Fri, 09/26/2008 - 17:32
CEO pay: What those involved in the financial meltdown made -
As Congress considers a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street and the banking sector, there are calls to restrict the pay and severance packages for CEOs at investment houses, banks and mortgage lenders poised to be benefit from the plan put forward by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. Executives from some of the major investment and commercial banks involved in the financial upheaval and bailout earned hefty paychecks last year, according to proxy statements outlining their salaries, bonuses and stock options:
So why aren't these pricks personal assets seized like in Bankruptcy Court eh? Oh yeah they've got bought Politicians to protect their ass's 
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 19:46
#2
I don't really care what they madeprior to now.
Now, since they are asking for our money to get out of trouble, I care what they get paid from this point on.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 20:16
#3
What they made prior to this point contributed to this mess, boan. If you don't care to learn from the mistakes of the past, they will be repeated in the future.
I care what they made prior to this as it simply highlights the mistakes of the freepers.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 20:44
#4
Do I care? Fuck yes I care, it's what you call looting the company then expecting the you and I to pay for it. Like I said, liquidate their personal assets since it was gained by looting, they expect us to pay for it. Well we'll pay for it after we seize their car's, boats, planes, etc. It's called Bankruptcy Boan, that's what happens to you and me if we declare Bankruptcy ya know. 
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 21:05
#5
Holy crap Pagan I totally agree with your response here.It is exactly what happens to us when we go banko. And I'm not interested in seeing people profit off of this in any way.
Lose from the top down.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 21:21
#6
It's also called a corporation. If you have a business and it's incorporated, if it goes belly up, you don't lose everything.
There is no "Looting the company" If a board of directors made an unwise decision to pay the CEO too much, tough shit. I don't have a problem with it, UNTIL you start asking me to bail you out, then I feel the American people have the right to start regulating their pay.
Is it just the CEO you are going to liquidate?
How far down do you plan to go?
How about the whole board the made bad decisions?
What if the CEO disagreed with the board and they went ahead anyway.
What if a person was CEO two years ago?
Don't you think it's a awful lot of government interference?
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 21:45
#7
Quote:
If a board of directors made an unwise decision to pay the CEO too much, tough shit.
I have a major problem with that as an ethics issue which has been circumvented by deregulation. This highlights the utter failures of the freepers and stands out as their most disgusting, number one, poster child. It is unchecked capitalism at its worst. That's not the trickle down effect that comes as advertised. Its an utter snub in the face of the American intellect.
That means you, boan.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 21:47
#8
There is nothing unethical about paying people whatever you want to pay them.
So long as it's a private company and they aren't begging for GOVCO funds.
What do you see unethical about it?
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 21:49
#9
Aren't Fannie May and Freddie Mac government funding agencies?
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 21:54
#10
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ~~ quasi yes.
A lot more companies were mentioned in that article.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 22:00
#11
That should answer your own freeper biased question then. Try and think before your next post. There is no quasi about it. Those are government entitlement funds, handed out and mishandled by the freepers.
As for a lot more companies, are they not freepers as well?
Face it dude. Freepers failed big time here. While its true that more than just the freepers also failed, it fails in comparison to what has been said about deregulation. Its dangerous to let freepers run around unchecked. Period.
Some practical regulation is needed if the government is guaranteeing their banks. Period.
FREEPERS HAVE FAILED.
Fri, 09/26/2008 - 23:22
#12
Well then Boan if I own a company that I drive into the Ground do I have the luxury of having Government come in and bail me out? Of course not, it goes bankrupt and the assets are sold off to pay the creditors. So these Banks, Insurance Companies, etc. fuck em. They made their bed now lie in it, why we have to bail them out and the ones responsible go on their happy way to do it again. My point is if they expect me to pay for their fuck ups they should be the first ones to pay period.
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 05:40
#13
Under historic bankruptcy law one of the trustee's first duties is the "look back" for 2 - 3 years to find where the assets went. That same principle should be applied here.
Example: according to a news talk show the other night, Lehman Bros. paid out $5.7 BILLION in bonuses to its executives last year. Under this principle a trustee/receiver would put that kind of massive transfer of company assets under a microscopic examination.
Seems American's corporate executive learned little from Enron beyond how to get the biggest bites before leaving a carcass for the rest to fight over.
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 11:01
#14
Exactly, BB.....
Boan??? Do you and the stoopid freeper mentality get it now?
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:18
#15
Do you know the difference between a corporation and a sole proprietorship?
A corporation is a separate entity that does not put the personnel of the companies private assets at risk.
It's not illegal to pay the CEO huge amounts of money.
Now that they are in CH.11 I am sure the CEO pay will be reduced.
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:32
#16
Nice diversion Boan, I see you skirted -
Well then Boan if I own a company that I drive into the Ground do I have the luxury of having Government come in and bail me out?
But then again I don't have millions to buy any politicians
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:33
#17
Quote:
Do you know the difference between a corporation and a sole proprietorship?
No, boan. I used to be a sole proprietor. Any more silly questions?
Quote:
Now that they are in CH.11 I am sure the CEO pay will be reduced.
Freeper garbage.
I can show you MANY instances where that has not happened.
Quote:
A corporation is a separate entity that does not put the personnel of the companies private assets at risk.
WTF??? what does "the personnel of the company's(SP) private assests at risk" MEAN?
I can understand the company's assets, but the personnel?
Quote:
It's not illegal to pay the CEO huge amounts of money.
It should be when they don't perform. I'd love to be able to jerk off at work, then get a raise for it. I mean, what is your point here? You bitch whine and moan about government entitlement programs that aren't illegal either. Surely you must understand.
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 19:24
#18
Pagan wrote:
Nice diversion Boan, I see you skirted -Well then Boan if I own a company that I drive into the Ground do I have the luxury of having Government come in and bail me out?
But then again I don't have millions to buy any politicians
Yes you do. It's called bankruptcy. Chapter 11 just like Lehman Brothers. They come in and reorganize your business. Tell whichever creditors they deem to fuck off so you can get back on your feet.
mf wrote:
No, boan. I used to be a sole proprietor. Any more silly questions?
Doesn't mean you know the difference.
MF wrote:
Freeper garbage.
I can show you MANY instances where that has not happened.
Really!? Go for it! Show me.
When you get done how about tell me who is in charge of the company while they are in bankruptcy.
Bo wrote:
A corporation is a separate entity that does not put the personnel of the companies private assets at risk.
MF wrote:
WTF??? what does "the personnel of the company's(SP) private assets at risk" MEAN?
I can understand the company's assets, but the personnel?
I wrote it correctly.
"A corporation is a separate entity" - When a company incorporates it makes a distinction between the company and the people that run it.
"that does not put the personnel of the companies" - The people that work for the corporations.
"private assets at risk." - The people that work for the corporations money.
It keeps the CEOs, board members and employees from being held liable for the corporations debts if the company goes belly up.
mf wrote:
It should be when they don't perform. I'd love to be able to jerk off at work, then get a raise for it. I mean, what is your point here? You bitch whine and moan about government entitlement programs that aren't illegal either. Surely you must understand.
That was in response to BB comment about going back 1-2 years to see where the money went. Okay, so they go back and determine that a CEO was paid exorbitant amounts of money, it's not illegal so not much can be done.
No, it shouldn't be illegal to fail. You want a job jerking off and getting paid for it, go find you one. What a job as a CEO getting paid whether they fail or not, go get one, plenty out there right now.
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 10:33
#19
Quote:
Really!? Go for it! Show me.
When you get done how about tell me who is in charge of the company while they are in bankruptcy.
OK, you got me with your cheap semantics. These massive payouts happen prior to and lead up to chapter 11. I can show you many of those instances.
Quote:
I wrote it correctly.
"A corporation is a separate entity" - When a company incorporates it makes a distinction between the company and the people that run it.
"that does not put the personnel of the companies" - The people that work for the corporations.
"private assets at risk." - The people that work for the corporations money.It keeps the CEOs, board members and employees from being held liable for the corporations debts if the company goes belly up.
The personnel is definitely at risk within a mismanaged company headed towards chapter 11. They face losing their jobs come reorganization time, while the CEO's kicked kicked out with huge buyout payments. Please tell me WHAT is ethical in YOUR MIND about this. Just because its not illegal, do you think its right? I urge caution here as you know what my response will be.
Quote:
That was in response to BB comment about going back 1-2 years to see where the money went. Okay, so they go back and determine that a CEO was paid exorbitant amounts of money, it's not illegal so not much can be done.
No, it shouldn't be illegal to fail. You want a job jerking off and getting paid for it, go find you one. What a job as a CEO getting paid whether they fail or not, go get one, plenty out there right now.
How was I supposed to know about a two year old cheap response? You're getting desperate now, boan. A-G-A-I-N, DO YOU THINK THESE EXORBITANT PAYOUTS ARE RIGHT OR EVEN ETHICAL?
While it shouldn't be illegal to fail, it IS illegal to cover it up with fraud. GOOD CEO's have responsibilities to not only to their employees, but to their shareholders as well. They NOBODY should be REWARDED for failure. Rewarding failure is not being responsible to either to the employees or the shareholders, is it?
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:22
#20
MF wrote:
The personnel is definitely at risk within a mismanaged company headed towards chapter 11. They face losing their jobs come reorganization time, while the CEO's kicked kicked out with huge buyout payments.
It keeps the CEOs, board members and employees from being held liable for the corporations debts if the company goes belly up.
That means if the corporation has 10 million in debt when it goes under, the creditors have no legal access to the people that run the companies personal assets. They can't come in and tell the CEO he personally has to pay that debt. He could be a billionaire, the company be broke, they can't get his money.
MF wrote:
How was I supposed to know about a two year old cheap response?
It's not a 2 year old response. It was in this thread. Big Brother stated that an investigation going back 1 to 2 years would be done on these companies to see where their money went.
MF wrote:
Please tell me WHAT is ethical in YOUR MIND about this. Just because its not illegal, do you think its right? I urge caution here as you know what my response will be.
MF wrote:
You're getting desperate now, boan. A-G-A-I-N, DO YOU THINK THESE EXORBITANT PAYOUTS ARE RIGHT OR EVEN ETHICAL?While it shouldn't be illegal to fail, it IS illegal to cover it up with fraud. GOOD CEO's have responsibilities to not only to their employees, but to their shareholders as well. They NOBODY should be REWARDED for failure. Rewarding failure is not being responsible to either to the employees or the shareholders, is it?
I don't know how many times you want me to answer the same questions.
I started posting on this thread by saying that I have no problems with large CEO pay. Remember that?
Ethical? Sure. Everyone should strive to attain the largest amount of money for the job they do.
Are you going to do your job for minimum wage? No. You are going to get what you know your labor is worth.
If a CEO is found to caused loss of profit or other problems with a corporation they are usually canned. Sure they get their salary and any arranged benefits but so do all workers, even if they are a failure.
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:40
#21
Quote:
It keeps the CEOs, board members and employees from being held liable for the corporations debts if the company goes belly up.
That means if the corporation has 10 million in debt when it goes under, the creditors have no legal access to the people that run the companies personal assets. They can't come in and tell the CEO he personally has to pay that debt. He could be a billionaire, the company be broke, they can't get his money.
That didn't say much at all. I believe the question was:
Please tell me WHAT is ethical in YOUR MIND about this. Just because its not illegal, do you think its right?
Quit your dodging here and please answer the question.
Quote:
If a CEO is found to caused loss of profit or other problems with a corporation they are usually canned. Sure they get their salary and any arranged benefits but so do all workers, even if they are a failure.
What a crock of BS. All workers get a HUGE pay increase just prior to getting fired for poor performance?????
And you think this is right? I think it constitutes FRAUD.
Your hypocrisy supersedes you here. You whine about handouts for the less fortunate. You whine about entitlements. You think that is just plain wrong, yet uphold the rights of those who butcher their companies and do not serve their employees and stockholders. Nice work, boan.
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 13:32
#22
I bitch about THE GOVERNMENT giving handouts and entitlements because they have to take money from the citizens to do it. The government doesn't have money. Taking my money and giving it to someone else is fucked up.
Companies on the other hand owe workers 1 thing. Whatever was negotiated in their contract when they were hired on. If a worker decides that's not enough, go somewhere else and get better. That is the way the system works.
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 13:35
#23
While I agree with that, it does not answer ALL of the issues.
Do you uphold the rights of those who butcher their companies and do not serve their employees and stockholders???
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 13:51
#24
MF wrote:
I have a major problem with that as an ethics issue which has been circumvented by deregulation. This highlights the utter failures of the freepers and stands out as their most disgusting, number one, poster child. It is unchecked capitalism at its worst. That's not the trickle down effect that comes as advertised. Its an utter snub in the face of the American intellect.That means you, boan.
Interesting piece here --- WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged on Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street’s largest investment banks had contributed to the global financial crisis, and he abruptly shut the program down. The S.E.C.’s oversight responsibilities will largely shift to the Federal Reserve, though the commission will continue to oversee the brokerage units of investment banks. Also Friday, the S.E.C.’s inspector general released a report strongly criticizing the agency’s performance in monitoring Bear Stearns before it collapsed in March. Christopher Cox, the commission chairman, said he agreed that the oversight program was “fundamentally flawed from the beginning.”............
S.E.C. Concedes Oversight Flaws Fueled Collapse
[The New York Times]
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 14:02
#25
Thank you!
Not acting = deregulation.
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 14:08
#26
You have to have equal, sensible and logical rules applicable to ALL. Now regulation can definitely be extreme but you can also cannot have Anarchy. There must be a balance in all things.
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 14:13
#27
Understood. I also agree and you know I agree about having too much government interference. That can be just as dangerous. The key is having good laws that aren't sponsored by special interest groups. Having said that, I realize the utter futility of that statement as money and influence is what drives our government. 
I fully agree with you here. Financial organizations should be responsible from the top down and not from the bottom up. Something is really, really wrong here.