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

RIJIMMY · 10-02-2009, 01:34 PM

I cannot wait to see this explained away. We heard how EVVIIILLL wall street, in fact I saw a preview for a nifty Michael Moore film recently. And lets not forget the angry Bahney Fwank protests against banking and finance salaries,,,,,,so how do you explain this -

The government-controlled mortgage finance company is giving CFO Ross Kari compensation worth as much as $5.5 million. That includes an almost $2 million cash signing bonus and a generous salary that could top $2.3 million.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Freddie Mac, approved the pay package. A spokeswoman pointed to a statement that justified the agency's approval of the pay, which was done in part because the amount was comparable to what others in the financial services industry make.

Freddie Mac is not just another company. It's alive today, and nearly 80 percent owned by the government, only because almost $51 billion in taxpayer funds were pumped into it over the last year. More bailout money also may be needed in the quarters ahead as losses from its troubled mortgages mount.

HUH????????? Are you OUTRAGED??????????? This is un-freakin believebable. Bahney?

RIJIMMY · 10-02-2009, 01:35 PM

51 BILLION in taxpayer funds

Barak Obama - worst president ever.

Can you possibly IMAGINE a federal helath care program!

PaulS · 10-02-2009, 02:17 PM

What would be an appropriate salary?

spence · 10-02-2009, 04:48 PM

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

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?

spence · 10-03-2009, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones

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

Certainly they've had major issues but I think the Govt. effectively cleaned house last year.

Hell, didn't the last CFO commit suicide?

-spence

buckman · 10-03-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence

Certainly they've had major issues but I think the Govt. effectively cleaned house last year.

Hell, didn't the last CFO commit suicide?

-spence

I think we should effectively clean The House next election.....

RIJIMMY · 10-05-2009, 08:45 AM

short memories, huh?

Dont remember all the RAGE over outrageous salaries on Wall St? Dont remember Congress passing legislation and SALARY CAPS on firms taking TARP????

We'll all that doesnt apply to Fannie because they didnt really take TARP.....it was another bailout.

I never like to insult people, but you really have to be a moron if this doesnt piss you off.

spence · 10-05-2009, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Dont remember all the RAGE over outrageous salaries on Wall St? Dont remember Congress passing legislation and SALARY CAPS on firms taking TARP????

We'll all that doesnt apply to Fannie because they didnt really take TARP.....it was another bailout.

I never like to insult people, but you really have to be a moron if this doesnt piss you off.

While I understand the argument, do you really think this was the "excessive compensation" that people were outraged about?

His base is around 700K, with various kickers that could amount to another 1-3M more assuming performance and board approval.

The 1.95M sign on bonus is to offset the options he's forfeiting by leaving his old job. Granted, this may allow him to see this money sooner than he would have, but it's a not a gain otherwise.

That's not a crazy package for a big exec, and has a heavy hand towards incentive pay which FB wants.

-spence