More CEO Excessive pay

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
This is why too much corporate control is a bad thing. If I screw up bad enough at UPS I just get fired. No severence. At Countrywide if you take the stock from $75 to $5 you just sell the company to Bank of America and walk away with a golden parachute of $36,000,000. Not to mention selling your stocks.

So much for the market taking care of everything like Ron Paul and all the republicans think. The only thing the market will take care of is the executives that are fleecing our country.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/01/11/countrywide/index.html

Bank of Countrywide America

Like one out of every six other mortgage-paying Americans, How the World Works woke up today and discovered that his mortgage would shortly be owned by the Bank of America, instead of Countrywide. But I shed no tears. Wells-Fargo originated my loan and then immediately sold it to Countrywide. I never asked for the pleasure of writing checks that would pad out Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo's bank account, and so I bear no grudge for now being forced to send them to Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America.
I am a little alarmed however to learn that, should the deal go through, Bank of America will control more than 10 percent of all U.S. deposits. Federal law supposedly forbids any single bank-holding company from breaching the 10 percent barrier, but according to the Wall Street Journal, there's a loophole that exempts federally chartered thrifts, and Countrywide's subsidiary, Countywide Bank, is a federally insured thrift. So Bank of America now apparently has a pretty good shot at being the bank of all America. Is this prudent? What happens if Bank of America runs into troubled waters? The words "too big to fail" come to mind.
In the annals of what is increasingly being referred to as the worst housing bust of all time, the sale of Countrywide for a paltry four billion in stock is undoubtedly a major historical event. For Angelo Mozilo, one suspects that the debacle must be a trifle humiliating, even if he is likely, reports the Journal, to add a $36 million dollar severance payment to the hundreds of millions of dollars of cashed-out stock options he's stashed away in the past couple of years.
So what now for Mozilo?
During the conference call announcing the deal analyst Nancy Bush of NAB Research asked whether Mozilo would have a role in the company, post-merger.
"I would want him to stay until the deal gets done and then probably I would guess that he would want to go have some fun," said Ken Lewis, as reported by the Journal's David Gaffen, who live-blogged the call, "but l'll talk to him next week about his personal desires."
That's right Angelo. Go have some fun. The well-wishes of thousands of laid off Countrywide employees and many thousands more Americans struggling through Countrywide's unforgiving foreclosure procedures will no doubt speed you on your way.
-- Andrew Leonard
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
This is why too much corporate control is a bad thing. If I screw up bad enough at UPS I just get fired. No severence. At Countrywide if you take the stock from $75 to $5 you just sell the company to Bank of America and walk away with a golden parachute of $36,000,000. Not to mention selling your stocks.

So much for the market taking care of everything like Ron Paul and all the republicans think. The only thing the market will take care of is the executives that are fleecing our country.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/01/11/countrywide/index.html

Bank of Countrywide America

Like one out of every six other mortgage-paying Americans, How the World Works woke up today and discovered that his mortgage would shortly be owned by the Bank of America, instead of Countrywide. But I shed no tears. Wells-Fargo originated my loan and then immediately sold it to Countrywide. I never asked for the pleasure of writing checks that would pad out Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo's bank account, and so I bear no grudge for now being forced to send them to Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America.
I am a little alarmed however to learn that, should the deal go through, Bank of America will control more than 10 percent of all U.S. deposits. Federal law supposedly forbids any single bank-holding company from breaching the 10 percent barrier, but according to the Wall Street Journal, there's a loophole that exempts federally chartered thrifts, and Countrywide's subsidiary, Countywide Bank, is a federally insured thrift. So Bank of America now apparently has a pretty good shot at being the bank of all America. Is this prudent? What happens if Bank of America runs into troubled waters? The words "too big to fail" come to mind.
In the annals of what is increasingly being referred to as the worst housing bust of all time, the sale of Countrywide for a paltry four billion in stock is undoubtedly a major historical event. For Angelo Mozilo, one suspects that the debacle must be a trifle humiliating, even if he is likely, reports the Journal, to add a $36 million dollar severance payment to the hundreds of millions of dollars of cashed-out stock options he's stashed away in the past couple of years.
So what now for Mozilo?
During the conference call announcing the deal analyst Nancy Bush of NAB Research asked whether Mozilo would have a role in the company, post-merger.
"I would want him to stay until the deal gets done and then probably I would guess that he would want to go have some fun," said Ken Lewis, as reported by the Journal's David Gaffen, who live-blogged the call, "but l'll talk to him next week about his personal desires."
That's right Angelo. Go have some fun. The well-wishes of thousands of laid off Countrywide employees and many thousands more Americans struggling through Countrywide's unforgiving foreclosure procedures will no doubt speed you on your way.
-- Andrew Leonard


You obvisiously did not listen to what Ron Paul said about this in the debate last night. The Government is keeping interest rates low and this is what he feels is causing this problem. This is the opposite of a free market.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
While it doesn't seem all that fair, that is the deal Countrywide signed with him when they brought him on as CEO. Just like our contract CEO's have contracts that cover compensation, benefits, and the like. He is simple exercising his contractual rights, and perhaps other BOD's will be less likely to sign such contracts with future CEOs. Government has no place in determining people's wages despite their position in a company.
 

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
While it doesn't seem all that fair, that is the deal Countrywide signed with him when they brought him on as CEO. Just like our contract CEO's have contracts that cover compensation, benefits, and the like. He is simple exercising his contractual rights, and perhaps other BOD's will be less likely to sign such contracts with future CEOs. Government has no place in determining people's wages despite their position in a company.

I don't think the government should set wages, but CEO pay should be comparable to what the common employee makes. Not 450% more.
 

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
You obvisiously did not listen to what Ron Paul said about this in the debate last night. The Government is keeping interest rates low and this is what he feels is causing this problem. This is the opposite of a free market.

Ron Paul is a libertarian first off. Libertarians and republicans think that corporate america is the panacea for every woe in this country. Well you see how well this worked. Some regulation is good.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
Ron Paul is a libertarian first off. Libertarians and republicans think that corporate america is the panacea for every woe in this country. Well you see how well this worked. Some regulation is good.

Its actually worked quite well. Consumers are spending more as well as earning more. If you read my thread on the middle class you would see that the middle class is getting richer, not poorer. Despite a tax cut government tax revenues are at an all time high because as people and businesses earn more the government makes more money. I will agree that some regulation is necessary, but only to help guide the free market, not to control it.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
I don't think the government should set wages, but CEO pay should be comparable to what the common employee makes. Not 450% more.

Why not? The entire company relies on that CEO for guidance. Every common employee job out there relies on a CEO doing what is right for a company. Now not all CEOs do this well, but 99% of them do what is right for the company. They have a level of responsibility much higher than that of your common employee, therefore they should earn more.
 

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
Its actually worked quite well. Consumers are spending more as well as earning more. If you read my thread on the middle class you would see that the middle class is getting richer, not poorer. Despite a tax cut government tax revenues are at an all time high because as people and businesses earn more the government makes more money. I will agree that some regulation is necessary, but only to help guide the free market, not to control it.

I don't know what you're reading but you should stay out of the comic book isle.

The middle class has more debt because of stagnating wages. The only way people buy things is with credit cards. The amont that people save are at an all time low. How you figure the the middle class is getting richer is beyond me. More and more good paying jobs go to China and are replaced with wal mart jobs. Gas prices are high, food prices are high.

And because the US governmet only spent 45 billion on the taxpayer credit card instead of 50 billion, you can extrapolate that tax revenues are at an all time high?

It's your story.
 

tieguy

Banned
This is why too much corporate control is a bad thing. If I screw up bad enough at UPS I just get fired. No severence. At Countrywide if you take the stock from $75 to $5 you just sell the company to Bank of America and walk away with a golden parachute of $36,000,000. Not to mention selling your stocks.

So much for the market taking care of everything like Ron Paul and all the republicans think. The only thing the market will take care of is the executives that are fleecing our country.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/01/11/countrywide/index.html

Just think a working stiff who studies and reads up on the market , who learns to recognize the signs of overvalued companies could have shorted their stock and made a killing off this CEO incompetence. America is the land of opportunity. I'm sorry I missed this one. Someone told me about this one a couple of years ago and I didn't listen...:happy-very:
But theres a certain feeder driver on the east coast right now grinning from ear to ear.:happy-very:
 

tieguy

Banned
I don't know what you're reading but you should stay out of the comic book isle.

The middle class has more debt because of stagnating wages.
It's your story.

Their biggest debt is still their house. Many of these homes have not stagnated but increased significantly in value.

While there probably are some middle class members forced to borrow to make ends meet many do not have the spending discipline to control their debt. They buy today rather then save up and buy tommorrow.

Do also think pro atheletes should not make more then the average working man?
 

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
Their biggest debt is still their house. Many of these homes have not stagnated but increased significantly in value.

While there probably are some middle class members forced to borrow to make ends meet many do not have the spending discipline to control their debt. They buy today rather then save up and buy tommorrow.

Do also think pro atheletes should not make more then the average working man?

You missed my quote about credit card debt. People are making ends meet with credit cards. Thats not right. Not to mention the home equity loans.

If the average wage went up along with executive pay these problems wouldn't be going on. But in our plutocratic society its "I made mine now how are you going to make yours."

The athlete pay is one of the reasons I don't go to professional sporting events anymore. But the apathy of Americans of what is a priority, like paying attenion to what's going on in their government will always be there. People know how many touchdowns a favorite quarterback has thrown but can't tell you who their Congressman is. And that Congressman is making policy to send their good paying job overseas.

It'll take a depression for people to wake up. Were almost there.
 

tieguy

Banned
You missed my quote about credit card debt. People are making ends meet with credit cards. Thats not right. Not to mention the home equity loans.

If thats the case then the ends their trying meet is the increased interest rates. this decision to spend was made 3 to 4 years ago.

If the average wage went up along with executive pay these problems wouldn't be going on. But in our plutocratic society its "I made mine now how are you going to make yours."

interesting use of plutocratic. Do we have a society anywhere in the world that is not plutocratic?

other then that I don't see this tale of gloom and doom you keep selling. Since you're a upser I would expect your greatest exposure to the struggling middle class would be other upsers? I don't believe the middle class is struggling due to a stagnant wage rate , I would believe most struggle due to poor controls of discretionary spending.

show me your struggling middle class and I'll show you the hd tv, sorround sound system, cell phones etc.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
You missed my quote about credit card debt. People are making ends meet with credit cards. Thats not right. Not to mention the home equity loans.

If the average wage went up along with executive pay these problems wouldn't be going on. But in our plutocratic society its "I made mine now how are you going to make yours."

The athlete pay is one of the reasons I don't go to professional sporting events anymore. But the apathy of Americans of what is a priority, like paying attenion to what's going on in their government will always be there. People know how many touchdowns a favorite quarterback has thrown but can't tell you who their Congressman is. And that Congressman is making policy to send their good paying job overseas.

It'll take a depression for people to wake up. Were almost there.

5 myths of the middle class

3. The only way people cope with the middle-class meltdown is by falling into debt.
You've probably heard that the average U.S. household carries $9,300 in credit card debt. But that misleading statistic includes the debt of the self-employed and some small businesses. The 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances, which does not include business debt, showed that 54 percent of households had no credit card debt after paying their monthly bill and that the average household credit card debt was just over $2,300.
Mortgages, which represent 79 percent of all debt, are the more pressing concern. But even according to the most pessimistic estimates, only 1 to 2 percent of homeowners will be forced into foreclosure in the next few years. Assets have grown faster than debts for most middle-class families. Median net worth has grown 35 percent since 1989, according to the Federal Reserve Board, and only 15 percent of households have debt payments worth more than 40 percent of their income or are 60 days late on any debt payment.


I'm still trying to find it, but I've also read that once you take personal assets into consideration the median household credit card debt is zero. Personal assets still have a greater value than people's personal debt proving that in the real world people are not as bad off as you would like us to believe.
 
Last edited:

wkmac

Well-Known Member
ezmoney,

The real danger of having the gov't set wage/salary values by points to a certain class of worker, in this cases high dollar CEO's, is dangerous. Why? OK, if a little bit is good a whole lot more is better or in other words, CEO's have gov't approved salary structure so now it's time for the trickle down effect and for gov't to regulate the rest of us. You're thinking the good gov't overseerer will side with you and take some of that excess monies and filter it down our way and yes that could happen. But who owns the lobbyist and pays the big bucks in campaign contributions? Who in the end is likely to get screwed and have their pay regulated down while the "better half" may not see the actual salary go up but rather a change in tax law granting such perks at tax exempt stock options of other means come into play.

The 401k (actual IRS code section) that came into play in the 1978' (during a democrat WH and Congress I might add) was a tax means intended to allow a high paid executive a means of non-taxed salary deferrment to a future date. What this in effect did was allow a high paid executive defer into the future some portion of his pay in order to reduce himself/herself to a lower tax bracket or in other words, a tax shelter. The idea being in later years when he/she withdrew that money, they would no longer be making that high salary and again qualify for a lower tax rate. It was a tax shelter or tax dodge if you want to look at it that way. Of course, the 401k came to be a tool of the common man now as it also helps to reduce our tax bill while building a retirement savings. The point being, regulate away but they will find a way around and we might find ourselves with a reduced pay and those very CEO's you want to slam down may in fact reap an even higher reward in the way of stock vlaues or dividend checks and even those in the right situation can be deferred as it pertains to taxes.

As for the CEO windfall as he parachuted out? Well contracts are written that list what we call cardinal sins and they call terms of the contract. Violate those terms and the contract is void and you would think not making money and making decisions that bankrupt a company would be in there but that is not true. A CEO is smart enough to know that market forces and even gov't public policy can radically alter the landscape so he/she would never sign to something they have little control over. Unless a specific term is identified as a violation, then any early contract termination by either party has certain specifics as to a buyout clause. End your cellphone contract early and you may have to pay an exit fee, or your cable or whatever. A football team owner decides the team record of 1-12 requires a new direction so the coach is released (fired) but no terms were violated so the coach still gets his pay. How many times have you heard this one and scratched your head? Me too! Countrywide, as goofy as it is, violated no terms of the contract so he still get the pay. Bob Nardelli of ex-Home Depot CEO fame got a $50mil parachute out of his job and all but about killing that company. You might say, they just have a better union at the contract tables that we do!
:happy-very:

As for there being no gov't regulation and thus all this is the result? Seems like a convient way to look at it and a bit lazy and hey, I'm all about lazy too where I can but if you look across time and the actual gov't record, regulatory law and legislation passed over the years, you'll see real quickly this is not the case. We've not been in a free market for decades and in some respects I'd argue back to the early 1800's. Why then for pete's sake? Because the first rule of a free market is the moral acknowledgment of property rights and the acceptance of what was local custom to identify who owned that property to begin with. My point? The American Indians of that day as our genetic makeup of empire from our European roots overcame our baptism and birth into Individual rights of the Declaration of Independence and we crossed the first line to liberty and that is property rights.

The old precept of the "sins of the father are visited upon the sons for 7 gnerations" and how true that truism has turned out to be in out case. It's called blowback by others.

Nice little piece on the free market from a Catholic website:
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2111&Itemid=48

I have nothing to do with organized religion so the link to a Catholic website is not an endorsement of Catholism nor do I offer any condemnation of those who are Catholic, Baptist or whatever. Knock ya'self out but I just found appreciated and the article none the less.

Take care!

BTW: You want to sign a "bust the union" card. My law firm will represent you for free!

"you know if I work this right I might can sell him beach front property in Kansas by the weekend too!"

As my hero Bugs Bunny would say, "Ain't I a stinker!"
:happy-very:
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
wkmac said:
Nice little piece on the free market from a Catholic website:
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/ind...2111&Itemid=48


Raised Catholic myself I find Conservatives Catholics embraciing liberal capitalism very disturbing. In their eyes if liberalism doesn't work for social issues, then why on God's Earth would liberalism for economics work out well for most of humanity either. How do you compare them to what the Church teaches for the common good, humanity, compassion and so forth when in fact the only way conservative Catholics can make the case for their view of economics is to essentially dismiss or ignore the actual teachings of the popes and bishops, or by focusing exclusively on the principle of subsidiarity. At this point, how utopian for a Catholic to say (even an Evangelist or any Christian) that we can have a liberal economy if we just get "Big Government" out of the way in lieu of "Big Multinationals" around who have the self-interest of their largest investors dominating their ultimate boardroom decisions and not Humanity. I don't think thats why they built confessional booths. Let's not ignore the social teachings of the Church relative to economics.
Amen...Eat and Drink:peaceful:
 

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
You missed my quote about credit card debt. People are making ends meet with credit cards. Thats not right. Not to mention the home equity loans.

If thats the case then the ends their trying meet is the increased interest rates. this decision to spend was made 3 to 4 years ago.

If the average wage went up along with executive pay these problems wouldn't be going on. But in our plutocratic society its "I made mine now how are you going to make yours."

interesting use of plutocratic. Do we have a society anywhere in the world that is not plutocratic?

other then that I don't see this tale of gloom and doom you keep selling. Since you're a upser I would expect your greatest exposure to the struggling middle class would be other upsers? I don't believe the middle class is struggling due to a stagnant wage rate , I would believe most struggle due to poor controls of discretionary spending.

show me your struggling middle class and I'll show you the hd tv, sorround sound system, cell phones etc.

I'm not selling anything. The writings on the wall. If you can't see it I cant help you.

As far as plutocracies, there are some countries that are not run that way, but they tend to be more socialistic. Which is not what I'm promoting. Money is the root of all evil in politics. Which is why I can't stand Hillary. This is why we have the problems today. Some greed monger figured he'd cut his labor cost by making widgets in China for sweatshop wages and stick the rest in his pocket. Even patriotic manufacturers cant compete with that so he has to send his widgets overseas to survive. This is why wages are stagnating.

We've gone back to the robber baron days. Teddy Roosevelt is turning over in his grave.



I saw this (not personally) happen one time before where there was a ruling class of rich. Marie said. "Let them eat cake."
 

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
ezmoney,



BTW: You want to sign a "bust the union" card. My law firm will represent you for free!

"you know if I work this right I might can sell him beach front property in Kansas by the weekend too!"


:happy-very:

Be a cold day in hell when that happens. I have a conscience.
 

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
wkmac said:
Nice little piece on the free market from a Catholic website:
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/ind...2111&Itemid=48


Raised Catholic myself I find Conservatives Catholics embraciing liberal capitalism very disturbing. In their eyes if liberalism doesn't work for social issues, then why on God's Earth would liberalism for economics work out well for most of humanity either. How do you compare them to what the Church teaches for the common good, humanity, compassion and so forth when in fact the only way conservative Catholics can make the case for their view of economics is to essentially dismiss or ignore the actual teachings of the popes and bishops, or by focusing exclusively on the principle of subsidiarity. At this point, how utopian for a Catholic to say (even an Evangelist or any Christian) that we can have a liberal economy if we just get "Big Government" out of the way in lieu of "Big Multinationals" around who have the self-interest of their largest investors dominating their ultimate boardroom decisions and not Humanity. I don't think thats why they built confessional booths. Let's not ignore the social teachings of the Church relative to economics.
Amen...Eat and Drink:peaceful:

As a born and bred Catholic the one thing I learned is that the Catholic religion is like a political race. Say whatever to get you in the pew and a check in the basket.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
EZ,

Going back to your original concerns from this thread, I found this piece at a libertarian website concerning more on the mortgage meltdown crisis. No mention or slamming of gov't programs so it's not about that but give it a read as I think you'll still find it interesting as it does take head on the fraud and abuse with the corp. world. What may also surprise you is who these libertarians say a company should be loyal to first and foremost and had they, ths crisis in their case would have been avoided.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/englund/englund44.html
 

ezmoney5150

Well-Known Member
EZ,

Going back to your original concerns from this thread, I found this piece at a libertarian website concerning more on the mortgage meltdown crisis. No mention or slamming of gov't programs so it's not about that but give it a read as I think you'll still find it interesting as it does take head on the fraud and abuse with the corp. world. What may also surprise you is who these libertarians say a company should be loyal to first and foremost and had they, ths crisis in their case would have been avoided.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/englund/englund44.html

Good article. I do believe in some libertarian views just not all of them. Just like I do believe in some but not all republican and democratic ideas.

You take these smoking bans in bars all over the country. I don't feel government should be telling a business owner how to run his/her business when a customer has many choices to not do business there. If I don't like the smoke in a bar I don't go in. And I have left a few times. And I smoke cigars.
 
Top