http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3 More than 2,000 non-executive senior managers at the two firms were paid over $200,000 in 2011, The Wall Street Journal reports, citing a new report from the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Among those senior managers, the median pay of vice presidents was $388,000 while 1,650 "directors" had a median income of $205,300. Other findings in the report: •The top 90 executives at the two firms took home a combined $92 million last year. •The median pay for 23 executive vice presidents was $1.7 million. •The median pay for 62 senior vice presidents was $723,500.
I guess the really interesting question here is not how much they were paid or should be paod by their employer, but how much they paid in taxes. That might be eye-opening.
As completely failed institutions that have been the biggest loser by far in this financial crisis (whereas TARP actually made money and AIG probably will as well) it deserves scrutiny that average Executive VP's are making 1.7 million a year and 62 people making over $700k a year. Many government agencies continue to have increases year over year and don't take into account that salaries are deflating and its becoming more evident that government jobs are becoming higher paid along with the significant security and benefits associate with government service. Whereas private firms are quick to react with lowering pay and understanding the supply demand contraints of the marketplace, the government or gse's are not.
For the most part, in regards to salary, you're pretty clueless about state government agencies in Texas. http://www.tpea.org/legislation/salary_increases
Apparently, you are also pretty clueless about federal pay as well. Considering they have been frozen for two years and the freeze was extended in August. Obama: extend pay freeze until budget passed President Obama today called on Congress to extend federal employees’ pay freeze until lawmakers pass a fiscal 2013 budget. In his letter to congressional leaders, which the White House released Tuesday evening, Obama said “Congress should maintain current pay rates during the period of the continuing resolution.” Obama said he still supports a 0.5 percent pay raise for employees in 2013, but said in his letter that the raise should only take effect after the continuing resolution expires. ... Carry on...
Rashmon, So freezing pay until the 2013 budget is passed when the entire private industry has 8+ % unemployment and salaries are deflating is your idea of shared sacrifice?? WTF are you talking about? Certain fields like banking, finance and law and other industries have jobs eroding and salaries tumbling and you think its hard because government is freezing salaries until the 2013 budget is passed? You must work for the government lol. Sorry if i was attacking your piggy bank.
I think he was simply pointing out that you had no idea what you were talking about when you made this silly claim: Many government agencies continue to have increases year over year
That's a great - where is your comparable then? Bear in mind, Fannie Mae is the 8th largest company in America with > 100 billion in yearly revenue. Surely you can provide us some data that shows that a more frugal set up prevails at its peers like Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, etc. What do you think the proper salary range is? Perhaps you can get hired on as a benchmarking consultant when you have finished compiling the requested information.
Fannie and Freddie are political nests of appointees, politicians and others and is extremely political. That there hasn't been more vilification of their role in this mess is telling and you government lovers here vilify every business and yet Fannie/Freddie get special treatment when they were the biggest government losers. When the government has its hands in these companies they seem to be beyond reproach yet private businesses are attacked.
His chart shows increases in 2008, 2009 and a lack of a .5% increase this year until the 2013 budget it set. Which means year over year over year increases in wages and especially wages relative to falling private wages.
There are no political appointees - it's a public company; the board of directors hires the officers. The current CEO came over from BOA and Deutshce Bank. The Chairman came from Ernst & Young. You appear to be the one demanding that Fannie Mae exercise some sort of special non-market based treatment by imposing wage ceilings rather than act as a private entity in a competitive marketplace. Do you really want your taxpayer obligations to prop up FNMA under civil servants operating under the civil pay scale? You appear to be arguing that FNMA is a socialist nest of layabouts, yet you also think it shouldn't be able to act like a private employer and artificially depress wages - I suggest you pick a less laughably absurd position.
And one for the road - it was your idea of shared sacrifice in 2010 in which you thought this was a splendid idea.
The pay freeze has been in effect for the last 3 years - yet you claim that wages are rising in the government sector year over year. And according to that chart, no pay increases for 12 of the last 21 years at the federal government level - many of those during a booming economy where wages were rising in the private sector.
I think they are being paid too much. What should they be paid? I'm not sure... less. I don't think this is just a Fannie/Freddie issue. Executive compensation is too high across the board, and not sufficiently tied to performance.
To clarify, the original chart is state of Texas pay, not federal. Rocketmanbornin1981 is unable to admit that his paradigm of "yearly increasing government salaries" has no basis in the reality of government agency funding in the last twenty-something years.
People here obviously have little ideas about how executive compensation is paid and how its very poor in public companies as well. The use of compensation consultants, lack of pay for performance culture and in light of Fannie/Freddie's over $100 billion LOSS on US taxpayers, should we really not be scrutinizing thousands of highly paid executives in a company that is very politically connected and has cost every American $400. Corporate America is full of bloated ranks of thousands of overpaid people but thats their shareholders problem. Now that its a loser to the American people, it needs to be efficient which when looking at these bloated ranks of executives for a company that is losing so much money, it should be scrutinized. Why all you people give Fannie and Freddie a pass is beyond me.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42921 The CBO study reflects the narrowing of pay and benefits of government versus private workers. This doesn't take into consideration the significant job security with the government and the significantly easier work schedules as compared with the private sector.
No one is giving them a pass and there is probably general agreement that there are many overpaid people at Fannie and Freddie. If I recall several Fannie Mae execs were charged with fraud, no? I simply corrected your error in assuming that because some people are overpaid, that governmental salary schedules are on some sort of hyperbolic escalatory projection. Not true.
