Any bailout should have.....

I think there should be compensation limitations for ALL companies, not just the ones that accept government assistance. It is execrable that executives make hundreds of times more than the rank and file employees. There is no way those guys and gals add that much value to the companies they lead. The extra money should go to the shareholders and average workers, not to gold plated toilets.

 

Sounds good. They should also be required to divest their stock at pre-bail out prices. It makes me sick to think of Rubin & Paulson and gang making 60% today on probably millions of shares
of Citibank. Their moves to dregulate are what caused this extreme mess. This is not to say that the market does not go up and down at times.

After they pay it back than they are free to invest in Citibank.

 

Forget the executive pay, we need to make sure these companies change the way they do business or else they will be back for more money not too long from. The example of Citi is truly despicable that government essential guaranteed all their bad assets and will allow them to continue to operate under the same model without any major oversight or changes. Now Citi can sell these assets and put any and all losses on the taxpayers back to carry.

 

I'm less interested in the symbolism of executive pay than the companies being the correct size for the market and their products. I'd rather the companies make a better product.

Say if Ford were to come out and say "Mercury is dead, and every car we make will have an increasing amount of carbon fiber in it's construction from here on out. We will lead the world in making strong, light, cars affordable"

I could get behind that.

 

If there's someone out there that can really save GM, they should pay whatever it takes to get them.

 

I'm not with you. If there is a way to get executives to give back money they were paid for the job they've screwed up, I'm fine with that. But, if you say, going forward, you have to work for much less money at this company than you could command at some other company, you're going to get a lot of human capital flight. Why stick around to save the bank when you can be an exec at a healthy company and make a lot more money?

I think a heavily incentive-laden contract would be a better idea. Succeed and we'll give you 77 virgins; fail and we'll have your nuts! Unfortunately, a lot of incentives heretofore have not measured the right things and rewarded execs even when the organization does not have true success. So, we'd have to think very carefully about how it is structured (something Boards of Directors don't seem to be capable of).

Or, go with glynch's idea -- except the execs will leave the country entirely, not just their companies.

EDIT: Sorry, AndyMoon's idea. They were next to each other.

 

Exactly the problem here. Don't you want smart talent to fix these companies? And if so, how do you plan to get them if you're not willing to pay them?

 

And add getting rid of sports sponsorships as a qualification...

I'm sick of corporate ball parks. If this economic downturn does away with that crap, then it will have almost been worth it...

 

I agree that the OWNERS should have the ability to get rich. The guy who was hired as CEO years later is a far different animal.

 

I think the bailout should be to pay employees salaries and give additional change for a wiser way to operate in the field as well as restructuring the way the companies do business.

The employee benefits and salaries should be from the aid money even if the company goes under. That way the workers are protected. It wasn't their decision making that caused the problems.

Executives salaries and money spent doing business as usual should not come from bail out money.

That way the employees are protected as they should be.

 

Sounds like a communist country.

If the shareholders (owners) think that a person is work a billion dollars to make decisions, then more power to them.

I think if a company is to take govt bailouts, the top payed execs should have to take a pay cut.

 

Not to stake out a position on this one way or the other - but there's a ton of evidence that in the realm of CEO performance, there's no real tangible link between performance and compensation after the first 5-10mm or so in compensation (a few studies in the past which i am too lazy to link too now)- I mean most CEO's of large public companies work 24 hours a day anyway - it's basically hard to get more out of them and they are generally motivated by other factors (prestige, challenge etc) than that extra few million added on to the top.

 

Similarly the CEO's and small business owners and doctors etc. worked hard in the 50's and 60's when the top tax rate was 90%. They did just as good or a better job. So did the stockbrokers and heads of financial companies. There is a lot of propaganda regarding executive compensation and top tax rates.

 

You're combining running the company and owning the company. There is no doubt that if you were willing to take a risk, they you should be compensated. However, what risk are you taking if you get a job as a CEO of a corporation where you are getting a 7-8 figure salary, huge stock options, and a golden parachute. What risk is Rick Wagoner or Bob Nardelli taking?

 

Exactly big difference between running and owning.

I actually have no problem paying the CEO 50 million as long as the average employee is getting 5 million. The success of the company is not solely due to the CEO. And don't give me this crap about "attracting talent" i could probably count on one hand the number of people in the world who are irreplaceable. Unless the guy is another Einstien or something there is no way in hell he is worth 430 times more than the average employee. It's absurd.

 

No one deserves that kind of money.

Being rich has become the center of everything for corporate-run countries. The CEO of citigroup can confidently step up to a mic today and say that "this company will not fail because we are indispensable to the government of the United States."

Is that acceptable?

Should've let them go down.

 

I don't understand the logic here. Who exactly do you believe benefits by letting them go down?

It's certainly not you or I, nor the taxpayers as a whole, or the US economy, or any blue or white collar worker or business owner in the US or around the world. As far as I can tell, the only people that would benefit from Citi going down would be the short-sellers of Citi stock.

 

Paycut?

How about no pay at all? Are these people really going to starve?

Why should any of our tax dollars go to some crook's yacht payment?