jewpac42

iTrader: (5)

This mess will get sorted out, it will take some time, but things will return to normal. Its is part of the ebb and flow of the market, and with a lot of manipulation on behalf of shady executives the inevitable downturn has hit us a lot harder and more suddenly than expected.

psoper

Oh I understand just fine how large corporations work, I'd say you are the one who- despite "working in the industry" -does not understand how wealth is created, I think that is one of the major problems with this whole system- people who do not know what "work" means assigning insane values to people for little more than being lucky, and like I said earlier, its one thing to pay these levels of compensation when a company is successful, but when its failing and losing millions per day- those executives should be out on the street or in jail, not raking in severance packages that exceed a lot of countries GNP's

I never said these guys aren't valuable, just that NOBODY is 10 million per year valuable.

Those dollars have to come from somewhere....

psoper

The only way the mess will get sorted is if shareholders and boards get realistic about executive compensation (I don't see any signs of that happening for reasons you have outlined implicitly) and if genuine legal regulations come back into force with real enforcement behind them, which I also don't see anywhere on the horizon.

If Paulson were to get his blank check that would essentially be rewarding everyone who screwed up and provide zero incentive for them not to continue with business as usual.

jewpac42

iTrader: (5)

Explain to me how Ellison or Gates "got lucky"

I never said the executives of failing companies deserve the kind of dough they are getting in severance packages, but you made an ignorant blanket statement saying that all CEO's are not worth what they are paid. Most of the compensation of CEO's comes in the form of stock, thus their compensation is directly related to job performance.

jewpac42

iTrader: (5)

Paulson is a ****ing idiot. He and Greenspan are the reason we are in this mess.

psoper

I'm glad to see we can agree on that much.

Superglue WRX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pUSIjdvTIY

psoper

OK so let me modify my "ignorant blanket statement" try this on for size-

Anyone whose company pays them more than 50 times what their lowest paid employees get is being overpaid, so probably half of US executives are in that catagory.

OK I admit that is still pretty radical, but consider what Forbes was saying a couple years ago (from 2006);



'Threat to capitalism'

Too many incentives are wrong - most do less than they should to align managers with the interests of long-term owners by setting high hurdles and insisting execs keep skin in the game.

Too many companies continue to pay the top brass a king's ransom merely for doing decently - or for seriously screwing up.

How bad are things? Here's one wise man's assessment: "About half of American industry has grossly unfair compensation systems where the top executives are paid too much," says Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's partner at Berkshire Hathaway.

Florida governor Jeb Bush - a pro-market conservative - is even more blunt. Out-of-control compensation, he believes, is "a threat to capitalism."

Says Bush: "Large rewards for great results can still be attacked, but they're very defensible. But if the rewards for CEOs and their teams become extraordinarily high with no link to performance - and shareholders are left holding the bag - then it undermines people's confidence in capitalism itself."

The governor, whose $120 billion Florida pension fund is the fifth-largest in the country, is hardly the only appalled "owner." Some 90% of institutional investors think top execs are "dramatically" overpaid, according to a Watson Wyatt survey last fall.

In fact, ill will over excessive compensation is fast turning into a giant political problem for corporate America.

In a Bloomberg poll in March, more than 80% of Americans - evenly divided between the well-off and those making under $100,000-a-year - agreed most CEOs are paid "too much."

The commentariat on both the left and the right is foaming.

"In the time of the French Revolution," wrote conservative Bill O'Reilly of Fox News about the golden goodbye Exxon (Charts) handed its outgoing leader, "Lee Raymond and his $400 million pension would be running one step ahead of the guillotine." (Actually, Bill, only $98 million of that princely sum was the pension, but we take your point.)

(probably the only time you'll see me reference a quote from Bill O'Reilly)

psoper

Another perspective on it all:

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/executivepay06.html

sigma pi

iTrader: (6)

agreed im saying that he is important

he got them where they are today


damn it how come i majored in literature and sell car parts but im into it this much

jewpac42

iTrader: (5)

I agree executives are paid too much. I think a majority of their compensation should come in the form of stock which would tie their compensation directly to their job performance.

psoper

But in that model the incentive shifts purely to short term gains, because if your executives can pull a fast one and cash out while things are rosy- who cares what happens when the poop hits the fan? Take WaMu- 3 months ago their FAILING CEO got shown the door but with something like a 30 million golden parachute, and today JP Morgan bought my mortgage along with everything else on WM's books for the equivalent of about 1 cent on the dollar- who do you think is laughing all the way to the bank?

Paying in stock options should be a step in the right direction, but those options should be forced to be held, and again I'd say they need to be scaled in relation to the average worker as well.

In nearly every other civilized country on the planet- executive compensation ranges from 10-20 times average workers, in banana republics like Venezuela that ratio runs up to like 50 times but here in the US its nearly 500 times.

That is simply not sustainable.

sigma pi

iTrader: (6)

i completely disagree

microsoft started in billys parents garage
he wasnt getting paid then
he should be getting paid now

they were in the right place in the right time but you were just as able to invent stuff that would have made you over 10 mil a year

sigma pi

iTrader: (6)

psoper please dont dodge the swear fitler please edit

joltdudeuc

iTrader: (6)

I don't agree, only because I hate the stock market. The stock market drives companies to cut corners, abuse workers, ship offshore... The stock market is why we are going to hurt in the future. It creates the corporate system, it's drives these corporations to be cut throat for that bottom end, every penny is become shareholder wealth.

Companies cut corners, risking safety, risking quality, risking nearly everything, just to make that stock go up.

People are stupid. People "invest" in the stock market cause they think they can make quick money and they lose, most people lose big time. Only the wealthiest people know the system, know how to manipulate the system, know the ins and outs. How are regular, stupid folks going to get themselves out of it or play against the big players? They can't, and that's one way the Rich get richer and the rest of us get poorer.

The corporate system is to blame, not Greenspan. Yes, he set everything up for cheap credit, but these mortgage companies didn't have to loan out the money... They were making so much already simply from the sheer quantity of home buyers, the quantity of loans... but that's not enough, they allowed people, the same, dumb, stupid people, to lie about their incomes, and they knew it, and they gave out loans like samples at costco...

To blame any one or few people doesn't cut it, it's the corporate structure to blame. and this is NOT capitalism, you know that Kevin, you know it's not. It's pure manipulation of capitalism, it's hiding behind the protections given to corporations, and it's greed. Greed...