Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones
No, Spence you don't get it. They are spending tax payer money to the tune of over $51 billion to keep this company going.
|
They've spent a hell of a lot more than that I believe when you factor everything in...
Quote:
|
Obviously, there is something wrong when the goverment has to spend that kind of money on a company that has been that poorly managed.
|
Obviously...Hey did you know about this recession?
Who do you think bought all those bundled sub-prime equities? This problem isn't all about them.
Quote:
|
Then to top it off, paying the CEO over $2 million in salary? Why not pay the CEO $1 and give big performance based incentives? Other CEO's in comparable financial services businesses have taken huge pay cuts and some have even stopped taking a salary.
|
There's a HUGE difference between an existing executive (who probably has mega stock options) making what in many cases is simply a PR move...and an existing organization trying to hire some real talent to help fix the mess.
Quote:
|
I don't see anything wrong with for pay for performance in a situation like this.
|
It depends on the long-term strategy. Some think that Fannie and Freddie are going to get absorbed fully by the government and cease to be private GSE's. If so that would change the picture dramatically. I'd note that his real base pay is less than 700K and a lot of the total package is bonus pay.
Remember, some top Execs have pulled more than 100M a year.
The net is I don't have an issue with competitive pay if the FHFA believes there's a long-term plan and they need the right talent to execute. You're not going to hire a top CFO for 100K a year and a government pension.
I'm not saying it's a trivial amount either, but in the grand scheme could be justified. Is it hypocrisy from the Dems? Not so sure about that...