Obama doesn't want you to succeed

[spidey07]

More signs of the communist Mr. Obama really is. "oh, you're making too much money - let's limit that". This is very dangerous thinking from this guy. More gubment interference, more regulation, more we need to limit how one can succeed in America. Does the young senator not know that you can already vote at shareholder meetings and most compensation adjustments are given a vote as well? Or will he continue to use class envy as a means to drum up the masses for hope and change.

?If you?re successful, you should be rewarded. But if you?re a Wall Street CEO today, it doesn?t seem to matter whether you?re doing a good job or a bad job for your shareholders and workers: You?ll be rewarded either way,? Obama said in prepared remarks. He lauded McCain?s recent show of disgust with executive pay, but criticized him for not supporting the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, which would give shareholders the chance to signal their displeasure with executive pay with a nonbinding vote. ?When he?s had the chance to do something about this problem, he?s opted for continuing the do-nothing approach of the Bush years,? Obama said."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...des-mccain-on-ceo-pay/

 

[Atreus21]

I don't think he's communist. I think he's uninformed.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Obama doesn't want you to succeed
Topic Summary: Tries bill to limit capitalism/CEO pay


More signs of the communist Mr. Obama really is. "oh, you're making too much money - let's limit that". This is very dangerous thinking from this guy. More gubment interference, more regulation, more we need to limit how one can succeed in America. Does the young senator not know that you can already vote at shareholder meetings and most compensation adjustments are given a vote as well? Or will he continue to use class envy as a means to drum up the masses for hope and change.

?If you?re successful, you should be rewarded. But if you?re a Wall Street CEO today, it doesn?t seem to matter whether you?re doing a good job or a bad job for your shareholders and workers: You?ll be rewarded either way,? Obama said in prepared remarks. He lauded McCain?s recent show of disgust with executive pay, but criticized him for not supporting the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, which would give shareholders the chance to signal their displeasure with executive pay with a nonbinding vote. ?When he?s had the chance to do something about this problem, he?s opted for continuing the do-nothing approach of the Bush years,? Obama said."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...des-mccain-on-ceo-pay/

Please show who this "You" is

 

[Genx87]

Edit: After reading the story. This is just a feel good measure that means nothing. A non-binding vote does absolutely nothing in terms of actually limiting CEO pay. It is truely a definition of do nothing pandering.

 

[BeauJangles]

Legislating this problem isn't the right way to go about it, but it is absolutely ridiculous that guys can come into a company, run it into the ground, then be given a $40 million dollar compensation package by the board for their good work.

 

[Starbuck1975]

?If you?re successful, you should be rewarded. But if you?re a Wall Street CEO today, it doesn?t seem to matter whether you?re doing a good job or a bad job for your shareholders and workers: You?ll be rewarded either way,? Obama said in prepared remarks.

I typically vote Republican, but I see nothing wrong with this statement.

In a merit based society, it makes sense that leaders should benefit from success, and face the consequences for failure.

Obama is observing that recent trends suggest that CEOs, particularly in the investment industries, walk away with ludicrous salaries regardless of whether or not they are successful in leading their companies.

The recent developments in the sub-prime lending industry should be a clear indicator that there is something wrong with this equation...look at the corporate leadership of Countrywide, who helped to create the foreclosure crisis, and who are now out building new companies that will benefit from the very crisis they helped to create.

Not sure I will agree with how Obama will address this problem, but I agree with his assertion that there is a problem.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Legislating this problem isn't the right way to go about it, but it is absolutely ridiculous that guys can come into a company, run it into the ground, then be given a $40 million dollar compensation package by the board for their good work.

What?

Apparently the OP and other posters in here do it all the time.

Why would you take their livelyhoods away? That's un-American isn't it?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Why do you all hate the free market, capitalistic society so much?

If you actually would have taken the time to click the link and read after your knee hit the desk and before you typed your responses (OP) you have have read:

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama renewed his push for legislation that would require corporations to offer a nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation on Friday, days after Republican candidate Sen. John McCain lashed out against rising CEO pay.

So he proposes that instead of company boards being able to rubber stamp their own compensation packages that the investors actually get a say in where their money is going and you think that that is communist?

And just why should shareholders be on the line for paying out tens or hundreds of millions to a guy that has cost the company billions under their "leadership"?

Edit: Genx edited his response while I was typing so I will correct my calling him out. I agree that on the surface this looks like it is nothing more than pandering, but shareholders have a lot of influence when it comes to matters that go before the board. If there is enough shareholder push against some wildly undeserved golden parachute and the board goes through with it anyway, they are going to lose a lot of shareholders and that might make them think about it a little when reaching for that rubber stamp.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why do you all hate the free market, capitalistic society so much?

If you actually would have taken the time to click the link and read after your knee hit the desk and before you typed your responses (OP & Genx) you have have read:

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama renewed his push for legislation that would require corporations to offer a nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation on Friday, days after Republican candidate Sen. John McCain lashed out against rising CEO pay.

So he proposes that instead of company boards being able to rubber stamp their own compensation packages that the investors actually get a say in where their money is going and you think that that is communist?

And just why should shareholders be on the line for paying out tens or hundreds of millions to a guy that has cost the company billions under their "leadership"?

It's only "Communist" when a Dem says it, perfectly OK fro Republicans to say it.

Come on, get with the program man.

 

[Moonbeam]

The last economic expansion has left the middle class no better off than they were but the top 5% have had their wealth grow considerably. We are headed to a third world status of a few rich and many poor if something isn't done. If it's class warfare you want it's class warfare you'll get if this continues, but it will be the real thing, not this lame mantra of class warfare you've been taught to mouth. You brain dead idiots have been sold a poison pill.

The economy needs to turn it's attention to job creation that benefits many Americans and not just the few. We need to invest in infrastructure and energy independence, huge undertakings that can't be done by the private sector without government research and investment.

Go you communist Obama, bring us the revolution we need to save our nation from the pigs and wanna be pigs that have it in their grip. Free us from this system that serves the few.

Sweep those fucking worthless swine away. The rich who are real Americans will help you on the way.

Mites live happily in a cheese until it collapses. Then they wonder what happened.

 

[piasabird]

The owner of the stock has no rights.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

?If you?re successful, you should be rewarded. But if you?re a Wall Street CEO today, it doesn?t seem to matter whether you?re doing a good job or a bad job for your shareholders and workers: You?ll be rewarded either way,? Obama said in prepared remarks.

I typically vote Republican, but I see nothing wrong with this statement.

In a merit based society, it makes sense that leaders should benefit from success, and face the consequences for failure.

Obama is observing that recent trends suggest that CEOs, particularly in the investment industries, walk away with ludicrous salaries regardless of whether or not they are successful in leading their companies.

The recent developments in the sub-prime lending industry should be a clear indicator that there is something wrong with this equation...look at the corporate leadership of Countrywide, who helped to create the foreclosure crisis, and who are now out building new companies that will benefit from the very crisis they helped to create.

Not sure I will agree with how Obama will address this problem, but I agree with his assertion that there is a problem.

:thumbsup:

 

[Phokus]

So CEO's who tank their companies into the water and receive golden parachutes and large compensation = capitalism?

The OP is retarded. I think shareholders who have the power to punish executives for poor performance is the very definition of capitalism. If anything, Obama is not going far enough by making it non-binding.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus
So CEO's who tank their companies into the water and receive golden parachutes and large compensation = capitalism?

The OP is retarded. I think shareholders who have the power to punish executives for poor performance is the very definition of capitalism. If anything, Obama is not going far enough by making it non-binding.

Well shareholders can typically vote out the board that gave the CEO the golden parachute.
The disconnect comes from people owning such a small % of the company their vote ends up being dwarfed by mutual fund managers or people who own a majority stake. But as a shareholder these are the risks you need to weigh before investing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The last economic expansion has left the middle class no better off than they were but the top 5% have had their wealth grow considerably. We are headed to a third world status of a few rich and many poor if something isn't done. If it's class warfare you want it's class warfare you'll get if this continues, but it will be the real thing, not this lame mantra of class warfare you've been taught to mouth. You brain dead idiots have been sold a poison pill.

The economy needs to turn it's attention to job creation that benefits many Americans and not just the few. We need to invest in infrastructure and energy independence, huge undertakings that can't be done by the private sector without government research and investment.

Go you communist Obama, bring us the revolution we need to save our nation from the pigs and wanna be pigs that have it in their grip. Free us from this system that serves the few.

Sweep those fucking worthless swine away. The rich who are real Americans will help you on the way.

Mites live happily in a cheese until it collapses. Then they wonder what happened.

:shocked:

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why do you all hate the free market, capitalistic society so much?

If you actually would have taken the time to click the link and read after your knee hit the desk and before you typed your responses (OP) you have have read:

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama renewed his push for legislation that would require corporations to offer a nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation on Friday, days after Republican candidate Sen. John McCain lashed out against rising CEO pay.

So he proposes that instead of company boards being able to rubber stamp their own compensation packages that the investors actually get a say in where their money is going and you think that that is communist?

And just why should shareholders be on the line for paying out tens or hundreds of millions to a guy that has cost the company billions under their "leadership"?

Edit: Genx edited his response while I was typing so I will correct my calling him out. I agree that on the surface this looks like it is nothing more than pandering, but shareholders have a lot of influence when it comes to matters that go before the board. If there is enough shareholder push against some wildly undeserved golden parachute and the board goes through with it anyway, they are going to lose a lot of shareholders and that might make them think about it a little when reaching for that rubber stamp.

All compensation is public information for board members and officers. It's also included in the annual report. Shareholders do vote on said compensation. What I have a problem with is legislating it and obama using class envy to garner support.

 

[jonks]

It was my understanding CEO and other executive compensation packages are devised by the Board of Directors and are not challengeable in court by shareholders short of the 'waste' standard, which is extremely difficult to meet.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus
So CEO's who tank their companies into the water and receive golden parachutes and large compensation = capitalism?

The OP is retarded. I think shareholders who have the power to punish executives for poor performance is the very definition of capitalism. If anything, Obama is not going far enough by making it non-binding.

Well shareholders can typically vote out the board that gave the CEO the golden parachute.
The disconnect comes from people owning such a small % of the company their vote ends up being dwarfed by mutual fund managers or people who own a majority stake. But as a shareholder these are the risks you need to weigh before investing.

Hmm. Well in the reality that individual shareholders don't really have any say at all, and the mutual fund managers/etc are likely to be corrupt themselves, there's really no recourse. Not to mention corporate shenanigans affect far more than just shareholders. What of the employees of such corporations, who lose their jobs due to corrupt CEOs & Executives?

Also disturbing is this :

"The average pay for chief executives rose to 369 times that of the average worker in 2005," Josh Fineman of Bloomberg News wrote on January 4. That was "up from 131 times in 1993 and 36 times in 1976, according to a study by Kevin Murphy, a finance professor at the University of Southern California."

So, if the CEO gets paid 369x that of their average employee, that means that capital / $$ is not available for : hiring/keeping employees, investing in the company, R&D, paying the company's bills, etc, etc. This seems a bad omen for the economy overall.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus
So CEO's who tank their companies into the water and receive golden parachutes and large compensation = capitalism?

The OP is retarded. I think shareholders who have the power to punish executives for poor performance is the very definition of capitalism. If anything, Obama is not going far enough by making it non-binding.

Well shareholders can typically vote out the board that gave the CEO the golden parachute.
The disconnect comes from people owning such a small % of the company their vote ends up being dwarfed by mutual fund managers or people who own a majority stake. But as a shareholder these are the risks you need to weigh before investing.

Hmm. Well in the reality that individual shareholders don't really have any say at all, and the mutual fund managers/etc are likely to be corrupt themselves, there's really no recourse. Not to mention corporate shenanigans affect far more than just shareholders. What of the employees of such corporations, who lose their jobs due to corrupt CEOs & Executives?

Also disturbing is this :

"The average pay for chief executives rose to 369 times that of the average worker in 2005," Josh Fineman of Bloomberg News wrote on January 4. That was "up from 131 times in 1993 and 36 times in 1976, according to a study by Kevin Murphy, a finance professor at the University of Southern California."

So, if the CEO gets paid 369x that of their average employee, that means that capital / $$ is not available for : hiring/keeping employees, investing in the company, R&D, paying the company's bills, etc, etc. This seems a bad omen for the economy overall.

Like I said, when investing in a company this is one of the issues a person(shareholder) needs to weigh before investing. If you dont like the past compensation packages for current and departed CEO's. Then dont invest. But most daytraders or individual investors are either too lazy or dont care. Then complain after the fact. It is almost like they want all the benefits but none of the negatives when it comes to the financial markets. And they are willing to lean on govt to make sure they never get hurt.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

?If you?re successful, you should be rewarded. But if you?re a Wall Street CEO today, it doesn?t seem to matter whether you?re doing a good job or a bad job for your shareholders and workers: You?ll be rewarded either way,? Obama said in prepared remarks.

I typically vote Republican, but I see nothing wrong with this statement.

In a merit based society, it makes sense that leaders should benefit from success, and face the consequences for failure.

Obama is observing that recent trends suggest that CEOs, particularly in the investment industries, walk away with ludicrous salaries regardless of whether or not they are successful in leading their companies.

The recent developments in the sub-prime lending industry should be a clear indicator that there is something wrong with this equation...look at the corporate leadership of Countrywide, who helped to create the foreclosure crisis, and who are now out building new companies that will benefit from the very crisis they helped to create.

Not sure I will agree with how Obama will address this problem, but I agree with his assertion that there is a problem.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

 

[halik]

Isn't executive compensation voted on anyway?

 

[senseamp]

It is communist for owners (shareholders) of a company to have a say in how much of their money they want to pay to the CEO?
You gotta be kidding me.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why do you all hate the free market, capitalistic society so much?

If you actually would have taken the time to click the link and read after your knee hit the desk and before you typed your responses (OP) you have have read:

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama renewed his push for legislation that would require corporations to offer a nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation on Friday, days after Republican candidate Sen. John McCain lashed out against rising CEO pay.

So he proposes that instead of company boards being able to rubber stamp their own compensation packages that the investors actually get a say in where their money is going and you think that that is communist?

And just why should shareholders be on the line for paying out tens or hundreds of millions to a guy that has cost the company billions under their "leadership"?

Edit: Genx edited his response while I was typing so I will correct my calling him out. I agree that on the surface this looks like it is nothing more than pandering, but shareholders have a lot of influence when it comes to matters that go before the board. If there is enough shareholder push against some wildly undeserved golden parachute and the board goes through with it anyway, they are going to lose a lot of shareholders and that might make them think about it a little when reaching for that rubber stamp.

All compensation is public information for board members and officers. It's also included in the annual report. Shareholders do vote on said compensation. What I have a problem with is legislating it and obama using class envy to garner support.

Not really. Salary is public information, stock options and benefits are not. The salary for CEOs is usually pretty fair considering the amount of risk and decisions that effect the company as a whole. That isn't what is really being debated however and is never truly voted on.

Take this article about Countrywide's CEO.

Mozilo, who founded Countrywide 40 years ago and built it into the nation's leading provider of mortgages, saw his compensation soar during the real estate bubble of 2001-06. During that period, his total compensation ? including salary, bonuses, options and restricted stock ? approached $200 million.

He had planned to retire in 2006 but agreed to stay on for three more years after his heir apparent left the company. Countrywide's board reached out to a compensation consultant, Ross Zimmerman of Exequity, for advice on Mozilo's compensation package.

According to documents released by the Oversight Committee, Zimmerman zeroed in on performance targets in Mozilo's contract that seemed too easy to meet and suggested ways for the board to restructure the contract.

Mozilo bristled at the attempts to curtail his pay. According to testimony at the hearing, the board allowed Mozilo to hire his own consultant, at Countrywide's expense, to counter Zimmerman's suggestions.

In an e-mail shown at the hearing, the new consultant, John England of Towers Perrin, presents himself to Zimmerman as a second set of eyes hired by the company, "not by any individual at Countrywide." England says his firm will proceed "independent of influences" from either management or the board.

But in subsequent e-mails between England and Mozilo, it's clear that England's job is to fight back against Zimmerman's suggestions. In an e-mail to Mozilo on Oct. 20, 2006, England writes: "My primary unhappiness with what the Board has put forth is that it lowers your maximum opportunity significantly. ? That being said, given your desire to sign an agreement today, the Board's proposal is not unreasonable. It's a significant enhancement from what Zimmerman had the first time around."

Mozilo responds: "I appreciate your input. ? Boards have been placed under enormous pressure by the left-wing anti-business press and the envious leaders of unions and other so-called CEO Comp Watchers, and therefore Boards are being forced to protect themselves irrespective of the potential negative long-term impact on public companies."

A month later, Mozilo writes to England about having to pay taxes when his wife travels with him on the corporate jet. In order "to avoid extraordinary travel expenses," Mozilo complains that his wife "would have to travel commercial or not at all, which is not right nor wise."

At last month's hearing, Mozilo testified that he had "to pay an enormous amount, a substantial amount of money, to have her on the plane." But, ultimately, he conceded that he might have been making too much of a fuss. "In today's world, I would never write that memo," he said.

These are the things that are going on that never show up in a financial statement that are being protested by Obama's resolution to force boards to allow the shareholders to vote on.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Legislating this problem isn't the right way to go about it, but it is absolutely ridiculous that guys can come into a company, run it into the ground, then be given a $40 million dollar compensation package by the board for their good work.

What?

Apparently the OP and other posters in here do it all the time.

Why would you take their livelyhoods away? That's un-American isn't it?

Absolutely not, CEOs should be compensated for their time. It should be done in a responsible way though. Originally, the idea was that the board of directors would be independent of the company and thus able to make unbiased decisions. It seems to me that now everybody is on everyone else's boards and all they do is scratch each other's back with lavish salaries and ridiculous parting bonuses.

I have NO problem with a CEO earning top dollar. I have a big problem with it when it is financially irresponsible for the company and is only done because the CEO knows people on the board or whatever.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Legislating this problem isn't the right way to go about it, but it is absolutely ridiculous that guys can come into a company, run it into the ground, then be given a $40 million dollar compensation package by the board for their good work.

What?

Apparently the OP and other posters in here do it all the time.

Why would you take their livelyhoods away? That's un-American isn't it?

Absolutely not, CEOs should be compensated for their time. It should be done in a responsible way though. Originally, the idea was that the board of directors would be independent of the company and thus able to make unbiased decisions. It seems to me that now everybody is on everyone else's boards and all they do is scratch each other's back with lavish salaries and ridiculous parting bonuses.

I have NO problem with a CEO earning top dollar. I have a big problem with it when it is financially irresponsible for the company and is only done because the CEO knows people on the board or whatever.

Every now and then, I like to go to They Rule to be reminded how corrupt corporate America truly is.

It's amazing that as you said, how many board members sit on other boards with people that in turn effectively decide how much money each other will earn.