February 4, 2009
U.S. Plans to Curb Executive Pay for Bailout Recipients
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and VIKAS BAJAJ
NY Times


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of
$500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of
bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.

Executives would also be prohibited from receiving any bonuses above
their base pay, except for normal stock dividends.

President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner plan to
announce the executive compensation plan on Wednesday morning at the
White House.

The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during
the Bush administration, and they could force executives to accept deep
reductions in their current pay. They come amid rising public fury about
huge pay packages for executives at financial companies being propped up
by federal tax dollars.

Executives at companies that have already received money from the
Treasury Department would not have to make any changes. But analysts and
administration officials are bracing for a huge wave of new losses,
largely because of the deepening recession, and many companies that have
already received federal money may well be coming back.

- - -
$500,000 a year is more than the assholes running failed companies deserve.

HK wrote:
February 4, 2009
U.S. Plans to Curb Executive Pay for Bailout Recipients
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and VIKAS BAJAJ
NY Times


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of
$500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of
bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.

Executives would also be prohibited from receiving any bonuses above
their base pay, except for normal stock dividends.

President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner plan to
announce the executive compensation plan on Wednesday morning at the
White House.

The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during
the Bush administration, and they could force executives to accept deep
reductions in their current pay. They come amid rising public fury about
huge pay packages for executives at financial companies being propped up
by federal tax dollars.

Executives at companies that have already received money from the
Treasury Department would not have to make any changes. But analysts and
administration officials are bracing for a huge wave of new losses,
largely because of the deepening recession, and many companies that have
already received federal money may well be coming back.

- - -
$500,000 a year is more than the assholes running failed companies deserve.
I would like to see a requirement for the Board Members to attend
Etchics in Business 101, Non Creative Accounting for dummies, Moral
Responsibility 100, and American Ideals and Patriotism 100, 102, and a
100 page Thesis on the founding of America.

On Feb 3, 11:42*pm, HK wrote:
February 4, 2009
U.S. Plans to Curb Executive Pay for Bailout Recipients
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and VIKAS BAJAJ
NY Times

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of
$500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of
bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.

Executives would also be prohibited from receiving any bonuses above
their base pay, except for normal stock dividends.

President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner plan to
announce the executive compensation plan on Wednesday morning at the
White House.

The new rules would be far tougher than any restrictions imposed during
the Bush administration, and they could force executives to accept deep
reductions in their current pay. They come amid rising public fury about
huge pay packages for executives at financial companies being propped up
by federal tax dollars.

Executives at companies that have already received money from the
Treasury Department would not have to make any changes. But analysts and
administration officials are bracing for a huge wave of new losses,
largely because of the deepening recession, and many companies that have
already received federal money may well be coming back.

* - - -
$500,000 a year is more than the assholes running failed companies deserve.

It's about time...... Concessions all around, I guess.

HK wrote:
February 4, 2009
U.S. Plans to Curb Executive Pay for Bailout Recipients
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and VIKAS BAJAJ
NY Times


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is expected to impose a cap of
$500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of
bailout money, according to people familiar with the plan.

When is Giethner going to resign for being a tax cheat?

At least Richardson and Daschle and the CPO nominee had the decency to
resign.

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:42:19 -0500, HK wrote:

$500,000 a year is more than the assholes running failed companies deserve.

Your liberal Democratic buddies running New York don't think this is
such a good idea - it's going to impact their income tax revenue by
20%.

Interesting side bar - Goldman Sachs is preparing to give the money
back along with BOA, Wells Fargo and a couple of other banks.

--

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good."

Steven Wright

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:42:19 -0500, HK wrote:

$500,000 a year is more than the assholes running failed companies deserve.

Your liberal Democratic buddies running New York don't think this is
such a good idea - it's going to impact their income tax revenue by
20%.

Interesting side bar - Goldman Sachs is preparing to give the money
back along with BOA, Wells Fargo and a couple of other banks.

Nancy, Harry and Barack's coupe d'etat has failed.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:00:28 -0500, BAR wrote:


Nancy, Harry and Barack's coupe d'etat has failed.

Ah, that would be the Bush-Paulson coupe.

"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:42:19 -0500, HK wrote:

$500,000 a year is more than the assholes running failed companies
deserve.

Your liberal Democratic buddies running New York don't think this is
such a good idea - it's going to impact their income tax revenue by
20%.

Interesting side bar - Goldman Sachs is preparing to give the money
back along with BOA, Wells Fargo and a couple of other banks.



That's interesting. Hadn't heard that.
I wonder why? The income and bonus cap doesn't apply to those who received
TARP I funds.
It only applies to future TARP money.

Eisboch

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 08:00:59 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:42:19 -0500, HK wrote:

$500,000 a year is more than the assholes running failed companies
deserve.

Your liberal Democratic buddies running New York don't think this is
such a good idea - it's going to impact their income tax revenue by
20%.

Interesting side bar - Goldman Sachs is preparing to give the money
back along with BOA, Wells Fargo and a couple of other banks.



That's interesting. Hadn't heard that.
I wonder why? The income and bonus cap doesn't apply to those who
received
TARP I funds.
It only applies to future TARP money.

Eisboch

If they are able to give it back, why did they claim to desperately
need it in the first place?



If I recall correctly, only a few said they "desperately" needed it. AIG
for example. The rest just got in line for the handouts. Why not? Even
GMAC and American Express filed to be declared banks in order to qualify.

Eisboch

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:04:36 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 08:00:59 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Wizard of Woodstock" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:42:19 -0500, HK wrote:

$500,000 a year is more than the assholes running failed companies
deserve.

Your liberal Democratic buddies running New York don't think this is
such a good idea - it's going to impact their income tax revenue by
20%.

Interesting side bar - Goldman Sachs is preparing to give the money
back along with BOA, Wells Fargo and a couple of other banks.

That's interesting. Hadn't heard that.
I wonder why? The income and bonus cap doesn't apply to those who
received
TARP I funds.
It only applies to future TARP money.

If they are able to give it back, why did they claim to desperately
need it in the first place?

If I recall correctly, only a few said they "desperately" needed it. AIG
for example. The rest just got in line for the handouts. Why not? Even
GMAC and American Express filed to be declared banks in order to qualify.

Let's not confuse two issues.

A majority of the "big" investment banks didn't want TARP funds as it
eventually morphed. What they wanted was help with the toxic assets
they had on their books - admittedly their own fault, I'm not arguing
that point. But they didn't need capital - what they needed was for
the government, much like the Resolution Trust fund, to buy up the bad
assets, repackage the more performing assets as securities and sell
them, then hold the bad assets for a while until the economy recovered
when those would be securitized and marketed. What that would have
done is bring the capital to debt to deposit ratios back in line and
with a restructuring of debt lending standards, but everything back on
track.

Which by the way, was the way it was sold to Congress in the first
place.

Paulson changed the rules because he became convinced that more
lending was needed - not a contraction of lending, but more lending
which, as much as I like Paulson's performance up to this point, was
the dumbest thing EVAH!!!

AIG is not a "bank", but an insurance, reinsurance and investment fund
and was in trouble because of it's insurance and reinsurance took
huge hits in the mortgage default (PMI) industry. However, it was
still solvent in the sense that it had the capital to back it up, but
it lost investor confidence and took a huge hit from hedge funds short
selling it's stock. There wasn't time for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and
the only other option was Chapter 7 so the Feds stepped in - again -
and offered an easy out.

As much as I hate to admit it, Paulson and Bernacke screwed the pooch
on this one and the rest just steamrolled.

--

Time flies when you are sick and psychotic.