Bank pay control, UNBELIEVABLE

[RetiredGySgt]

And if 'we the people' have become, however much against our will, stock holders then do not the representatives of 'we the people' get to set the agenda just as any other shareholder could?

You do not get to negate legally binding contracts. And again for the slow the plan is to force all banks hence forth that play by the Governments rules, negating any contracts the Government disagrees with. Banks that never received a penny and banks that paid every dime back.

 

[Care4all]

well, a year has passed, it is a new year's negotiation on salary...

 

[Ravi]

Yep...the guy has no ability to break contracts that were made before the new rules went into place. Or to break contracts that were made under the guidelines that the banks agreed to when they took the money. Which is why we haven't seen anyone claiming he has, except a handful of messageboard heros that can't offer up any proof.

 

[Ame®icano]

Yep...the guy has no ability to break contracts that were made before the new rules went into place. Or to break contracts that were made under the guidelines that the banks agreed to when they took the money. Which is why we haven't seen anyone claiming he has, except a handful of messageboard heros that can't offer up any proof.

Let's clarify some things. Correct all that you think is wrong.

*There were bank regulations before bailouts took place.

*Real estate and financial market crashed.

*Government decided to inject money into banks in order to save them.

*Banks took bailout money under certain conditions.

*Conditions also proposed limits on executive pays.

*Banks received bailout money under conditions written in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

*Eight months later government proposed changing conditions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

 

[Ravi]

*Eight months later government proposed changing conditions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

I don't think this one is correct, but feel free to show me what you are talking about.

 

[Ame®icano]

*Eight months later government proposed changing conditions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

I don't think this one is correct, but feel free to show me what you are talking about.

OK, great... at least we're willing to debate.

I've already posted this in #179, but posting again to make it easier.

H. R. 1—403 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

‘‘SEC. 111. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.

...

‘‘(D)(i) A prohibition on such TARP recipient paying or accruing any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation during the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided under the TARP remains outstanding, except that any prohibition developed under this paragraph shall not apply to the payment of long-term restricted stock by such TARP recipient, provided that such long-term restricted stock—
‘‘(I) does not fully vest during the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided to that TARP recipient remains outstanding;
‘‘(II) has a value in an amount that is not greater than 1⁄3 of the total amount of annual compensation of the employee receiving the stock; and
‘‘(III) is subject to such other terms and conditions as the Secretary may determine is in the public interest.

‘‘(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.

According to this law, all recipients of TARP funds are under certain limitations on executive pays, bonuses and stock-options. It clearly says: If executive contracts were signed before Feb 11, 1009 nothing will change, and all contracts signed after the Feb 11, 2009 have to comply with the law.

I do agree, per this law government has authority to limit the pay for contracts signed after Feb 11, 2009. What government is trying to do is to limit the executive pay for all TARP recipients regardless of when contract is signed and to expand their limitations on non-TARP recipients.

If I am wrong, please explain where.

 

[garyd]

Sorry the board of directors at the direction of the shareholders can change a contract anytime they choose. Happens with some regularity in the private sector. CEO's are not infrequently given a choice in dire times such as these of A. taking a pay cut B. resigning or C. get fired.

 

[Oddball]

Nobody can change contacts in mid-stream, without there being clauses (i.e. liquidated damages) to spell them out. Executive contracts are no different.

The law is the law for everyone.

Well, everyone except if your political idol decides to nullify it by fiat.

 

[garyd]

Dude if they think they can find a better head honcho than you your contract doesn't mean squat. They'll find away to nullify it. That's why they have lawyers. They might be required to give you a better severance package than Joe Sixpack will earn in his life time. But they can damn well fire you anytime they think you aren't doing the job contract or no contract. And most contain nonperformance clauses anyway.

 

[Oddball]

Never signed and been bound to the terms of a labor contract, have you?

BTW...The ability to fire someone at will is almost always written into the contract.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dude if they think they can find a better head honcho than you your contract doesn't mean squat. They'll find away to nullify it. That's why they have lawyers. They might be required to give you a better severance package than Joe Sixpack will earn in his life time. But they can damn well fire you anytime they think you aren't doing the job contract or no contract. And most contain nonperformance clauses anyway.

Willfully missing the point, as usual. They have to pay whats in the contract, which stipulates what they pay if they cancel it. What the Government is trying to do is negate contracts already signed and NOT pay the agreed on sums in said Contracts.

 

[garyd]

And that gunny is what happens when you let the camels nose under the damn tent flap. This one has been in the pipe for more than sixty years. Not saying it makes it right but until one of these idiot CEO's or corporate takes the government to court over this and wins - a fairly unlikely circumstance at best - we've been handed a fait accompli and while we've got the right to bitch about it that won't change a damn thing.

 

[Ame®icano]

Sorry the board of directors at the direction of the shareholders can change a contract anytime they choose. Happens with some regularity in the private sector. CEO's are not infrequently given a choice in dire times such as these of A. taking a pay cut B. resigning or C. get fired.

No contract can be changed without consent of both sides, otherwise contract is in breach and subject to lawsuit.

Every contract includes certain obligations from both sides in agreement. If those obligations are not met, contract is subject to termination.

 

[Ravi]

*Eight months later government proposed changing conditions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

I don't think this one is correct, but feel free to show me what you are talking about.

OK, great... at least we're willing to debate.

I've already posted this in #179, but posting again to make it easier.

H. R. 1—403 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

‘‘SEC. 111. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.

...

‘‘(D)(i) A prohibition on such TARP recipient paying or accruing any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation during the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided under the TARP remains outstanding, except that any prohibition developed under this paragraph shall not apply to the payment of long-term restricted stock by such TARP recipient, provided that such long-term restricted stock—
‘‘(I) does not fully vest during the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided to that TARP recipient remains outstanding;
‘‘(II) has a value in an amount that is not greater than 1⁄3 of the total amount of annual compensation of the employee receiving the stock; and
‘‘(III) is subject to such other terms and conditions as the Secretary may determine is in the public interest.

‘‘(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.

According to this law, all recipients of TARP funds are under certain limitations on executive pays, bonuses and stock-options. It clearly says: If executive contracts were signed before Feb 11, 1009 nothing will change, and all contracts signed after the Feb 11, 2009 have to comply with the law.

I do agree, per this law government has authority to limit the pay for contracts signed after Feb 11, 2009. What government is trying to do is to limit the executive pay for all TARP recipients regardless of when contract is signed and to expand their limitations on non-TARP recipients.

If I am wrong, please explain where.

Who? What? When? Where? How?

You all keep saying that without one shred of evidence that anyone's contract is being violated.

Show me a contract that is being violated.

 

[Ame®icano]

I don't think this one is correct, but feel free to show me what you are talking about.

OK, great... at least we're willing to debate.

I've already posted this in #179, but posting again to make it easier.

‘‘(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.

According to this law, all recipients of TARP funds are under certain limitations on executive pays, bonuses and stock-options. It clearly says: If executive contracts were signed before Feb 11, 1009 nothing will change, and all contracts signed after the Feb 11, 2009 have to comply with the law.

I do agree, per this law government has authority to limit the pay for contracts signed after Feb 11, 2009. What government is trying to do is to limit the executive pay for all TARP recipients regardless of when contract is signed and to expand their limitations on non-TARP recipients.

If I am wrong, please explain where.

Who? What? When? Where? How?

You all keep saying that without one shred of evidence that anyone's contract is being violated.

Show me a contract that is being violated.

I see where the problem is. You state that no contract is being violated and you are correct.

What Dude and I are saying is that government is proposing measures that will violate current law - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, therefore, no contract is being violated yet. If any of government proposals takes effect, law will be violated.

Do you agree on this?

 

[loosecannon]

Fed proposes to police bank pay for 1st time - Yahoo! News

By what authority does the Federal Government think it has to dictate pay to private institutions? Someone provide me with a link to the clause in the Constitution that permits this.

This crap is unbelievable. And the left will all harp how it is just the right thing to do.

imo opinion the issue isn't what authority they used, that was easy.

The issue that this may have horrible unintended consequences for the $400 billion in US held shares in these firms.

In the case of the BoA CEO they clawed back an entire years pay and frankly I think that was retribution. Punitive, showing clout and exacting revenge for Lewis's failure to follow orders.

With salaries slashed 90% and the bulk of compensation in the form of stock options who would work for one of these firms whose prospects are challenging? Not top talent, that's for sure.

 

[Contumacious]

OK, great... at least we're willing to debate.

I've already posted this in #179, but posting again to make it easier.
According to this law, all recipients of TARP funds are under certain limitations on executive pays, bonuses and stock-options. It clearly says: If executive contracts were signed before Feb 11, 1009 nothing will change, and all contracts signed after the Feb 11, 2009 have to comply with the law.

I do agree, per this law government has authority to limit the pay for contracts signed after Feb 11, 2009. What government is trying to do is to limit the executive pay for all TARP recipients regardless of when contract is signed and to expand their limitations on non-TARP recipients.

If I am wrong, please explain where.

Who? What? When? Where? How?

You all keep saying that without one shred of evidence that anyone's contract is being violated.

Show me a contract that is being violated.

I see where the problem is. You state that no contract is being violated and you are correct.

What Dude and I are saying is that government is proposing measures that will violate current law - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, therefore, no contract is being violated yet. If any of government proposals takes effect, law will be violated.

Do you agree on this?

No sir, she is incorrect.

The Constitution is a contract between "WE THE PEOPLE" and the federal government.

The same DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO USE US TREASURY MONIES TO PROP UP PRIVATE COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[loosecannon]

The Constitution is a contract between "WE THE PEOPLE" and the federal government.

The same DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO USE US TREASURY MONIES TO PROP UP PRIVATE COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

only in theory. Try to sue the feds for breach of contract.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution is a contract between "WE THE PEOPLE" and the federal government.

The same DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO USE US TREASURY MONIES TO PROP UP PRIVATE COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

only in theory. Try to sue the feds for breach of contract.

And Contumacious should go study the first Bank of the U.S. Hey, C-Toid! Tell us how many directors the twenty-five were government officers, and tell us the % of the currency of the bank funded by the U.S.

 

[Contumacious]

The Constitution is a contract between "WE THE PEOPLE" and the federal government.

The same DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO USE US TREASURY MONIES TO PROP UP PRIVATE COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

only in theory. Try to sue the feds for breach of contract.

My point precisely.

.