Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Companies Lose Money - CEOs get millions
Topic Started: May 29 2011, 05:02 AM (242 Views)
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
http://www.iwatchnews.org/node/4749
Quote:
 
Over the last two years, the Obama administration has approved a whopping $34.4 million in compensation to the top six executives of the financially troubled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage giants while lacking basic protections to ensure such compensation is warranted, a federal watchdog found.

The largesse flowed to the six executives even though the two companies they run struggle to staunch billions of dollars in losses, remain in government conservatorship, and are required to repay taxpayers for assuming the companies’ liabilities during the mortgage crisis. Fannie and Freddie are tapping Treasury Department funds each quarter to help pay 10 percent dividends owed to the U.S. government.

“The need for effectiveness, integrity, and transparency in FHFA’s programs and operations cannot be overstated,” said Inspector General Steve Linick, a former Justice Department prosecutor confirmed by Senate last year to watch over federal housing programs. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have received almost $154 billion in taxpayer funding to support the still-fragile housing market. In addition, they own or guarantee about $5.4 trillion in residential mortgage obligations.”

Fannie and Freddie, which support the housing market by buying mortgages from banks, were on the brink of collapse in September 2008 when they were taken over by the government. As conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) oversees operations at Fannie and Freddie as Congress works on a new housing finance blueprint that will decide the fate of the two companies.

$34 million for the top six executives? There's no way you can use any math to make that look not outrageous.

GKSR2
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Actually it doesn't seem that outrageous when you break it down.

34MM for 6 people over 2 years = 2.8MM/year.

Keep in mind the government pushed out the execs under which these firms blew up. Now you have two mega firms that between them handle the vast majority of the US mortgage market. Even if you want to change that, which pretty much everyone does, thats the actual situation you face and that ship isn't going to turn very fast.

So you need people to run these firms.

Where do you find them? In the executive ranks of other financial firms.

THose execs know they aren't getting stock payouts like they do in their current firms, and they also know that there's a good probability that the firms will be broken up and sold as parts, perhaps with a rump firm retained by the gov't. In other words, no stellar future there.

So the only way you get someone to run these firms is through cash guarantees.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
(i know a bit about this having been approached by one of those two firms for a job last year)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Who is actually worth $1M/year?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Jolly
May 29 2011, 08:54 AM
Who is actually worth $1M/year?

I think it is now more of a market price thing than a worth thing.

I have watched a number of these high priced salaries come and go. Some might earn it, but in my experience it is a minority.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
And the execs who were pushed out earlier were making even more (as is pointed out in the article).

After all, isn't it true that at some point you've made enough money?

Private companies like Oracle (Ellison), Disney (Iger), and Apple can pay as much as their shareholders allow. But, as was the scream a couple of years ago, the taxpayer paid for the bailouts of these "companies", and I wonder if the taxpayer is getting his money's worth. How are Freddie and Fannie doing these days?

I understand that it costs to get the brightest and best, but at the price, performance should be part of the deal, and for companies like Oracle and others, they get it. Freddie and Fannie, not so much.

Your point is well made, Jon, but, at what point do you earn "enough" money? Where is the "outrage" line to be drawn - if at all? Should it be whatever the market can bear?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
George K
May 29 2011, 09:00 AM

Should it be whatever the market can bear?

Yes.

The government can't draw this line or even make this claim.

The government may have to make sure a market exists, but beyond that they should stay away.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Copper
May 29 2011, 09:02 AM
George K
May 29 2011, 09:00 AM

Should it be whatever the market can bear?

Yes.

The government can't draw this line or even make this claim.

The government may have to make sure a market exists, but beyond that they should stay away.
Is that a euphemism for "bail them out if you need to, but hands off otherwise"?

Do you think that the fact that we did bail them out changes the rules going forward, whether or not the bail-out was a good idea?

The market was bearing it all just fine, till it didn't, at which time the taxpayers footed the bill.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Maybe they could pay them in food stamps.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Now there's a thought, MBA's at the trough.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
George K
May 29 2011, 09:00 AM
I understand that it costs to get the brightest and best, but at the price, performance should be part of the deal, and for companies like Oracle and others, they get it. Freddie and Fannie, not so much.

That's simplistic. THe government (specifically, the Bush administration) made a decision to cover all the losses on Freddie's and Fannie's portfolios. Those losses were going to unfold over time.


As for the execs at Freddie and Fannie, I don't know what their goals are so its hard for me to say how they're doing. But you have to answer that question in the proper context.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
jon-nyc
May 29 2011, 02:47 PM
George K
May 29 2011, 09:00 AM
I understand that it costs to get the brightest and best, but at the price, performance should be part of the deal, and for companies like Oracle and others, they get it. Freddie and Fannie, not so much.

That's simplistic. THe government (specifically, the Bush administration) made a decision to cover all the losses on Freddie's and Fannie's portfolios. Those losses were going to unfold over time.
3 years?

Fannie Mae's losses returned after being profitable:
Quote:
 
Fannie said Friday it would ask the government for a fresh taxpayer infusion of $6.2 billion after paying dividends to the Treasury. The loss follows net income of $73 million during the previous quarter.

The salaries of the CEO's were in excess of $6MM in 2009 (specifically under the Obama administration) and they got a raise.

Don't get me wrong, Jon. I'm not saying that these salaries were excessive. And I'm not saying that they were not. I'm saying that they were within an order of magnitude of private corporations whose leadership has been vilified for earning too much. The leadership of Fannie and Freddie have not delivered - at least in terms of profitability - and in when I hear the calls for accountability of CEOs in the private sector I listen for the same calls in the government sector and hear ... nothing.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
George K
May 29 2011, 03:03 PM
Don't get me wrong, Jon. I'm not saying that these salaries were excessive.
The word you used was outrageous.


Re the losses, they're going to fluctuate with the housing market - the losses no doubt went away when the housing market looked like it had bottomed - now its clear housing is in a double dip.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
jon-nyc
May 29 2011, 03:33 PM
George K
May 29 2011, 03:03 PM
Don't get me wrong, Jon. I'm not saying that these salaries were excessive.
The word you used was outrageous.
Fair enough. I used that word considering the context of the article.

In view of the outrage over other CEOs' salaries, is it as outrageous? Why is there silence?

Do you really want me to believe that the public understands the vagaries of the housing market as an explanation for the losses of Freddie and Fannie, and that's why they're getting a pass in the outrage department?

Do you think that, because these guys work for the gummint, their salaries are OK and we should appreciate the work they're doing to keep Freddie and Fannie afloat?

Or, because of the double-dip, we should give them a pass?

Is $2MM $6MM a fair compensation for this job?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Horace
May 29 2011, 09:49 AM

Is that a euphemism for "bail them out if you need to, but hands off otherwise"?

No, heck no.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply