Skip Navigation

U.S. slashes exec pay at bailout firms

Started by nyc10022
over 16 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008
Discussion about
>> U.S. slashes exec pay at bailout firms The seven companies that received the most assistance will have to cut the annual salaries of their 25 highest-paid executives by an average of about 90% from last year. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20091021/FREE/910219986/1097/newsletter
Response by Topper
over 16 years ago
Posts: 1335
Member since: May 2008

Kinda breaks your heart, eh, 10022?

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by nyc10022
over 16 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008

Oh, the pain. I'm all for folks eating what they kill, but taking the government's money and betting on black with it and calling that "earning" is just laughable to me.

Here is the yahoo coverage:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091021/bs_nm/us_financial_regulation_payczar_1

The total compensation for the top 25 earners at the seven firms will be reduced by an average of about 50 percent, the source said, speaking anonymously because the decisions have not yet been made public.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by cccharley
over 16 years ago
Posts: 903
Member since: Sep 2008

THis is only executive pay. So all the traders will still get their multi million dollar bonuses.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by Ubottom
over 16 years ago
Posts: 740
Member since: Apr 2009

I'm all for folks eating what they kill, but taking the government's money and betting on black with it and calling that "earning" is just laughable to me.

it's astounding what has happened

and im a trader...but i pay dearly for the capital and balance sheet i use, as i well should

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by nyc10022
over 16 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008

> THis is only executive pay. So all the traders will still get their multi million dollar bonuses.

Many of the high-paid traders are the execs. And, often the highest ranking folks are not the ones with the biggest pay.

In the end, the point is... the 25 x 7 biggest paychecks just got smaller. Given the concentration at the top, its not small potatoes.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by nyc10022
over 16 years ago
Posts: 9868
Member since: Aug 2008

> and im a trader...but i pay dearly for the capital and balance sheet i use, as i well should

And thats the way it should be.

If goldman plays with house money, house gets a cut.

In the old goldman spot, the partners had to worry about losing the assets they had in the first. As a public company, thats no longer the case. And they seem to like screwing actual shareholders (by giving them smaller and smaller shares of the pie).

But if the government is the one paying to allow you to make bets, the house needs to win.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by rangersfan
over 16 years ago
Posts: 877
Member since: Oct 2009

the gvmt got a better return on their "bailout" money to goldman and jpm than any other investment they could have made for the taxpayer. and i am sure anybody who has held goldman shares since the IPO is still smiling these days.....

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
over 16 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009

but...of course, Warren Buffet did a hell of a lot better than we did.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by samadams
over 16 years ago
Posts: 592
Member since: Jul 2009

many of my buddies work at these firms but I am going to say it anyway. They should be paid nothing this year. All of them at every firm from Goldman to Citi. Goldman would not be around if the we the tax payer had not bailed them out. Not to mention all the money GS has gotten to build there new HQ. I think its time to fry Goldman

Ignored comment. Unhide
Response by Riversider
over 16 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009

None of the wall street firms admit they are makin easy money due to zero fed funds. And are any of them simply bidding up collateral to avoid writing down legacy assets already on the books?

Ignored comment. Unhide

Add Your Comment

Most popular

  1. 16 Comments