Obama Maximum wage

Except for the fact that none of this is true.

 

There's no max pay. And small businesses already do this - the owners determine the pay of its management. I find it amazing you're against business owners deciding how to run their businesses. That seems very un-American.

 

You don't seem to understand how capital structure works. Too bad.

 

Its only top executives, so TJ's argument is baseless. Its only for the firms that had the biggest need for bailout (don't know who's going to decide what firms these are) and they can still get paid through stock above the $500,000.

 

If the government buys tens of billions of dollars worth of preferred stock in my employer, it would have the right to do that, as an equityholder.

Do you understand that concept?

 

Who is deciding what?

You are stating that you are opposed to owners of businesses that are failing and had to get government support having to approve the salaries of it's top executives.

 

Sweet, so since I own shares of Microsoft, can I limit their executives' pay? bwa ha ha ha ha

What a pathetic argument, Sam. You'd think you would have some knowledge of how corporate governance and compensation structures work. But alas, you do not. I suppose this is the direct result of your job loss, your lover's departure (no doubt she caught the scent of a lesser stag), and your subsequent mental breakdown.

 

Wow unemployment has really got you down.

Here is some free legal advice. Corporations are governed by bylaws and by state corporate codes, as well as by federal law in teh case of public cos. Shareholders can propose bylaw amendments.

In any event, yes, as a small common stockholder of MSFT, you could probably try to get a "Say on Pay" resolution on the next year's upcoming proxy materials, providing at least for an advisory vote, if you complied with the procedures for submitting shareholder proposals (both internally under MSFT bylaws and according to state corporate statutes), provided the board decided to include your proposal on the ballot.

Alternatively, if the board declined to include your proposal, you could contest their subsequent application to the SEC for a Rule 14a-8 exclusion (a no-action letter request basically). If MSFT doesn't get a no-action letter from the SEC staff that says the SEC won't sue them if they exclude your proposal, then you better believe that they will include your proposal on the proxy materials. Alternatively in certain circumstances you could attempt skip that step and challenge it in court.

Finally, if you didn't want to bother with that, you could try to organize your own slate of directors and mount a proxy fight. I'd be happy to represent you - provided you pay in advance.

Of course this is not applicable to the Government's interest in Citi, which far exceeds/outweighs any possible interest you could have in MSFT. I believe the government owns $45B just in preferred shares, for a company with currently listed market cap of $19B - that's quite a bit.

 

Politics and economics aside, this is setting the stage for government cronies to take over executive positions in all the Banks we are going to nationalize. In short, the government practically getting rid of all the CEOs without actually firing them.

The government has been running this mockery for a while now, couple of years ago all the Oil Execs were dragged to DC and spanked for their huge profits and high compensation. This is no different, when a guy makes a million bucks, he makes it cause shareholders and board of directors are willing to pay them for it.

Market dictates what the value of labor is and these so called "greedy" bank executives are making no more than the average salary for all executives throughout various industries. Some of these failed CEOs will just leave the banks and move on to other companies and still make millions. Thats just the nature of the business. However, government restriction will almost guarantee that no one will stick around when they can easily make more money elsewhere. Watch for this, "$1 a year" cronies take over to fool the country into believing they are only trying to help and fix things.

Yeah people will complain this is taxpayer money this time around so we need to cap the salaries. People this isn't about money its about POWER and who gets to run the banks from here on. A few months from now the real hands of government will be shown when a Bank Czar is named to take over the entire financial industry. So we'll have an Automobile Czar, a Health care Czar and now a Bank Czar.

 

Is that really true or are you just saying it here?

 

You are forgetting that the govt. doesn't have to have a say in how any bank is run, or how much the ceo can make. The banks don't have to take bail out money.

 

Salaries aren't being capped. Not surprising - another person whining without actually knowing anything about what the rule says or does.

 

It's pretty amazing. I guess people just hear what they want to hear and toss facts out the window. Sort of like proposing massive government spending cuts as a form of demand stimulus.

 

Perhaps you weren't invited to lunch by Henry Paulson on 10/13/2008?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/business/economy/15bailout.html

 

This policy doesn't apply to any previous bailout money - only money distributed going forward. Again, know the policy before attacking it.

 

"The new rules on executive compensation announced by the White House moments before Obama's speech include a cap on salaries for executives companies that receive "exceptional" government aid".

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200902041405DOWJONESDJONLINE000682_FORTUNE5.htm

 

First, I don't think the second part of your sentence is true. If so, please provide a link.

Second, the first part may be true in theory, but in actuality the market has been manipulated by the very same people who are pleased to know that you think they are fairly compensated.