A silver lining on those golden parachutes:
Fears are mounting that many Wall Street banks and financial firms will refuse to participate in the US government's $700bn bail-out package, leaving global markets and world economies in a perilous state for months to come.
'There is a growing feeling that banks ... might instead decide to tough it out,' said Thomas Caldwell, chairman and CEO of Caldwell Financial, a $1bn-plus fund manager....
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.
True patriots, all.
Actually, though, I think the real point of the story is this here:
Sources close to Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch indicated the banks might choose not to participate in the bail-out as there is a growing view on Wall Street that the market may be bottoming out.
Well, that was Sunday.
And if you're wrong, jump!
NOTE Via Lord Kos, who didn't lift a finger to stop the bailout when it was happening, leaving that up to C-list blogs and a few bitter-enders.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Lord Kos
I didn't notice that, did none of his front pagers try to stop the bailout? Kos is on the take from Cato Institute, so that might explain it.
Remember the stickied posts we had saying CALL NOW?
Nothing like that. Leah did some, I did some, we did it every day and collected results. There might have been one or two posts, but no sustained campaign whatever.
Cato Institute? For true?!?!?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Let's party like it's 1999!
WSJ:
The Dow's decline Monday brings it back to ground first crossed in the spring of 1999.
I look it that as the good ol' days. Don't know about you. Who could have, would have, should have guessed we'd be in this black hole only nine years later?
Oy.
Yeah, me too
Back in 1999, I thought I was doing well because of my mad tech skillz.
Turns out it was just a bubble -- as I found out in 2000. And 2001. And 2002. And 2003.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
I swear I didn't steal that from CR.
(the party bit).
Just saw it there.
Cato
Kos' page at Cato, they funded his recent book.
Cheese and crackers...
[Bangs head on desk]
But got a link on the funding? I searched a bit, can't find one.
You know, that might explain a lot...
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"Limits on Executive Compensation"?
or lies about limits on executive compensation?
This was one of the sections I looked at when the bill was posted, and as far as I can tell, it's almost no limits at all. I tend to think all the hoopla over exec compensation is a bit of a red herring, it's just the most concrete offense for most folks to wrap their heads around, but then it's also (for me) the easiest signifier to understand for how much we're getting screwed.
from sec. 111 (folks, correct me if I misunderstood any of the legislativese).
1. Paulson gets to decide if executives meet the criteria for limitation.
2. The limits only apply to 'senior executive officers', defined as "an individual who is one of the top 5 highly paid executives of a public company" [this is the only non-discretionary clause, afaik]
3. The limit only applies to incentive compensation which would cause a senior exec to "to take unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the financial institution."
4. Allows Paulson to try to recover any bonuses or incentives that were based on "materially inaccurate" earning statements (aka fraud, to us little peeps)
5. No golden parachutes while company is participating in the bailout.
I'm hard-pressed to believe any execs, unless they've murdered Paulson's dog or committed some other personal offense, would be all that afraid of any of this.