More hypocracy from the Dems - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

fishbones · 10-03-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

Considering a lot of top CEO's make 50M+ a year, a pawltry 2.3M a year for a top executive isn't that crazy.

There's a line between competitive compensation and over compensation.

-spence

How many CEO's working for government controlled businesses make that much?

buckman · 10-03-2009, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones

How many CEO's working for government controlled businesses make that much?

Not as many now as we will have in three more years

spence · 10-03-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones

How many CEO's working for government controlled businesses make that much?

I believe both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are still public companies, just that the FHFA is acting as conservator. That being the case, they are not really government entities and are in a somewhat unique position.

-spence

fishbones · 10-03-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

I believe both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are still public companies, just that the FHFA is acting as conservator. That being the case, they are not really government entities and are in a somewhat unique position.

-spence

Unique position in that they can still claim to be private companies, but they have the government to print money for them to stay afloat.

Spence, do yourself a favor and read Jimmy's initial post so you won't look so ill-informed when you start responding with your lib talking points.

Just because you have a thing for Barney Frank doesn't mean you have to defend him to the end.

spence · 10-03-2009, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones

Spence, do yourself a favor and read Jimmy's initial post so you won't look so ill-informed when you start responding with your lib talking points.

Please, I read his post and agree with the FHFA.

Did you read it? Because you don't seem to understand what it said.

I think RIJIMMY is just perturbed that the government under Obama's leadership didn't offer up a fat minimum wage package as part of their socialistic agenda. He has nothing to bitch about so he has to make something up.

-spence

fishbones · 10-03-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

Please, I read his post and agree with the FHFA.

Did you read it? Because you don't seem to understand what it said.

I think RIJIMMY is just perturbed that the government under Obama's leadership didn't offer up a fat minimum wage package as part of their socialistic agenda. He has nothing to bitch about so he has to make something up.

-spence

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. Obviously, there is something wrong when the goverment has to spend that kind of money on a company that has been that poorly managed. 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. I don't see anything wrong with for pay for performance in a situation like this.

spence · 10-03-2009, 10:53 AM

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...

fishbones · 10-03-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Is this because they've done such a great job at hiring "real talent" in the past?