quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

Limit my earnings as a CEO?  What's next?  Controlling what I can earn as a [insert job here]?   

The government needs to get the heck out of controlling someone's income.    It is a decision by the company's Board of Directors, at that level.  And if they aren't doing a good job, it is time to get a new Board. 

No different than our Congress and President...we vote them in and in theory, can vote them out.  Even "impeach" them if they don't do their job ethically or legally.   We  are just too easy going (lazy) to actually do it properly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

Limit my earnings as a CEO?  What's next?  Controlling what I can earn as a [insert job here]?   

The government needs to get the heck out of controlling someone's income.    It is a decision by the company's Board of Directors, at that level.  And if they aren't doing a good job, it is time to get a new Board. 

No different than our Congress and President...we vote them in and in theory, can vote them out.  Even "impeach" them if they don't do their job ethically or legally.   We  are just too easy going (lazy) to actually do it properly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush


kdsub:
The Board represents the stockholders, the same way senators represent the voters.  A stockholder uprising is possible, just the same way a voter "uprising" could occur.   Just too many people are lazy, uninvolved or uniformed.  Or represented though some mega-shares group, such as a "fund" of some sort.
The Board answers to the stock holders...and often are significant stock holders themselves.  Which means they have their best (hence stockholders) interests in mind when they make these deals.

slvmike:
Agreed...the compensation limits if they go to the government should be straightforward.  No different than if I was, oh, I don't know, an olympic swimmer with a bunch of medals and a morality clause in my contract with Kellog's.  If I agree to a contract, and it include certain limits, then yeah, I accept them....in this case, compensation limits. 
But I don't have to have them if I don't take that contract.   And Barney Frank wants those limits to apply to businesses that aren't taking any government "assistance."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

I agreed with that...if they enter a contract with any entity, they need to abide by the clauses in the contract.   They do have a choice to not enter that contract, even if it means Chapter 11.  And of course, if they had existing contracts, such as CEO compensation, they need to be respected and altered before the new contract is in effect.   Otherwise, there is no need to respect any contract in the future.

But if they don't enter that contract, then they should be allowed to offer whatever compensation package they want.  The bank my son works at is actually thriving, not in trouble.  They avoided the risky business, and so are doing Just Fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crush

Limit my earnings as a CEO?  What's next?  Controlling what I can earn as a [insert job here]?   

The government needs to get the heck out of controlling someone's income.    It is a decision by the company's Board of Directors, at that level.  And if they aren't doing a good job, it is time to get a new Board.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

FR -

So let's say they're limiting Executive Compensation for companies that took part in the bailout.

What do you think will happen when they tell a financial institution involved in the bailout that they can't pay their executives more than 10%-20% of the going rate for executives in that industry? Well, their executives will jump ship for some other institution that pays better. What you'll end up with, is only the least qualified and least competent executives willing to work for those companies. At that point, these companies are somehow supposed to turn around and make sensible business decisions...despite having the worst leadership in the business?

.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

FR -

So let's say they're limiting Executive Compensation for companies that took part in the bailout.

What do you think will happen when they tell a financial institution involved in the bailout that they can't pay their executives more than 10%-20% of the going rate for executives in that industry? Well, their executives will jump ship for some other institution that pays better. What you'll end up with, is only the least qualified and least competent executives willing to work for those companies. At that point, these companies are somehow supposed to turn around and make sensible business decisions...despite having the worst leadership in the business?

The only way they can make such a restriction work at all is to do it right across the board...which is an asinine premise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Are you KIDDING?

Let me see!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Left with only the least qualified and competent to lead their companies?

How do you find someone less qualified and competent than the current executives that have made such poor decisions they put not only their companies in peril but the whole economy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

It sure sounds good, but appears to be nothing more than window dressing.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/sloan_sidebar.fortune/index.htm

Uncle Nasty

quote:

Are you KIDDING?

quote:

How do you find someone less qualified and competent than the current executives that have made such poor decisions they put not only their companies in peril but the whole economy?

quote:


Crush:
The Board represents the stockholders, the same way senators represent the voters. A stockholder uprising is possible, just the same way a voter "uprising" could occur. Just too many people are lazy, uninvolved or uniformed. Or represented though some mega-shares group, such as a "fund" of some sort.