Posted by (+3749) 14 years ago
So it seems that Obama is eager to make his mark known on Wall Street and has now capped executive pay for those companies receiving Government Welfare, excuse me, Government Bailout money.
Obama caps executive pay tied to bailout money
http://news.yahoo.com/s/a...cutive_pay
Some of the "Highlights" of the proposed legislation:
Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out.
How long "Several Years" is is still undefined and will more than likely contain enough loopholes to be ineffective. Regardless though does anyone believe that these guys don't have enough cash and stock that they can cash out now that would completely negate the "Several Years" clause?
Requiring nonbinding "say on pay" resolutions - that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation.
So with this we basically have people saying that they don't like the pay they get but because it's non-binding the executives are not really under any pressure or obligation to abide by it.
All in all this scares me as when I read it it amounts to Government intrusion into private business. Then again when these companies beg for Government Welfare does the Government not have the right to set limits on where that money goes?
[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (edited 2/4/2009).]
Obama caps executive pay tied to bailout money
http://news.yahoo.com/s/a...cutive_pay
Some of the "Highlights" of the proposed legislation:
Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out.
How long "Several Years" is is still undefined and will more than likely contain enough loopholes to be ineffective. Regardless though does anyone believe that these guys don't have enough cash and stock that they can cash out now that would completely negate the "Several Years" clause?
Requiring nonbinding "say on pay" resolutions - that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation.
So with this we basically have people saying that they don't like the pay they get but because it's non-binding the executives are not really under any pressure or obligation to abide by it.
All in all this scares me as when I read it it amounts to Government intrusion into private business. Then again when these companies beg for Government Welfare does the Government not have the right to set limits on where that money goes?
[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (edited 2/4/2009).]