Bank of america Ceo to pocket in 53 Million Retirment Payday [Archive]

macfan881

Oct 1, 2009, 07:27 PM

Zombie Acorn

Oct 1, 2009, 07:31 PM

September 21, 2009

"Bank of America has received a total of $45 billion from the Treasury's $700 billion financial bailout pot, which is financed by taxpayers.

The company says it wants to repay $20 billion of that money, which would remove the company from a list of firms that have received "exceptional" assistance from the government.

Such companies are subject to greater government scrutiny, including having to provide plans outlining compensation packages for their highest-paid employees. The Obama administration's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, has the power to veto them."

Government interference has allowed this CEO to get a 56 million dollar retirement. **** that ****.

Eraserhead

Oct 2, 2009, 06:07 AM

He's not getting $53 million/year is he? Thats the total size of the pot right?

.Andy

Oct 2, 2009, 06:37 AM

Government interference has allowed this CEO to get a 56 million dollar retirement. **** that ****.
Doesn't a CEO deserve such a high pay packet for working such a stressful job? He's obviously worked extremely hard. In general in america your pay is proportional to how hard you work and how scarce you are isn't it?

In general the harder you work in school the better you do.

In general the more qualified (pre-required hard work) the better chance you have of getting a higher paying job.

So to answer the original question as to why a janitor and an accountant shouldn't get paid the same for the same "effort" its because the accountant spent 4+ years in school and paid thousands to get the education. Added to the fact that the supply pool of janitors is rather high while accountants are more scarce.

And after all the financial crisis wasn't the fault of the CEO's. Why should they have to pay with their own hard earned money because of something that the liberal government did? Desertrat has explained it all before;

But, Thomas Veil, it's liberalism which has us in this present economic kerfuffle, unless you want to try and tell me that the Community Reinvestment Act was a conservative program.

iBlue

Oct 2, 2009, 06:43 AM

Sun Baked

Oct 2, 2009, 06:50 AM

Although the bank swore off employment contracts and eliminated golden parachutes seven years ago, Lewis can thank a pension plan that dates back decades for his rich retirement rewards.Always nice to be the last in line for the gold rolex retirement watch you were awarded 8 years ago for signing on the dotted line.

Just wondering if he will get it as the annuity or a lump sum, likely a lump sum.

---

If the government is going to sue him for recovery of his bonuses, they could likely place a hold on the money ... but since this was earned way before any of the bonus scandals ... it places them in the position of violating an employment contract.

leekohler

Oct 2, 2009, 06:51 AM

This admittedly dumb question is an honest one - Did the government not place strings upon the bailout money? I cannot believe this is acceptable at all.

I've got mixed feelings but I'm not really against the bailouts considering the bigger picture of what would happen without them, but to think of the money being used like this?

Unfortunately, Uncurious George did not think to place these kinds of restrictions on the banks (just like his no bid contracts to Halliburton), but I think we should demand repayment of all our money from BOA right now.

Thomas Veil

Oct 2, 2009, 09:55 AM

Doesn't a CEO deserve such a high pay packet for working such a stressful job? He's obviously worked extremely hard.My boss works so extremely hard that he almost had a nervous breakdown in front of us yesterday. I want $53m for him too.

And after all the financial crisis wasn't the fault of the CEO's. Why should they have to pay with their own hard earned money because of something that the liberal government did?Oh, please!! This is not Rush Limbaugh's audience you are talking to here.

Zombie Acorn

Oct 2, 2009, 12:52 PM

Doesn't a CEO deserve such a high pay packet for working such a stressful job? He's obviously worked extremely hard. In general in america your pay is proportional to how hard you work and how scarce you are isn't it?

And after all the financial crisis wasn't the fault of the CEO's. Why should they have to pay with their own hard earned money because of something that the liberal government did? Desertrat has explained it all before;

You clearly miss the point, government backup does not belong in the private sector. If this were any other company (namely one that shouldn't be out on it's ass if not for uncle Sam) I would support this retirement fund completely. Your attempt to distort my words has crashed in failure once again

.Andy

Oct 2, 2009, 02:25 PM

You clearly miss the point, government backup does not belong in the private sector.
No I realise this is your POV you've made it very clear. But you missed my point. Why should the private sector CEOs be punished financially personally for something that as desertrat points out was completely the fault of the liberal government? It doesn't seem very libertarian to punish them for something that wasn't their fault.

If this were any other company (namely one that shouldn't be out on it's ass if not for uncle Sam) I would support this retirement fund completely.
I thought you might. $53 million dollars isn't obscene is it? A good reflection of how hard the CEO worked in school and his job compared to people who are just nurses. And police. And military.

Your attempt to distort my words has crashed in failure once again
I'm confused. I thought you just said you agree with my synopsis :confused:? That your words are true that this CEO deserves $53 million?

Thomas Veil

Oct 3, 2009, 09:17 AM

...was completely the fault of the liberal governmentI think a number of us are still waiting to hear how this was so. Will everything be laid at the feet of the Community Reinvestment Act, with that shining star of the conservative movement, deregulation, having nothing to do with it?

Eraserhead

Oct 3, 2009, 09:25 AM

Will everything be laid at the feet of the Community Reinvestment Act, with that shining star of the conservative movement, deregulation, having nothing to do with it?

Is there any doubt that that is the truth of the matter? :p

rasmasyean

Oct 3, 2009, 10:46 AM

First of all, a payout like that will make a high portion of it get taxed in America’s progressive tax system…which clearly “disadvantages” the higher income earners…especially THAT high!

Second, if that dude was promised that as part of a previous deal, then it’s his right to get it. I personally don’t think government should poke their businesses all that much in the private sector anyway.

When a leader has advanced to the point where they are deemed by the boards that they are worth some huge amount of money, they will sort of like “bid” for the worker that way. That’s how it works. Supply and demand. Of course it’s not always about the money, but if you were offered more money to jump jobs, would you take it? If you are really desirable maybe someone will offer you 53 million dollars in your next job…so what?

And I don’t see how this is better for the “government” if it was distributed evenly across all workers anyway. Clearly, regarding the first point I made, the government would collect less overall tax from all the peons. And what is this retired CEO gonna do with his money? Maybe he’ll have a big house or 2 and a fancy car, but that’s not 53 million dollars. He’s going to invest most of it and that actually goes back into the system and creates jobs and innovation.

rasmasyean

Oct 3, 2009, 11:02 AM

Doesn't a CEO deserve such a high pay packet for working such a stressful job? He's obviously worked extremely hard. In general in america your pay is proportional to how hard you work and how scarce you are isn't it?

The “stressfulness” of the job has little to do with it. It can be…but not always. If you are passionate about a job, it is less stressful and you will likely be even better at it. And you might get paid high for it even though it’s a walk in the park for you.

In America you do NOT get paid proportional to how “hard” you work. You get paid for the “results” you output….or theoretically should output.
Your scarcity does affect your pay however, as long as your skills are in demand. If you do hard manual labor, you will likely be real tired at the end of the day and even wear your body out for your life. But you might not get paid that much compared to an educated “chair worker” because many other people can do your job. That's just an example to illustrate a point and not necessarily a rule, of course.

FX120

Oct 3, 2009, 12:01 PM

Bah. BofA...

Also known as the Bank of Fees...

leekohler

Oct 3, 2009, 12:20 PM

He’s going to invest most of it and that actually goes back into the system and creates jobs and innovation.

Uh huh- because that's what happened the last 8 years when the top wage earners got huge tax breaks? Right. Keep hanging on to that myth. It's my favorite line of bull from the right.

What will he most likely do? Send tons of it off shore into tax shelters.

MacNut

Oct 3, 2009, 12:28 PM

I don't understand why CEO's get paid so much. The, well they worked hard for it argument doesn't wash. The guy on the low end of the stick is working harder and getting paid ****, those are the people that deserve the raises not the CEO that probably hasn't done any hard work in years.

skunk

Oct 3, 2009, 12:52 PM

I don't understand why CEO's get paid so much.It's not a question of how hard they work as much as the amount of damage they can do. Each one of their strategic decisions can float or sink their company.

MacNut

Oct 3, 2009, 01:21 PM

It's not a question of how hard they work as much as the amount of damage they can do. Each one of their strategic decisions can float or sink their company.So why do they pay them after they sink the company? How many employees could keep their job if the CEO wasn't over paid. They lay of people saying well we don't have the money, so don't over pay the CEO.

Capt Crunch

Oct 3, 2009, 01:31 PM

So why do they pay them after they sink the company? How many employees could keep their job if the CEO wasn't over paid. They lay of people saying well we don't have the money, so don't over pay the CEO.

The fact is, the board of the company feels that a CEO is worth more than the several hundred employees they could pay otherwise.

CEOs don't just work hard, they are extremely capable. Don't think for a second that you could just walk in and do their job. Sure, sometimes the company fails under their watch, but sometimes the QB throws 3 interceptions in a row. Doesn't mean you can walk on to the NFL team and do his job better than he can.

rhsgolfer33

Oct 3, 2009, 01:34 PM

What will he most likely do? Send tons of it off shore into tax shelters.

Well he will still pay taxes when he earns the $53 million. Which amounts to approximately $18,520,362 in taxes using the married filing jointly 2009 tax table. Will he pay all of that on the $53 million? No, because $53 million isn't his AGI, but taking into account his other income and his deductions he'll probably end up paying more than $18 million in taxes. If I were him I'd probably purchase citizenship in some nation where there tax system defines income less broadly, renounce my U.S. citizenship, and then I'd move to the Caymans. I definitely wouldn't put up with this tax system throughout my retirement if I were worth more than $5-$10 million or so.

This doesn't really bother me. He's worked at the bank in upper level positions for over 40 years, the last one year shouldn't taint the retirement package he's been expecting (and in fact was awarded prior to the downturn and bailout). It easily could have been written into his contract as well; are you going to breach a contract with someone who has enough money to easily cost your more than his retirement compensation in legal fees? I don't think so.

chstr

Oct 3, 2009, 01:38 PM

at least we peasants get to hate him unabashedly. I hope he gets cancer :P

.Andy

Oct 3, 2009, 03:28 PM

I think a number of us are still waiting to hear how this was so. Will everything be laid at the feet of the Community Reinvestment Act, with that shining star of the conservative movement, deregulation, having nothing to do with it?

The “stressfulness” of the job has little to do with it. It can be…but not always. If you are passionate about a job, it is less stressful and you will likely be even better at it. And you might get paid high for it even though it’s a walk in the park for you.

In America you do NOT get paid proportional to how “hard” you work. You get paid for the “results” you output….or theoretically should output.
Your scarcity does affect your pay how
Just to make things clear my posts don't reflect what I believe whatsoever. I was merely asking questions of Zombie Acorn who had made the claims about pay and hard work and qualifications on a previous occasion (see quote in my initial post in this thread). And also see my quote where Desertrat made the claim that the current financial crisis was completely at the feet of the "liberal government". I was more interested in how the libertarian grappled with these previous comments in light of the revulsion that the CEO was getting this indefensible pay out.

skunk

Oct 3, 2009, 04:23 PM

So why do they pay them after they sink the company?I'm not defending this CEO or his payoff, simply giving the market's answer to your general question. In my opinion, no CEO is worth more than $20m, and that is in a good year.

chstr

Oct 3, 2009, 04:48 PM

I'm not defending this CEO or his payoff, simply giving the market's answer to your general question. In my opinion, no CEO is worth more than $20m, and that is in a good year.

NOBODY is "worth" more than 20 million period. those that think they are, are the most worthless. REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rasmasyean

Oct 3, 2009, 06:10 PM

NOBODY is "worth" more than 20 million period. those that think they are, are the most worthless. REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That’s not necessarily true. Think of Bill Gates. What if he was to work as IBM’s CEO (including work up to it) for his career.
If Bill Gates actually had that option and knew what the potential outcome of Micro-Soft was going to be…how much would it have cost to hire him? Then he would be discussed here like this instead?

Mark Zuckerberg developed games when he was little and even some artificial intelligence software that recognized people preferences in their patterns of usage. MS and AOL wanted to hire him right out of high school and buy his “work”. Instead their offer wasn’t good enough and he decided to go to Harvard to drop out and form this little experiment called FaceBook. In the former quantum timeline what would you say about him? No TEENAGER is “worth” more than a million period!

The job market is very much like the stock market…but just much slower. People bid for someone, and if that meets their ask, there’s a deal. Simple as that...perhaps throw in some "personal preference" here and there too for some people. Whether you are in charge of people who flip money, or cure cancer, or kill other people is irrelevant. If the bid / ask contract matches, you get the job…much like a product.

If you don’t really like that “capitalist” system, put yourself in the board’s shoes. Bill Gates is like proly the majority shareholder or something of MS or whatever. So if he doesn't like Balmer, he can boot him. So he'll hire Joe Shmoe for 100 million dollars? Why would he do that? Well, maybe because he thinks Joe Shmoe would earn Microsoft 200 million dollars more than before.

electroshock

Oct 3, 2009, 06:12 PM

With all the anger of failing Company's and big name CEO's geting big pay bonuses. BOA announced that there top CEO will retire to 53 Million. This is a outrage after a Stock that Failed horrible over the last year I really hope the WH work on a plan after they pass healthcare and fix these outragous CEO bonuses.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/01/news/newsmakers/lewis.payout.fortune/index.htm

Hmm. Interesting definition of 'success' their board has... Then again, I guess one could potentially make the argument that success was in getting the government to bail them out -- thus he should be duly rewarded (on his way out) for not seeing the bank end up in bankruptcy or dissolution.

rasmasyean

Oct 3, 2009, 06:34 PM

Hmm. Interesting definition of 'success' their board has... Then again, I guess one could potentially make the argument that success was in getting the government to bail them out -- thus he should be duly rewarded (on his way out) for not seeing the bank end up in bankruptcy or dissolution.

Also, you can’t forget that periodic stock price movements are just a blip on the radar of a corporation’s life. People have short memories and live much in the moment. It seems like doom and gloom now and in prosperity, it seems like a force that cannot be stopped. The media likes to make eye catching headlines for obvious reasons. But often short term trends mean little to the overall momentum. As long as a company has a good business and a future market, then they should do OK. And as history (not even that long ago) shows, stock prices don’t always reflect the “true value” of the company. They reflect the value of people’s present perception. If you lost “half your money” in a stock…that’s because you sold it at half the value, not necessarily because the company lost half it’s inventory.

Thomas Veil

Oct 3, 2009, 08:43 PM

Eraserhead

Oct 4, 2009, 05:50 AM

If you don’t really like that “capitalist” system, put yourself in the board’s shoes. Bill Gates is like proly the majority shareholder or something of MS or whatever. So if he doesn't like Balmer, he can boot him. So he'll hire Joe Shmoe for 100 million dollars? Why would he do that? Well, maybe because he thinks Joe Shmoe would earn Microsoft 200 million dollars more than before.

True, I don't think that happens very often though.