Another CEO story...WAMU's CEO get's 13.5 million for 18 days on the job.

[Estrella]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: cambit69
theres nothing wrong with this. You pay money for the services rendered, its not the CEO's fault the FDIC decided to ninja Wamu. A good analogy are lawyers, you pay top dollar for them but whether or not you win/lose in court you still got to pay the fees.

I think the point is there is some bank exec out there that would have yielded the same operating result except he would have taken a $1 million pay package vs a $20 million pay package.

Hell, I would have happily run wamu to the ground for $500k salary.

re-read what he wrote

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Engineer
I know he wasn't responsible for the current mess with WAMU, but come on...13.5 million for 18 days on the job and he didn't save the compnay?

WTF?

Discuss....

There is nothing to discuss. Some people will take the money-and some won't. What kind of man are you?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...6sbQR2f7N9s&refer=home

Exactly. AIG CEO Robert Willumstad turned down $22 million severance payment because he didn't get to carry out his turnaround strategy in the 3 months he was there due to the takeover by the govt. He also felt the employees suffered enough.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Engineer
I know he wasn't responsible for the current mess with WAMU, but come on...13.5 million for 18 days on the job and he didn't save the compnay?

WTF?

Discuss....

Corporate America is Fucked up. I think the government is finally going to set rules for excutive compensation after this weekend is over.

It takes a crisis for change to occur..

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: JS80
lulz. wamu shareholders should burn him at the stake.

Wamu shareholder (like myself at one time) shoudl have sold everything off long ago. I sold at $19 and took my loss and moved on. Oddly, my portfolio is near an all time high right now.

Anyone that didn't sell before it got to the single digits should not be buying individual stocks.

Those that bought when it was under $10 deserve everything they got.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Engineer
I know he wasn't responsible for the current mess with WAMU, but come on...13.5 million for 18 days on the job and he didn't save the compnay?

WTF?

Discuss....

Corporate America is Fucked up. I think the government is finally going to set rules for excutive compensation after this weekend is over.

It takes a crisis for change to occur..

Terrible idea, and one more step towards socialism.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
I would love to see severance packages disappear. Why have them? It is basically dooming your company to failure because the CEO has no incentive to do well. He can easily say, "Opps, I screwed up see ya!" Leave with $30 million and jump onto another company and repeat. Rinse, lather, repeat. I would love to see all of these CEOs burn at the stake.

But if your company didn't offer them and someone else's did, they'd probably get the best CEOs interviewing for that job.

It's just like if a company you interviewed with told you that they've decided that the work you do isn't worth much so it's their policy to pay you less than other companies pay. Are you going to work there, or will you find a place that'll pay you the most?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Engineer
I know he wasn't responsible for the current mess with WAMU, but come on...13.5 million for 18 days on the job and he didn't save the compnay?

WTF?

Discuss....

Corporate America is Fucked up. I think the government is finally going to set rules for excutive compensation after this weekend is over.

That is impossible and would fly in the face of capitalism.

Workers will flock to whoever treats them best. You cannot put a limit on how much a company pays an employee. If one company sees that another company has really good workers and they want them, they can offer those employees more money to work there. The company they currently work at can match the offer or they can decide that those employees aren't worth that much. The cycle will continue until a point of equilibrium is reached, where employees are satisfied to make what they're currently making and there are no better offers.

Wamu knew they were in bad shape and wanted a leader who they thought could turn them around. They offered a compensation package to someone who they thought could do the job. 13.5 million is pocket change compared to the amount of money that person controlled. His decisions influenced $billions.

The company could have offered a package that didn't pay much and satisfied the general public that watches the news, but all the good CEOs wouldn't have even considered such a risky job for they money that they would have offered.

 

[AccruedExpenditure]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Engineer
I know he wasn't responsible for the current mess with WAMU, but come on...13.5 million for 18 days on the job and he didn't save the compnay?

WTF?

Discuss....

Corporate America is Fucked up. I think the government is finally going to set rules for excutive compensation after this weekend is over.

It takes a crisis for change to occur..

This will never happen. Maybe for companies that the government bails out, but not for independent standing companies.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Engineer
I know he wasn't responsible for the current mess with WAMU, but come on...13.5 million for 18 days on the job and he didn't save the compnay?

WTF?

Discuss....

Corporate America is Fucked up. I think the government is finally going to set rules for excutive compensation after this weekend is over.

It takes a crisis for change to occur..

Terrible idea, and one more step towards socialism.

Terrible for the free market perhaps, but if we're using taxpayer money for bailouts, those executives of companies using the taxpayer money need (and deserve) to have limited compensation, especially if they depart the company...period.

If they turn it around in a few years, sure, get what they can. Doesn't make it right, but get what they can.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Terrible for the free market perhaps, but if we're using taxpayer money for bailouts, those executives of companies using the taxpayer money need (and deserve) to have limited compensation, especially if they depart the company...period.

No good CEO would even consider that job then. They'd work someone else that offered them a better deal.

Your idea simply wouldn't work and isn't even valid in a country that isn't communist. And if you made the law nationwide? Then the employees would leave your area of juristiction and there would be a brain drain.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Engineer

Terrible for the free market perhaps, but if we're using taxpayer money for bailouts, those executives of companies using the taxpayer money need (and deserve) to have limited compensation, especially if they depart the company...period.

No good CEO would even consider that job then. They'd work someone else that offered them a better deal.

Your idea simply wouldn't work and isn't even valid in a country that isn't communist. And if you made the law nationwide? Then the employees would leave your area of juristiction and there would be a brain drain.

The company has a choice. Bailout money and limited compensation or no bailout with unlimited CEO pay. It's not legislated that they have to have limited compensation unless they take the bailout so do they have a choice.

I could care less if they can't get the so called (bullshit) "good" CEO's. Maybe someone that isn't "good" will step in at the restricted pay and become a true superstar instead of one of the good ole boy (board of directors, etc) network that we are running now.

Your idea simply wouldn't work and isn't even valid in a country that isn't communist. And if you made the law nationwide? Then the employees would leave your area of juristiction and there would be a brain drain

Like I said, they have a choice. They can take the bailout money with the rules or leave it and let the "free market" decide their fate. Nobody is talking about making the law nationwide...only for the bailout money. With that said, CEO pay is too fucking much and they don't deserve (or earn IMO) that much money, period.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Engineer

The company has a choice. Bailout money and limited compensation or no bailout with unlimited CEO pay. It's not legislated that they have to have limited compensation unless they take the bailout so do they have a choice.

I could care less if they can't get the so called (bullshit) "good" CEO's. Maybe someone that isn't "good" will step in at the restricted pay and become a true superstar instead of one of the good ole boy (board of directors, etc) network that we are running now.

Your idea isn't realistic.

The market operates at a point of equilibrium. These CEOs that everybody hates make what they do because that's what the market decided they're worth.

You're free to start your own business and offer them shit pay. Let me know how that works out.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Engineer

The company has a choice. Bailout money and limited compensation or no bailout with unlimited CEO pay. It's not legislated that they have to have limited compensation unless they take the bailout so do they have a choice.

I could care less if they can't get the so called (bullshit) "good" CEO's. Maybe someone that isn't "good" will step in at the restricted pay and become a true superstar instead of one of the good ole boy (board of directors, etc) network that we are running now.

Your idea isn't realistic.

The market operates at a point of equilibrium. These CEOs that everybody hates make what they do because that's what the market decided they're worth.

You're free to start your own business and offer them shit pay. Let me know how that works out.

Listen dude, I'm not talking about the so called free market pay...I'm talking about the bailout money and stipulations that go with it. It's part my tax money and I have the absolute right to voice my opinion on how it's spent and what rules go with that. The government might not agree (but in this case they will).

Simple: If the banks want the bailout, limited compensation (for a period) on the executives. They do have the choice of not taking the bailout and going it alone....let's see how well they do going down the "free market" road on that one.

One other point, the market = good ole boy network (board, etc). These guys make what they do because they populate each others boards and pat each other on the back (and pad the wallets). Free market robber barrons...at best. If highest pay = best performance, companies like Toyota and Honda would be well below Ford and GM, lol.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Listen dude, I'm not talking about the so called free market pay...I'm talking about the bailout money and stipulations that go with it. It's part my tax money and I have the absolute right to voice my opinion on how it's spent and what rules go with that. The government might not agree (but in this case they will).

Simple: If the banks want the bailout, limited compensation (for a period) on the executives. They do have the choice of not taking the bailout and going it alone....let's see how well they do going down the "free market" road on that one.

One other point, the market = good ole boy network (board, etc). These guys make what they do because they populate each others boards and pat each other on the back (and pad the wallets). Free market robber barrons...at best.

Your idea isn't realistic. Any CEO worth his salt would just leave and work somewhere else where he was assured higher pay. You'd run into a condition where there was a management flight as soon as the company started doing bad. All the good guys would leave and they'd have to be replaced by scrubs.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Engineer

Listen dude, I'm not talking about the so called free market pay...I'm talking about the bailout money and stipulations that go with it. It's part my tax money and I have the absolute right to voice my opinion on how it's spent and what rules go with that. The government might not agree (but in this case they will).

Simple: If the banks want the bailout, limited compensation (for a period) on the executives. They do have the choice of not taking the bailout and going it alone....let's see how well they do going down the "free market" road on that one.

One other point, the market = good ole boy network (board, etc). These guys make what they do because they populate each others boards and pat each other on the back (and pad the wallets). Free market robber barrons...at best.

Your idea isn't realistic. Any CEO worth his salt would just leave and work somewhere else where he was assured of higher pay.

There are only so many jobs around. I would just assume let them fail anyway as to take my tax money for the bailout. Don't let the door hit them on the ass on the way out.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Engineer
I know he wasn't responsible for the current mess with WAMU, but come on...13.5 million for 18 days on the job and he didn't save the compnay?

WTF?

Discuss....

Corporate America is Fucked up. I think the government is finally going to set rules for excutive compensation after this weekend is over.

It takes a crisis for change to occur..

Terrible idea, and one more step towards socialism.

Why can't there be rules without it being "Socialism"?

Your in the Military right?

You have rules you follow from the top, the Commander in Chief, by definition that is Socialism.

So why have Corporations have no rules?

Look what the no rules policy has done.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Engineer

Listen dude, I'm not talking about the so called free market pay...I'm talking about the bailout money and stipulations that go with it. It's part my tax money and I have the absolute right to voice my opinion on how it's spent and what rules go with that. The government might not agree (but in this case they will).

Simple: If the banks want the bailout, limited compensation (for a period) on the executives. They do have the choice of not taking the bailout and going it alone....let's see how well they do going down the "free market" road on that one.

One other point, the market = good ole boy network (board, etc). These guys make what they do because they populate each others boards and pat each other on the back (and pad the wallets). Free market robber barrons...at best.

Your idea isn't realistic. Any CEO worth his salt would just leave and work somewhere else where he was assured of higher pay.

There are only so many jobs around. I would just assume let them fail anyway as to take my tax money for the bailout. Don't let the door hit them on the ass on the way out.

You are complaining about your tax money going to bailouts but you want to institute rules that would make the companies being bailed out have to use inferior executives? Don't you think that would cause the company to do worse rather than better and take more of your tax dollars? I fail to see your logic.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: thepd7

You are complaining about your tax money going to bailouts but you want to institute rules that would make the companies being bailed out have to use inferior executives? Don't you think that would cause the company to do worse rather than better and take more of your tax dollars? I fail to see your logic.[/quote]

Just because they take people who don't get paid $20 million doesn't mean they will fail. Just look at the current group of overpaid CEO's and see the final results. Like I said, they have a choice. Take it or leave it. Whether they fail after they take the bailout doesn't effect the tax payer as we have already bought the bad paper. I'm not for bailing them out anyway. If you guys want a free market, make it free from rise to grave, period. If you want the government involved (bailouts), then take the mandated consequences and rules...or make it on your own. You can't preach for free market salaries and free market "non regulation" and then jump in when they fuck up and say let the government bail them out.

It's their choice and they can take it with the rules or they can go it on their own, period.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Engineer
If you want the government involved (bailouts), then take the mandated consequences and rules...or make it on your own. You can't preach for free market salaries and free market "non regulation" and then jump in when they fuck up and say let the government bail them out. .

I'm against the bailouts. I think that the business failed fair and square. No small business would get bailed out like that for its poor decisions, why should this be any different? I understand that when you get so big it has a greater effect on the overall economy, but the logic hasn't changed. They shouldn't get a dime.