Treasury to order bailed-out firms to slash pay! Cry, wingtards, cry!!!

Le Jacquelope

Loves Spam
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Posts
76,445
Teabaggers of the world, unite!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091022/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_executive_pay/print

Treasury to order bailed-out firms to slash pay
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger, Ap Economics Writer 55 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department on Thursday is expected to order seven companies that have not paid back last year's government bailouts to halve their top executives' average compensation.

The cuts apply to the 25 highest-paid executives at banks and other companies that received the most assistance, with salaries being slashed by as much as 90 percent, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Kenneth Feinberg, the special master at Treasury appointed to handle compensation issues as part of the government's $700 billion financial bailout package, is making the pay decisions. He is scheduled to release the details Thursday afternoon.

The seven companies are Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.

Elizabeth Warren, who heads the Troubled Asset Relief Program's oversight committee, said Thursday on CBS's "The Early Show" that reports of pending slashes in executive salaries are "real."

Smaller companies and those that have repaid the bailout money, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., are not affected.

Tom Wilkinson, a GM spokesman, said Wednesday that the auto company was "currently in discussions with Mr. Feinberg's office regarding executive compensation. We will have further information once those discussions have concluded."

GMAC has "been working on a proposal that aims at embodying the principles set forth for compensation along with balancing the need to retain critical talent necessary to execute our turnaround. Until we receive notification about that plan, we have no further comment," said Gina Proia, a spokeswoman.

Chrysler Group issued a similar statement. Representatives for Chrysler Financial, Bank of America, Citigroup and AIG declined to comment.

But company officials and lobbyists earlier this month said Bank of America, Citigroup, GMAC Financial Services and others were reworking their pay plans to ensure compensation reflects executive performance. They're giving executives more of their compensation in stock and stock options, and spreading pay over a longer period. They are also adopting plans to recapture some pay when bets go bad.

The changes are not limited to those on Feinberg's list. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. also are compensating senior employees with more stock and less cash.

In the AIG trading division, the arm of the company whose risky trades caused its downfall, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, the person familiar with Feinberg's plan said. The giant insurance company has received taxpayer assistance valued at more than $180 billion.

In an August filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, AIG disclosed that new CEO Robert Benmosche would be paid $7 million a year, with the potential to make millions more in performance-based incentives. According to reports from the time, the package included $3 million initially with $4 million in stock to be held for five years as well as performance bonuses.

As CEO, Benmosche's pay would be considered outside of the $200,000 average compensation for AIG's trading unit. But, according to reports at the time, Feinberg saw splitting the salary and future stock bonuses as a model because it tied compensation to the company's long-range performance.

The administration will warn AIG that it must significantly reduce the $198 million in bonuses promised to employees in its financial services division, the person familiar with Feinberg's decisions said.

The pay restrictions for all seven companies will require any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special benefits — things such as country club memberships, private planes and company cars — to get permission for those perks from the government.

Until now, these companies were only required to provide guidelines for the use of such luxuries. The inspector general at Treasury who oversees the bailout program found a range of standards. GM, for instance, generally prohibits employees from flying in private jets for business travel. Bank of America, on the other hand, encourages senior management to use corporate aircraft "for safety and efficiency purposes."

Feinberg's decisions come days after administration officials voiced sharp criticism of plans by some firms, particularly those on Wall Street, to pay huge bonuses even as the country continues to struggle with rising unemployment and the effects of the recession.

Goldman Sachs, which has paid back its bailout money, has said it earmarked $16.7 billion for compensation so far this year, more than $500,000 per employee. Citigroup is paying $5.3 billion in bonuses to its employees and Bank of America $3.3 billion.

Elsewhere, Freddie Mac is giving its chief financial officer compensation worth as much as $5.5 million, including a $2 million signing bonus. The government-controlled mortgage finance company doesn't have to follow the executive compensation rules because it is being paid outside the TARP.

Congress passed legislation in February requiring Treasury to oversee pay at companies that took bailout money. Treasury created the pay czar's office in June as one means of implementing that law.

Treasury's rules require the special master to review pay for the 25 top earners at companies that received "exceptional assistance," examining overall pay structures and recapturing payouts that go against taxpayers' interests.

Feinberg on Tuesday told a Washington audience that negotiating with the companies was a study in contradictions.

"Perfect metrics, competitive pay, no excessive risk, loyalty to the company," he said. "What I have to do under the law — and everyone's waiting" is to create compensation packages "reflecting those often conflicting principals."

Feinberg has until Oct. 30 to design pay packages for top earners.

____

Associated Press Writers Ken Thomas, Jim Kuhnhenn and Marcy Gordon contributed to this report.

(This version CORRECTS name in graf 5 to 'Troubled'.)
 
off2bed is going to off himself if this goes through. :)

I actually think the baggers and I see eye to eye on this.

There's widespread popular support for reigning in Wall Steet; it's just that on the right people see government collusion as the problem and on the left we see deregulation.
 
I actually think the baggers and I see eye to eye on this.

There's widespread popular support for reigning in Wall Steet; it's just that on the right people see government collusion as the problem and on the left we see deregulation.

Companies were obviously failing, and if they get a handout, there is a price. If the unregulated market dictated the outcome, AIG, etc. would be long gone by now.
 
Companies were obviously failing, and if they get a handout, there is a price. If the unregulated market dictated the outcome, AIG, etc. would be long gone by now.

This is actually one of the most fascinating political things going on right now. Who is going to end up owning popular sentiment over this bailout? It's downright weird when you see big rightwingers like Beck actually speaking out against corporations.
 
This is actually one of the most fascinating political things going on right now. Who is going to end up owning popular sentiment over this bailout? It's downright weird when you see big rightwingers like Beck actually speaking out against corporations.

It is weird. I also hear a lot about how the companies should have failed altogether without a dime of government money.
 
Oh, and by the way, Obama did bet the farm on this. If it should not work or get results when people expect it to, it will be bad for him.
 
It is weird. I also hear a lot about how the companies should have failed altogether without a dime of government money.

As far as that goes, we saw the difference between rhetoric and reality.

I was reading this book about Reagan that made an interesting point. The little guy thinks of all big business and all corporations as being sort of homogenous, united in some way. The truth is that there is intense struggle between elites. Reagan was backed by self-made Sun Belt millionaires who made their money in things like insurance and real estate and development. A lot of them hated the traditional, old-money, big Northeast industries like finance that made up the old Rockefeller GOP.

Rank and file Republican voters in the middle and lower classes are fine with laissez-faire talk until everything falls apart. Then you see a wedge being driven between the elites and the rest of the party. On the other hands, the Dems have their own troubles. The Geithner cabal is incredibly unpopular among progressives. Read Matt Taibbi's blog.
 
As far as that goes, we saw the difference between rhetoric and reality.

I was reading this book about Reagan that made an interesting point. The little guy thinks of all big business and all corporations as being sort of homogenous, united in some way. The truth is that there is intense struggle between elites. Reagan was backed by self-made Sun Belt millionaires who made their money in things like insurance and real estate and development. A lot of them hated the traditional, old-money, big Northeast industries like finance that made up the old Rockefeller GOP.

Rank and file Republican voters in the middle and lower classes are fine with laissez-faire talk until everything falls apart. Then you see a wedge being driven between the elites and the rest of the party. On the other hands, the Dems have their own troubles. The Geithner cabal is incredibly unpopular among progressives. Read Matt Taibbi's blog.

That I will do. It is interesting stuff.

And yes, you are right. There is rhetoric and reality. it is only a cliche until it happens to you.
 
I guess now you have to pay for free enterprise, and we lose some companys too.
Big business will now cut back their endorsments of politicians.
 
Companies were obviously failing, and if they get a handout, there is a price. If the unregulated market dictated the outcome, AIG, etc. would be long gone by now.
Along with the business credit market and a bazillion MORE jobs.

All on Obama's watch...
 
But, shouldn't they get big bonuses?

After all, they were able to secure Government handouts to keep their failed companies afloat.

:p
 
Back
Top