Banks Add 'Pay Czar Clause' to Contracts

Welcome to Obama's Amerika, Comrades!

Seems like common sense to me. Imagine you need a bailout next time and the fed won't do it because guaranteed comp is too high and you are the only bank that has not put these provisions in place.

Um, many of these banks were FORCED to take "bailout" money.

Um, most were not and would be out of business today if they had not received it. Fed offered it with few strings. Won't happen next time (if it comes to that).

"Um, most were not and would be out of business today if they had not received it."

Um ... those that WERE forced were among the biggest. And no, they would not be "out of business" today had they not received it.

> Um, many of these banks were FORCED to take "bailout" money.

Yes, looming bakruptcy is quite a force.

If none of them took it, you think any are still around? There probably isn't a goldman without the AIG bailout alone.

Thanks for answering the argument I did not make. All those who were "forced" to take it have had the opportunity to return it to avoid pay restrictions. Those who cannot repay it, forced or not, may be subject to pay restrictions going forward. I would have liked to see that as a precondition rather than imposed later, but in the end I have little sympathy for them.

all of this is clearly obama's fault--paulson was his puppet!!
nycmatt, you are so blinded by agenda

NYCmatt... r u the dumbest guy on here again. Every financial institution needed funding... Goldman Sacks/blankshooter and his bitchy wife might not think so, but if AIG went under the WHOLE F'n thing could've blown. I'll say it again, when the storm of the century off LI was within 100 miles of the coast, the gov't emergently sold hurricane insurance to the beachfront owners and built a retaining wall. Now the storm has passed and the gov't is saying since you have our insurance let's set up set-backs, building limitations and public beach access...... then all the beachfront homeowners are saying fuck you! Herez your insurance papers back! LMAO

Yeh, what nyc10022 said!

w67th street. Your argument boils down to if the government hadn't bailed out AIG then there wouldn't be any economy and we'd all be dressed in rags. This logic then requires all financial institutions to bow down and pay homage to the government and accept whatever ill-conceived populist nonsense the government chooses to impose. Why not go a step further and state that every single person in the country owes their continued existence to the benvelence of the state and that we should declare capitalism dead and welcome our new communist overlords who will tell us how much we can earn, spend and what color our solar powered cars should be.

smallmj: You forgot to mention the death panels and how we will soon be a province of Kenya.

two wrongs don't make it right. shitybank should be bankrupt and gov should stay the f out of bailouts AND pay regulations. but that's all in the past, now that they in they will not leave for a very long time

LMAO.... small michael jackson... ever hear of FDIC? as long as the citizenary is the final back-stop in this financial mkts, the people have a say... I used to work in banking and there used to be consequences for not getting principal back.. do you get that?

yeh, the gov't "limited" my wife's compensation as a fellow, but that's okay b/c it's in the interest of society to have well trained non-money greedy doctors but banking/professional sports.... f'ck that's one huge benefit to society, no?

come smallmj... you gotta be smarter than that, where's your moral compass?

the gov't is only saying let's align compensation to the LT results and not paper flipping that brought us here? That's sounds as reasonable as saying, no new buildings will be built closer than 1/2 from the coast? I think all the Miami condos that can't get hurricane insurance should not be funded by us? u agree smallmj? I think they should self fund an insurance policy cause NO F'King PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL PROVIDE IT, BUT THE US GOV"T WILL.... they enjoy the beach block beach access and when shit hits... we the taxpayers come up with difference.... LMAO...

alanhart... great dirty sick minds think alike :) LMAO.... you I get!

"w67th street. Your argument boils down to if the government hadn't bailed out AIG then there wouldn't be any economy and we'd all be dressed in rags. This logic then requires all financial institutions to bow down and pay homage to the government and accept whatever ill-conceived populist nonsense the government chooses to impose."

Well, that is how democracy works. Sure, we'll do some dumb things.

But, the banks have nothing to complain about... they had their lives saved, and complaining that things aren't "fair" is ludicrous.

"Why not go a step further and state that every single person in the country owes their continued existence to the benvelence of the state and that we should declare capitalism dead and welcome our new communist overlords who will tell us how much we can earn, spend and what color our solar powered cars should be."

This couldn't be anything other than a wacky analogy unless every citizen's day to day routine put the country at risk.

Until that happens, not really an insightful comparison.

We do have some pretty significant laws around the handling of nuclear waste, don't we?

"the gov't is only saying let's align compensation to the LT results and not paper flipping that brought us here? That's sounds as reasonable as saying, no new buildings will be built closer than 1/2 from the coast? I think all the Miami condos that can't get hurricane insurance should not be funded by us? u agree smallmj? I think they should self fund an insurance policy cause NO F'King PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL PROVIDE IT, BUT THE US GOV"T WILL.... they enjoy the beach block beach access and when shit hits... we the taxpayers come up with difference.... LMAO... "

well put, w67.

When someone pulls out wacky hyperbolic analogy, I guess the point is pretty well made.

if banks failed (and they should have), capitalist system would survive.. that it wouldn't was bs sold to public to justify more regulation. real reason is that asians told them that if they didn't dollar would be kaput.

If you have a system whose ultimate backstop is the government, then the government has a right - and need - to regulate it. Look at Merrill Lynch - CEO gets millions for running the bank into the ground, and no clawback. Multibillion dollar bill for the taxpayer, and E. Stanley O'Neal makes out like a bandit.

Sound fair?

No. Not even reasonable.

Ditto AIG, and all the rest. They got paid enormous amounts of money to take on risks they didn't understand, then got paid enormous amounts of money to get fired. Please. When you have an industry so out of control in terms of compensation and risk management, there is no choice but to regulate it.

True - Trader A might make hundreds of millions THIS year, but he might lose it all next.

so individuals made stupid decisions about their own risk management and bought houses they couldn't afford and did a cash out to award themselves more -- government should regulate how they buy houses also, right?

who cares whether they took or were forced to take money. do we want any chance of a repeat performance? i vote no. how can more than 25% of our economy revolve around moving pieces of paper around? um (to quote brilliant matt), it can't.

no, they should regulate how much leverage a bank can have. and in terms of loans that are being bought by the government, absof'nglutely. don't buy a loan that doesn't meet certain underwriting standards.

but wait, then the housing market might self-correct. can't have that. let's give lots more people subprime loans and deal with it in a couple of years.

"government should regulate how they buy houses also, right?"

It does. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae do EXACTLY that.

"Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae do EXACTLY that."
i rest my case on need for more government regulation

You can rest your case, se10024, but before government guaranties there was virtually NO owner-occupied housing in the US. So fine, I agree: let's get rid of ALL government guaranties. You know what will happen to real estate prices?

They will collapse.

"If you have a system whose ultimate backstop is the government, then the government has a right - and need - to regulate it"

Steve, well put.

"so individuals made stupid decisions about their own risk management and bought houses they couldn't afford and did a cash out to award themselves more -- government should regulate how they buy houses also, right?"

Government already does! Even before the crisis. You don't think the government had a LOT to say about your mortgage. Hell, are you even forgetting the mortgage interest deduction.

If you don't think the government was ALREADY telling folks how to buy homes....

> i rest my case on need for more government regulation

Resting right after you lost... interesting.

not sure i did loose. point was government regulation was in large part what created the mess... he cited the totally incompetent fannie and freddy as example of government involvement
mortgage deduction should be gone as well. thing is -- government is here to stay and you will enjoy it for the next 20 years, have fun. continue arguing amongst yourselves

Fannie & Freddie worked very well until the Dick Armey Army of deregulators.

Here's a recipe for a depression: get rid of government mortgage guaranties AND the mortgage interest tax deduction, as well. Watch housing fall 80% in value as people have to buy in cash.

no, here's a recipe - debase your currency for 40 years so people think they have 'cash', and think they 'own' their houses. don't want to sound like some idiots around here, but you are boring, pls argue w someone else.

Bad regulation is not an excuse for not having good regulation.

In the case of finance and exposure to risk, government got that wrong and we burned.

Fannie is actually the example that DISPROVES your idea... government didn't mitigate risk, it created it with fannie/freddie and the subsidies.

Rolling back Fannie/Freddie is actually the parallel of rolling back financial risk through some additional regulation.

"don't want to sound like some idiots around here, but you are boring, pls argue w someone else."

Yes, its only the people with the best arguments who can't defend them!