| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| US to issue new executive pay curbs |
| 2009-06-11 |
| [Mail and Globe] The Obama administration will give a new Treasury official power to reject executive pay packages at firms that receive United States government assistance and wants legislation that would seek to tame compensation across the corporate world, an administration official said on Wednesday. President Barack Obama will ask Congress to give shareholders a non-binding voice on executive pay in an effort to link compensation to long-term performance rather than short-term gains, the official said. Executive pay is a politically charged issue in the US. Bonuses totalling $165-million issued by one bailed out company in March set off a public and congressional outcry. Obama and his economic team have been trying to temper the populist urge to cap salaries while at the same time trying to make the case that compensation practices contributed to the current crisis by encouraging high risk taking. The president also will seek legislation that requires corporate compensation committees to be independent from corporate management. The move would give the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) authority to strengthen the independence of the corporate panels that set executive pay. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the proposal has not been made public. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was expected to spell out details of the plan later on Wednesday. The proposals are part of an effort by the administration to rein in a compensation system that Obama and his economic team say has encouraged excessive risk taking and contributed to the financial crisis. While the shareholder votes would not be binding, they would shed more light on skyrocketing executive pay and exert pressure on boards of directors. The administration believes the so-called "say-on-pay" plan will make directors more accountable to shareholders. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #18 How about the top 5 execs at Procter Here in the middle of the Midwest the Proctoids make themselves clear on the proper spelling, Broadhead6. According to local legend, one of the senior executives even had business cards made up that said "It's -er, dammit!" Anyway, because P&G promotes exclusively from within -- they only hire at the entry level -- they don't have to compete on salary. Beyond the entry level their managers are from somewhat to significantly underpaid relative to their peers... the differential in pay versus outside increasing as one climbs the ladder. I don't know anything about that other company, though. It must be headquartered in another city. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-06-11 22:29 |
| #17 Dr Steve, I absolutely agree - all union bosses should be paid no more than the top union wage. After all, aren't the union leaders supposed to be union members as well? Why should they get more than the workers? And their pensions should come out of the same fund as the other members. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2009-06-11 20:16 |
| #16 One picayune detail of life: Obama, your days in office are only so many, and any decision you make can be reversed. No matter how bad you punk things up, the end is in sight. There, I forced myself to say something optimistic about a gloomy situation, as Americans are always optimistic, even when evidence points to the chance we might have no reason to be optimistic. Stump speech over. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-06-11 19:34 |
| #15 AzCat is on to something. How about the top 5 execs at Proctor/Gamble & Harpo Productions? |
| Posted by: Andy Ulusoque aka Broadhead6 2009-06-11 17:01 |
| #14 We can have pay curbs for executives right after we have pension curbs for SEIU leaders ... |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-06-11 15:34 |
| #13 How can Bawney Fwanks tax these people if they're not going to be rich anymore? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-06-11 15:08 |
| #12 Republicans should offer amendments to cap the earnings of musicians, actors & NBA players. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2009-06-11 15:01 |
| #11 ed, one of the programs on your (CNN's) list of Who's Getting Bailout money is called Making Home Affordable. My question is: making home affordable for whom? Certainly not the taxpayers. Certainly not prospective first time home buyers either because this program will prop up the already hyper-inflated housing prices. Maybe for the morons who signed their names on mortgages without reading them or understanding that they really couldn't afford them. Maybe for the bankers who should have known better than to make those loans. Pardon me if this is a little off the thread but they have $50 billion committed to that program. That doesn't seem very affordable to me. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-06-11 14:26 |
| #10 ' Pulling into the station right on time. Wage and price controls.' Obama - a skinny, swarthy Nixon for the 20th century. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2009-06-11 14:24 |
| #9 CNBC had a live interview with Bawney Fwanks on this. He didn't like the questions and walked off. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2009-06-11 12:32 |
| #8 “While the shareholder votes would not be binding, they would shed more light on skyrocketing executive pay…” Yesterday I watched some interviews with Democrats on this proposal. Not surprisingly, Rep. Maxine Waters couldn’t even grasp the concept that a “bonus package” is all part of an overall “compensation package”. And when asked what’s the objective if the shareholders votes are non-binding she babbled about the discrepancies in executive vs. workers pay in very broad terms – not just recipients of TARP money. Rep. Barney Frank, as way to bolster his position, also couldn’t resist conflating excessive risk taking with executive compensation across the entire financial sector spectrum. I hate to sound paranoid or conspiratorial but other then the architects of this grand scheme could anyone imagine where we would be less then six months into this administration? Yes we need oversight of the taxpayer’s dollars. But can you say “Spray the fire hose down the ski hill”? |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2009-06-11 11:50 |
| #7 Who's Getting Bailout Money Committed $10.5 trillion Spent $2.7 trillion I think I am going to be sick. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-06-11 09:11 |
| #6 Richard O, I suspect you're almost on the right track. The money trail will lead to people somehow connected to Zero, but they're probably not 'friends' of his. Rather, he's a puppet of theirs. All during the election I tried to figure out who was the power behind him, because his path to power was way too easy - must have been quietly cleared for him. Nobody seemed to be interested in addressing that question though. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-06-11 08:58 |
| #5 No one in America should make more than Obama Yeah, but how many execs get $100 million severance packages ala Clinton and Gore? |
| Posted by: ed 2009-06-11 08:57 |
| #4 What I would like to know is who is getting fantastically wealthy from all these bold fresh moves by the government on our banks and our auto industry. Someone is. Someone always his. My guess is that it is someone high on the DNC list of contributers. The money trail will probably lead back to some friends of the president. |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2009-06-11 08:50 |
| #3 No one in America should make more than Obama because no CEO runs several banks, a few automobile makers and 2 wars. Compared to the "one" everyone is overpaid. |
| Posted by: airandee 2009-06-11 08:42 |
| #2 Businesses and banks are learning what states learned decades ago, take a penny from the Federal government and you play by the Fed's rules. It's the mob approach, you borrow and they own you for life. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-06-11 08:41 |
| #1 Pulling into the station right on time. Wage and price controls. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-06-11 08:30 |