Stiffed

Posted by guest, Mar 07, 2008 1:23PM

Why are the CEO's testifying? The people who should be getting grilled by that walking penis, Waxman, is the boards of the various firms.

What is a CEO going to say? "Well, gee, you are going to offer me an absurd amount of money for mediocre performance? Fuck you and the future of my family for the next 200 years! Give me $1 mil per year."

Hell of a gig if you can get it.

-Nom me

Posted by Anal_yst, Mar 07, 2008 1:29PM

@ Nominate

Wait, you mean someone should ask Rubin wtf he does to rationalize a $20M+ salary? Nawwwww

Posted by guest, Mar 07, 2008 1:55PM

@ Anal:

I understand that the performance doesn't rationalize it. My argument is that the boards are 100% responsible for the insane salaries

He made out like a f'ing bandit because a bunch of old men on the board gave him the opportunity.

The point of my post is this, who can blame them? Given the opportunity to make out like Rubin, would you seriously tell them to hold off, I'm not worth that much?

Posted by Anal_yst, Mar 07, 2008 2:19PM

@ 1:55

I agree 100%, the fact that the boards approved pay packages that let executives get windfall profits even if the firm did sh!tty is ridiculous.

However, as you pointed out, what idiot would turn that down? The Executives that reaped the benefits of overly-generous boards shouldn't get the ire of regulators (at least not for that reason), butt as you point out, the boards themselves should be on the stand for breach of fiduciary duty.

Posted by BSD, Mar 07, 2008 2:24PM

You are both correct. Unfortunately, Washington likes to keep things simple (even if that's totally wrong) and pointing a finger at one person per company (even better if that person is easily villinified) is just that much easier for them. Plus people on boards often have close ties to lobbyists...

Posted by guest, Mar 07, 2008 2:26PM

Re compensation... I think of it this way: its fair to provide what it costs to maintain a CEO lifestyle for an individual and spouse now and through retirement. That would be nice first, second and possibly third homes (some combo of greenwich, palm beach, nantucket, plus a NY pied a terre), all well decorated. One or more toys, like some decent art or a boat. Plus some relatively inexpensive fillers like car, travel, jewelry and clothes. You could cover that earning $10 million a year (which doesn't sound like a really big number, but after-tax is $500,000 a month).

The sums being earned however are multiples of that. The excess represents a feathering of the nest: a way for kids, grandkids, on and on to live in that same way, without having to earn a living. In my mind the flaw in the system is that the standard has evolved from simply allowing the executive to live well to providing for he and his decendents for all eternity.

Posted by guest, Mar 07, 2008 3:17PM

2:26, That is what YOU think would make you happy. How do you know about others?

If I am a shareholder and want to pay a CEO obscene amounts of money because I think he is worth it - well thats it. He IS worth it. I dont see where your or Henry Waxman's view matters in that. Just like you should have no say on how much Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Julia Roberts make or sign endorsements for. Its not communism, remember?

Posted by guest, Mar 07, 2008 3:27PM

@3:17 I'd like to know the names of the companies in which you own shares for which you have a say re exec comp. The reality is that comp committees determine CEO pay, not shareholders. And the system breaks down when those committees fail to align their interests with those of the shareholders.

Posted by guest, Mar 07, 2008 3:57PM

@3:27,

As I said - I have absolutely NO need to tell you about the private transaction between me and my corporation. If I am unable to control aspects of it then it is my headache - maybe I should sell out and buy into a firm where interests are more aligned. All the same YOU HAVE NO STANDING ON THIS ISSUE. Even if you are also a shareholder, you have no control over what I (co-shareholder) do or feel or lose.

Neither does Waxman. If he is a shareholder, then he has the rights as described in the charter of the private corporation. He is using his Congressional powers like a gangster to interfere in matters that he fundamentally has no standing on.

Also, neither of O'Neal or Mozillo (dont know about Prince) are some regents or descendents of any corporate dynasty who somehow inherited the CEO's thrown. They are people like you and me who worked their way to the top. They must have done a LOT of things right in their 40 year long careers to get to where they did - notwithstanding the massice fuck-up at the end.

If you dont that is bullcrap, then I am hoping to see you become the CEO of some global corporation by year-end. Will you?

Posted by guest, Mar 07, 2008 4:01PM

Best quotes so far from today's congressional review:

"Punishing individual corporate executives with public floggings like this may be a politically satisfying ritual -- like an island tribe sacrificing a virgin to a grumbling volcano," Mr. Davis said.

Nell Minow, editor of the Corporate Library, countered that Mr. Davis may be overstating the virtues of the banking executives. "They are not scapegoats and they are certainly not virgins," Ms. Minow said.

Posted by guest, Mar 07, 2008 4:08PM

Just wait till Uncle Sam starts asking YOU why you make more than the bum on the corner and blaming YOU for the disparity of wealth in this country.

Thank god there were a couple rational politicians on that committee....a few of them were real boneheads trying to make a name for themselves.

I agree that they get paid too much, but Mozillo built that company from the ground up and deserves to cash in like any other entreprenuer that worked hard for 30+ years. Greedy? Ethically questionable? Would you really care in his position? I sure as sweet hell wouldn't.

Posted by guest, Mar 07, 2008 4:11PM

I guess what I was trying to say in my posts at 1:23 and 1:55 is that the ridonkulous pay packages are market driven. As long as there are goofballs willing to pay huge $s, there will be goofballs (myself included) willing to accept huge $s.

-Nominate me

Posted by guest, Mar 07, 2008 4:21PM

@3:57 You're not making any distinction between public and private companies. If you want to raise capital from the public, then you're going to be regulated. Simple as that. You don't like it, stay private. Similar argument applies to mutual funds vs. hedge funds.

Posted by guest, Mar 07, 2008 4:47PM

@4:21,

You are not making a distinction between private enterprise and government run entities. When a public corporation is formed, a charter is draws up based upon a regulatory framework and mutual consent of the shareholders.

Beyond this point, the interaction between the shareholders and their appointed management is governed a 'private contract' subject to arbitration in a court of law.

It is NOT subject to questioning or influence by external sources - be it you or Henry Waxman. And Waxman knows that. Even if ONeil were to say that yes he does not deserve this money buy will take it anyway, what do you think can Waxman do?

NOTHING. This is a PR exercise to stir up the masses (that would unfortunately be you) who know shit about private contracts and are neck deep in heady revolutionary socialist ideas. Once the masses are sufficiently up, then Waxman can pass some legislation diluting the strength of the private contracts and inserting the government (HIM) somewhere in it.

Also unfortunately, none of Oneal or Prince or Mozillo can ask Waxman to STFU. Because if they did, they he would use his 'influence' to make their future lives and careers miserable. Sounds very gangsterish eo me, if you ask.

Also, this whole thing is NOT about ONeal or whoever. they might very well be scum. But it is about abuse of power by the government.

Posted by guest, Mar 07, 2008 4:49PM

And 4:21, you clearly do not understand 'public companies' or mutual funds for that matter. So just because a mutual fund is 'regulated', does this mean that Nancy Pelosi can haul fund managers to a committee and force not to invest in Altria or Philip Morris or Exxon?

Posted by Anal_yst, Mar 07, 2008 5:48PM

@ 449

I'm pretty sure the lawmakers in Cali are trying to do something along those lines actually...something about the pension funds not invest in P/E firms owned by SWF's in any part, so whats next, should they not be allowed to invest in public companies owned by SWF's, which would eliminate the entire S&P500, as well as most listed companies. We really need to somehow stop the regulatory bullyism going on here, although how to go about doing that, uh, yea, um...

Posted by Matt_m, Mar 07, 2008 6:20PM

Anal_yst,

CA can regulate what their pension fund is invested in. That is valid - boneheaded (to use a term in vogue with libs of late) and bad for the people whose money the fund managed, but valid and legal nonetheless. The the pension money is in effect the state's (yes, it belongs to individuals ultimately but the state runs the plan) and the state sets up and appoints the pension fund. So the state CAN regulate what the fund is invested in.

All the same, if somone working in California has a 401k account with a Fidelity fund, then the state cannot (at least as of yet) dictate what that Fidelity fund is invested in.

But more socialists like 4:21 on, I am sure very soon the state will also regulate that. And how much you can earn. And how much you should exercise in a day to stay healthy. And how much TV you can watch. And how much sex anyone can have (to create 'equality' so that we dont have some folks getting laid multiple times a day and some not getting any action in years). And.......