really?

Not or or even ?

One of the least attractive elements is a section designed to curb executive pay at banks that participate in the bail-out package. These include limiting stock-related pay and banning 'golden parachutes' for executives.

I wonder why the executives are against this plan. It couldn't be because they only think of their own retirement, and are prepared to blow up the economy for that, now could it?

Grred got us here. Greed on the part of the bank executives, on the part of the Congress, on the part of real estate speculators and on the part of Joe Sixpacks who wanted a nice, expensive house but didn't want to pay for it.

Now, people like me who played by the rules, paid off debt and saved up a downpayment aren't going to be able to get good rates. I can only hope for a cheap purchase price as the market tanks. But if the government bails out the foreclosures and keeps deadbeats in their homes to "stabilize the market", that won't happen either.

Kreist.

Wow, no kidding? It's free money.

Free money meaning all their existing money becomes less valuable because the other money is free.


Inflation in a nutshell.

Wow. I guess this truly shows how far CEOs will go to keep their bonuses and Scrooge McDuck Money Bins.

I always thought that perhaps they grappled with laying off thousands just so they could make a few million. Now I am certain they would watch the building burn before they gave up their plunder.

I hope the boards run these asshats out on rails.

Cubansaltyballs: I always thought that perhaps they grappled with laying off thousands just so they could make a few million. Now I am certain they would watch the building burn before they gave up their plunder.

CEOs only answer to the board, and by board I mean shareholders.

And by shareholders I mean, the board. And by board I mean a bunch of guys that decided each others futures.

The circle of economics is complete.

slobarnuts: CEOs only answer to the board, and by board I mean shareholders.

Yes. But usually the CEO is the chairman, and a few of the people who get their pay restricted are on the board as well.

Typically, a competent board will throw out a douche CEO or CFO... so I am hopeful they will pimp slap any CEO that decides to keep his bonus rather than maintain the company.

As a short term move, any CEO could block selling toxic assets without the board intervening. But if they do, the board can yank the CEO, and vote to buy the assets themselves.

But by then the damage is done.

goeniegoegoe: I wonder why the executives are against this plan. It couldn't be because they only think of their own retirement, and are prepared to blow up the economy for that, now could it?

Children are our future.fark them, I had to work hard to get where I am, they should too.

Cubansaltyballs: so I am hopeful they will pimp slap any CEO that decides to keep his bonus rather than maintain the company.

Dream on.

Analysts also believe that the mere presence of the government as buyer of last resort will be enough to get credit markets moving again, and that a large number of banks would not need to take part for the legislation to succeed.

that sounds positive to me.

Can you guys elect Alice in Wonderland as your next president.

/Curioser & curioser.

Archie Goodwin: Curioser & curioser.

Queens English spoken in here please.

RabidDog: Queens English spoken in here please.

Seconded, we don't need to devolve any further in the swamp you filthy barbarians created.

Beggars can't be choosers.

Archie Goodwin

Can you guys elect Alice in Wonderland as your next president

She's only running for vice-president. The Mad Hatter is running for president.

Funsucker: Beggars can't be choosers.

Apparently, beggars can be choosers.

Hooray! At least someone might have the sense to stop this madness!

/Granted it's the people who started this madness, and it's not the money they're rejecting, it's the added governmental oversight, but still.

//Hooray!

what about some married due, much better idea

They don't need it. Paulson was pushing for it, but the financial institutions most likely to use it never asked for it. This is a huge knee-jerk reaction to a problem that is much more complex than the three pages that define the Act. This is a lot of grandstanding - there is ABSOLUTELY a problem, but this political maneuver is probably not even distantly related to the solution. Now with the added pork, even more so. It is an excellent example of TONS of supply without understanding the demand.

Supply =| Demand

Well if they start getting picky a bunch of people should just go down there with bats and club them to death.

"One of the least attractive elements is a section designed to curb executive pay at banks that participate in the bail-out package. These include limiting stock-related pay and banning 'golden parachutes' for executives."

Cos they work hard for the money

Wait aren't these the same guys who got us into this mess?
They established the policy's that enabled this mess to grow.
I think most of them should take whats offered them and thank everyone for not putting them in prison for a few decades.

So, uh, when did this bailout plan become something a bank/firm could opt not to participate in?

Who in their right mind would think a CEO would choose to stabilize the company and lose millions he/she would get no matter what instead of "tough it out" (and get his several million consolation prize if the former fell flat on its face)?

When did common sense die? Did I miss that memo? Who really thought one's desire to do the right thing for the many would win out over one person's personal greed?

Ahhhh, Wall Street. I hope all these guys DIAF, along with Washington. Where's that one way ticket to Tahiti?

MorningBreath: Analysts also believe that the mere presence of the government as buyer of last resort will be enough to get credit markets moving again, and that a large number of banks would not need to take part for the legislation to succeed.

Fine with me. I'd much rather the markets fix themselves than for the gubmint to actually spend my money to do it. The more this happens on its own, the less of that $700B actually has to be spent.

But Wall Street analysts, believe the addition of so many terms to the bill might deter potential participants.

One of the least attractive elements is a section designed to curb executive pay at banks that participate in the bail-out package. These include limiting stock-related pay and banning 'golden parachutes' for executives.

'I think this hodge-podge of regulations and rules will be enough to put many [chief executives] off participating,' Caldwell said.


name & shame the f*ckers in the press daily

blueviking: Ahhhh, Wall Street. I hope all these guys DIAF, along with Washington. Where's that one way ticket to Tahiti?

You want to go to the Virgin Islands. and start a rum company. word has it they are just giving money away for that kind of work.

If the CEO think they can fix the bank for $500,000/year then they should quite and the board can find someone who can. Another option would be to *not* dump the banks bad loans on American tax payers.

There are a lot of options.

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Well if they start getting picky a bunch of people should just go down there with bats and club them to death.

I'm intrigued.

Sweet, can I start a mail-order-husband company too?

/maybe offers of all the rum they can drink will be enticing

I believe that the $700 billion will probably double or triple in cost because that's what usually happens when the government spends money. They will end up paying too much for distressed mortgages. That's my analysis. That makes me an "analyst".

I call shenanigans. Banks are running scams, let's just deal with that. Re-write thousands of loans, the right way. Does that require oversight?

And then deal with the price of gas. Auto companies have been addicted to oil since the 70s, the consumer doesn't care what they run on. Instead of hybrids or hydrogen, they want to burn our green earth.

The third -- clinching -- reason for our economic situation? Our government has been seized up for 8 years, with a do-nothing calling the shots. There's too many examples of "doing nothing", that itself has been the problem.

I say: short recession. These problems aren't that difficult.

slobarnuts: Wow, no kidding? It's free money.

Free money meaning all their existing money becomes less valuable because the other money is free.


Inflation in a nutshell.

I know little about economics but aren't a lot of people keeping their own money in foreign currency rather than the dollar?

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Well if they start getting picky a bunch of people should just go down there with bats and club them to death.

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter, Mr. President...'s facial hair.

They should do the bailout but put all the douchebags responsible in the slammer for the rest of their natural lives.

Letting them retire in luxury sends the wrong message to their successors.

blueviking: Sweet, can I start a mail-order-husband company too?

Been done.

Link (new window)

Now wait just one gosh darned minute...Wasn't this necessary to save our economy from the terrorists or Russia or something. Even the president said that they needed this money and I don't think he would use a fear-mongering tactic just to get what the administration wanted.

alright.. ill do it..

B..b....b...ut BUSH said that we were in danger and that we needed to pass this bill or everything would fall apart.. im scared.. can someone hold me ? and maybe cuddle with me...

If the big banks and wall street feels it doesn't need the money, who the FARK did congress consult before they passed this farking bill...

portnoyd: So, uh, when did this bailout plan become something a bank/firm could opt not to participate in?

From the beginning. The "bailout" authorizes the Treasury to buy the bad mortgages from the banks, so the bank gets its money back on the bad investment and the government assumes the risk for the bad mortgages. But in order to avail themselves of that help, a bank has to agree to live by the restrictions in the bill. But the bill doesn't force anyone to do anything -- the Treasury doesn't have to buy anything, and the banks don't have to accept any offer from the Treasury.

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: Well if they start getting picky a bunch of people should just go down there with bats and club them to death.

Can I bring a whiffle bat? Those sting a lot more and thus just continue the agony rather than ending it too quickly.

/really, if the CEOs are so worried about having their salaries/severance packages capped, I'll gladly, along with many others I'm sure, show them what it's like to live off of beans and rice for months on end

I could use some free money if they don't want it.

I love the smell of class envy in the morning...

Those of you not blinded by your hatred of CEOs please note the specific comments on "mere presence of the government" and "growing view that the market is bottoming out".

Both of those are things to be hopeful about.

FTA: One of the least attractive elements is a section designed to curb executive pay at banks that participate in the bail-out package. These include limiting stock-related pay and banning 'golden parachutes' for executives.

'I think this hodge-podge of regulations and rules will be enough to put many [chief executives] off participating,' Caldwell said.

Regardless of the actual reason for rejecting the plan, (though it probably is something like this) America really has found a new group to hate.

Maybe all the crazed rednecks, religious whackjobs, conspiracy theorists, insane racist/sexists, and just plain farkheads can now all come together in a glorious harmony-- to hate corporate and bank executives.

I wonder how long it is before one of these guys gets lynched?

/not condoning that, just saying that nothing brings people together like a good focus of hate

RabidDog: blueviking: Sweet, can I start a mail-order-husband company too?

Been done.

Link (new window)

Yipes.

The CEO's who took idiotic and enormous risks for the own benefit that got us into this are now taking a idiotic and enormous risks for their own benefit? Who could have seen this coming?

FTFA One of the least attractive elements is a section designed to curb executive pay at banks that participate in the bail-out package. These include limiting stock-related pay and banning 'golden parachutes' for executives.

It seems they put so much pork in for Washington to accept it that the CEO's think they can hold out for theirs as well. They learn quickly.

Not to worry, I will control the markets with hope.

J/K,I have a five-year plan.

Lawyer here:

If a CEO makes the decision not to participate because of what it means for his pay, and then the bank fails because of assets that would have been subject to the buyout drag it down, said CEO and anyone who agreed with him would be sued until the sun came down for failure to place the duties of the corporation first. So hey, good luck with that.

My guess is that anyone in that situation would bite the bullet, participate, and then have a wink-wink with the board later to pay him something, because you know there are loopholes.

ole prophet

you beat me by 3 seconds......

Dilbert Principle: A bonus today is worth more than the whole company tomorrow. Or in this case the whole economy.

It sounds to me like a tactical threat to get more out of the Fed and the government. And, they'll probably get what they want.