Disgusted with hotshot bankers

I am disgusted as I read about the hotshot bankers who make the big bucks because they “need extra money to be motivated” (12/22, A-1, “Banks in bailout gave big rewards”). Is this still America? Do we still have a collective soul?

I think of the thousands of workers whose daily efforts keep the country going and who do not always quit at quitting time if there are still people to be served. Do the hotshot bankers think they are more intelligent and deserving than the teachers, social workers, nurses and other caregivers who chose to enter a service profession despite the lower pay?

And what of the people who are overseeing the bailout? Does U.S. law not provide the clout to hold accountable the recipients of the bailout money that taxpayers were told would salvage the country’s economy?

In less than a month, a new administration will take over. Will the hope of the campaign carry over past Jan. 20 in the face of so much brokenness in America? Hopefully, Washington will take its cue from the middle class. Those at the top are too far removed from the reality of the rest of us to be of much help.

Janelle Lazzo
Roeland Park

Comments

[Sammy]

You know you've failed when the owners want to make you rich to get you the heck out of the company.

Unfortunately, the free rider problem make it tough for shareholders to make effective decisions come Board election time. But having a vote is much more effective than not having a vote.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

In theory I agree with you Marctnts, however, contractual agreements hold true.
Many CEO's at the bigtime companies will get paid ridiculous money, whether they perform or not. It is a tough situation to try and resolve. I am against ridiculous golden parachutes for lack luster performances while employee get the minimum at best. At the same time the last thing we need is targeted caps on pay, as it would only be for specific industries and simply too intricate to enforce or set parameters for. I guess we have to make a choice between greedy incompetent politicians and government that produce nothing and provide little on thier own ,erit or enterprise with a few bad apples however is the heart and soul of what built this country.

[Marctnts]

"And did the stockholders in fact have an election as to how to compensate the next CEO?"

No, they left it to their ELECTED board of directors to act in their best interests.

[Pub 17]

OK, four years, and part of the duties of the CEO is to educate stockholders on why it's important to put money into R&D vs. ROI. And did the stockholders in fact have an election as to how to compensate the next CEO?

[Marctnts]

"Do you actually think that Sprint stockholders voted out Esrey and felt so bad about it that they gave him a lot of money to comfort him?"

No, I think they voted him out and gave him lots of money because that's what they contractually agreed to do when they hired him.

"What if CEO's (or COO's or CFO's) HAD to stand for election every two years like Representatives to be retained in office by the stockholders?"

I think we would have an even greater focus on the short-term stock price and less focus on the long term health of a company.

[Pub 17]

C'mon. Do you actually think that Sprint stockholders voted out Esrey and felt so bad about it that they gave him a lot of money to comfort him? What if CEO's (or COO's or CFO's) HAD to stand for election every two years like Representatives to be retained in office by the stockholders? That would ROCK.

[Marctnts]

...

[Marctnts]

"Because you say so? Try voting out a CEO."

I know where you're going with this, but for a publicly traded company, this is the one job where you (as a stockholder) actually DO have a shot at "voting" someone out. The top guy usually bears the brunt of poor performance, and when the ownership begins demanding change, his head is often the first on the chopping block.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

The term CEO is used too generally. You do realize that two people can start a sub-chapter S corporation on less than $1000?
Someone has to be the "CEO".

Politicians are good? CEO's are bad?
How many jobs do politicians produce without confiscating technics? Not many.

The majority of businesses in the country make less than $250,000 said one politician, so why should we spend so much time and resource worrying about the samll fry?

[Pub 17]

Because you say so? Try voting out a CEO.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

My question is why was so much of the $700B allocated to other than financial markets. There were a plethora of special interests groups, industries and cronies that received funding not just "hotshot bankers".
While most people would agree the compsensation of these large, publically traded companies are entirely over paid, so are many other professions. I wonder if Janelle would liek to know where her heros such as John Edwrads made the majority of their money (hedge funds). Hillary cashed in how much oil stock before her campaign?
Sorry Janelle, your posts continually advocate the government solving the problems and provisioning our lives. Government is more unaccountable than enterprise by a long shot.

[Marctnts]

"Does U.S. law not provide the clout to hold accountable the recipients of the bailout money that taxpayers were told would salvage the country’s economy?"

In the case of the TARP funds, the answer is "not much". The reporting and accountability requirements were purposely vague, and the Treasury doesn't seem to want to push the issue. When they decided to infuse cash instead of buying questionable debt, they took a GIANT leap away from the original purpose of TARP that they sold to the American public.

"Do the hotshot bankers think they are more intelligent and deserving than the teachers, social workers, nurses and other caregivers who chose to enter a service profession despite the lower pay?"

Yet another person who confuses societal value with economic value, although considering the performance of most financial sector "hotshots" as of late, I guess that argument loses it's luster as well.