specialists an incentive not to make bad loans, he said. Institutions that securitize loans improperly will incur tougher penalties. “There have been too few constraints on major financial institutions incurring far more liability than they could handle,” Mr. Frank said. The committee hopes to have a general outline of the legislation by early April, he said. It will be the panel’s first priority in its effort to restructure financial regulation in the wake of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Mr. Frank has summoned the CEOs of Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and the seven other U.S. financial firms that got $125 billion from TARP to testify at a Feb. 11 committee hearing. Mr. Frank seems to be in synch with the Obama administration in his plans for executive compensation. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last month that he might try to extend to all U.S. companies a restriction that prohibits bailout banks from taking a tax deduction of more than $500,000 in pay for each executive. The Troubled Assets Relief Program legislation enacted in October seeks to give companies receiving aid under the $700 billion bailout a number of incentives to curb what it calls excessive executive pay. Mr. Geithner said he would consider “extending at least some of the TARP provisions and features of the $500,000 cap to U.S. companies generally.” Under the legislation, banks receiving bailout money must limit golden parachute payments to senior executives to no more than three times the executives’ base pay. The companies also must subject any bonuses or incentives to clawbacks if the payouts are based on bank’s misleading financial statements. In addition, bailout recipients can’t offer top managers incentives that “encourage unnecessary excessive risks that threaten the value of the financial institution.” These limits apply to the chief executive officer, chief financial officer and the next three most highly compensated executives in a bank receiving rescue funds. Mr. Frank said provisions on golden parachute payments and bonus clawbacks would probably be in the legislation, though he declined to provide more detail because “we’re early in the process.” A congressional oversight panel headed by Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren also recommended last week that Treasury consider revoking executive bonuses at failed institutions getting federal aid. Currently, these institutions must subject bonuses to clawbacks only if the payouts are based on banks’ misleading financial statements. The top Republican on the committee, Spencer Bachus of Alabama, said last month he has reservations about giving the Fed new powers, such as the authority to monitor systemic risk. Mr. Frank said today that after lawmakers address issues on systemic risk, they will consider how to bolster investor protection via changes at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The committee also will review proposals to assist struggling homeowners and expand the housing supply, and to strengthen international financial institutions such as the World Bank, he said. Write to the editors at fw_editor@financialweek.com. |
Author: | Khross [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: excessive compensation! |
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=624 Apparently TheRiov missed this thread ... |
Author: | TheRiov [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
apples and oranges. But you knew that. The gov't can set conditions for receiving bailout money. (hey Khross, are you talking to me? or grandstanding for everyone else? If not, try not addressing people in 3rd person. You'll come across as less arrogant.) And to answer your questions, the govornment sets a number of regulations about how I am to be compensated, though not specifically the amount I am paid. Now answer my question. |
Author: | Rafael [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Can they set it retroactively? Can they create a de facto racket by instigating so many regulations and red tape that one is bound to fail unless taking bailout money? Gauruntees on Student Loans and government Grants for tuition are one such example. They break your leg then hand you a crutch and say "See, if it weren't for me, you wouldn't be able to walk." |
Author: | Khross [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: excessive compensation! |
TheRiov: Moral Absolutes have nothing to do with "right" or "authority" when discussing public office. Incidentally, you still have not answered the question. The government is not synonymous with the President. |
Author: | Hannibal [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:24 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: excessive compensation! |
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/au ... ion-profit DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) - Ford, the only Detroit automaker to dodge direct government aid and bankruptcy court, surprised investors with net income of nearly $1 billion in the third quarter and forecast a "solidly profitable" 2011. The automaker said Monday earnings were fueled by U.S. market share gains, cost cuts and the Cash for Clunkers program, which drew flocks of buyers to showrooms this summer. Ford's shares rose 68 cents, or 9.8 percent, to $7.68 in morning trading. The latest results signal that Ford's turnaround is on more solid ground. The company lost more than $14.6 billion last year and hasn't posted a full-year profit since 2005. While it made a profit in the second quarter, that was mainly due to debt reductions that cut its interest payments. Ford, based in Dearborn, Mich., reported third-quarter net income of $997 million, or 29 cents per share. Its profit forecast for 2011 was a step above previous guidance of break-even or better for the year. Ford's key North American car and truck division posted a pretax profit of $357 million, the division's first quarter in the black since early 2005. Ford cited higher pricing, lower material costs and increased market share for the improvement. Excluding one-time items, Ford earned 26 cents per share, blowing away analysts' expectations of a loss of 12 cents. The earnings came despite an $800 million revenue drop. But Ford said it cut costs by $1 billion during the quarter, accomplished through layoffs in North America and Europe, reduced pension and retiree health care costs and improvements in productivity and product development. Chief financial officer Lewis Booth said the company took in $1.3 billion more than it spent in the quarter, an improvement over its $1 billion cash burn in the second quarter. "That's a huge deal," Booth said. Ford's plan to create demand and get better prices for its products, coupled with cost cuts, gave the company confidence that it will make money in 2011, Booth said. But Ford still faces obstacles in its turnaround. Last week, workers overwhelmingly rejected an agreement with the United Auto Workers that would have brought Ford's labor costs in line with rivals General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC. Workers objected to clauses limiting their right to strike and freezing entry-level wages, and felt the company was healthy enough and didn't need further concessions. The rejected deal also would have changed rules so skilled tradesmen such as electricians and pipefitters work in teams and perform more than one task. Rejection of the deal isn't likely to place Ford at an immediate cost disadvantage to its crosstown rivals because savings from the concessions are longer-term, said Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. Neither the company nor the UAW has released any cost savings numbers. The third-quarter profit makes it extremely unlikely that the company will push to head back to the bargaining table before the current UAW contract expires in the fall of 2011, and union leaders also are unlikely to take another deal to the membership, Chaison said. "I think the company has no credibility asking for concessions now, and I think the leadership is quite embarrased for making a case for concessions," he said. Chaison said Ford could make some noise about moving new vehicle production to Canada, where unionized workers on Sunday approved a package of concessions, but it's more likely that Ford will live with the current contract until 2011. The other area where Ford has a cost disadvantage is debt. Ford reported $26.9 billion in debt, up $800 million from the second quarter. The company avoided the same fate as rivals Chrysler and GM by mortgaging its factories and even the familiar blue oval logo to borrow $23.5 billion before credit markets froze last year. Ford didn't quantify the impact of Cash for Clunkers, which offered buyers rebates to trade in their vehicles. The program helped Ford cut costly incentives and raise production. It also won buyers; the fuel-efficient Ford Focus sedan and Ford Escape, a small SUV, were among the top five sellers under clunkers. Ford sales climbed 17 percent in August thanks to the program. Ford's revenue fell $800 million for the quarter, to $30.9 billion, due mainly to its financial services arm, Ford Motor Credit, making fewer loans. But the division still posted a pretax profit of $677 million, and revenue from auto operations rose slightly to $27.9 billion. Ford also has benefited from consumer goodwill after it declined government bailout money and didn't go into bankruptcy over the summer as GM and Chrysler did. Ford grabbed sales from its rivals, posting the largest increase in market share of any automaker in September. Ford expects an overall gain in U.S. market share in 2009, a feat it hasn't accomplished since 1995. ___________________________________________________________________ So despite not taking the money, and still having to deal with lazy union workers who refuse to shoulder any of the load, they somehow pull a profit. Odd. |
Author: | Müs [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Quote: But Ford still faces obstacles in its turnaround. Last week, workers overwhelmingly rejected an agreement with the United Auto Workers that would have brought Ford's labor costs in line with rivals General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC. Workers objected to clauses limiting their right to strike and freezing entry-level wages, and felt the company was healthy enough and didn't need further concessions. Cutting off your nose to spite your face much? **** idiots. |
Author: | Screeling [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:07 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: excessive compensation! |
Khross wrote: The government is not synonymous with the President. Obviously you haven't been paying attention lately. |
Author: | Xequecal [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:41 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: excessive compensation! |
Khross wrote: TheRiov: It's a 'yes' or 'no' question. Does the President of the United States have the right and authority to set your salary cap? If the government bailed out the company I work for, absolutely. That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea, but they definitely have the right considering "my" job wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the bailout. |
Author: | Khross [ Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:51 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: excessive compensation! |
Xequecal wrote: Khross wrote: TheRiov: It's a 'yes' or 'no' question. Does the President of the United States have the right and authority to set your salary cap? If the government bailed out the company I work for, absolutely. That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea, but they definitely have the right considering "my" job wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the bailout. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... l#section2 Not in the Constitution. |
Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |