The Devil is in the details: A little-noticed amendment in the stimulus package...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

From today's Financial Times:

snip

Public anger at Wall Street pay has been fuelled by news reports that banks paid $18bn in bonuses last year in spite of despite suffering losses, and that Merrill Lynch had paid nearly 700 bankers more than $1m each in bonuses just before reporting more than $15bn in losses, has fuelled . Unlike restrictions on executive pay announced by Mr Obama last week, which are aimed at companies that receive federal aid in the future, the new rules apply to companies that have already been given government funds. (emphasis mine)

For banks that have received more than $500m in federal funds – a group including large institutions such as Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs – the new measures will apply not just to top-five executives but also to the next 20 most highly paid employees.

Regulators will have to clarify whether the 20 highest-paid employees only include people registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission – a provision that could exclude some top traders from the bonus ceiling.

Wall Street executives argue that extending the bonus cap beyond the executive suite would penalise traders and investment bankers who may have nothing to do with the companies’ losses or strategic mistakes.

“They are attacking the wrong guys,” one said. “Capping pay for executives is understandable, but forcing bankers to take small bonuses will just drive them away.”

More at link:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/643a02fa-f9f9-11dd-9daa-000077b07658.html

[rvablue]

1. Good. Better late than never. I'm happy to know this! n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Oh, absolutely!

My husband reads this daily, and he told me about it...

I was so thrilled!

[ComtesseDeSpair]

2. "It will drive them away"

And then what will we do?????? After all, they've all been doing such an AMAZING job at running those banks! :eyes:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. My sentiments exactly.

Amazing job at running those banks...into the ground!

:eyes:

[livetohike]

24. Yeah, drive them away to where I wonder

who would hire losers like that? It makes me laugh that they think they are so indispensable. If there is one thing I have learned it is that no one is indispensable.

[Barack_America]

31. Yeah. God help us if the greedy, unethical bankers are driven away.

:eyes:

Chances are that if you're running a company that took money from the bailout, your company will be better off without you.

[Orsino]

33. Gee. Then banks would have to hire execs who want to work for their money. n/t

[dkf]

4. I don't see why they won't have shareholders approve salaries.

That would be the best check on crazy pay.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

7. But that's exactly why they won't allow shareholders that right!

Because that would work against the bankers!

:grr:

[Booster]

5. The executives who drove their companies into the ground

should have been fired, not given bonuses. Duh.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. I agree completely!

Bonuses for idiots!

[grannie4peace]

8. i've heard of a couple of other cool things that were slipped in.

can't remember right now!:grr:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

11. No worries! Come back and tell us if you do remember!

:hug:

[grannie4peace]

14. will do :)

:pals: :yoiks:

[AtomicKitten]

9. It's the retroactive part that resonates.

Great stuff!!!

K&R :hi:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

12. Oh, I hear ya!

That was the part that especially resonated with me!

Thanks for the rec!

:hi:

[Hope And Change]

13. K & R!Thanks for posting!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

15. No, thank YOU!

[billyoc]

16. If you read the fine print, you'll see that these salary caps are VOLUNTARY.

There is only a requirement that shareholders be notified if salaries are going to exceed the cap.

Makes for nice headlines, though. :eyes:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

17. This provision is not about salary caps.

It's about bonuses.

[Liberal Jesus Freak]

18. Drive them away???!!!!????

I'm sorry, bankers, but let me tell you something: I run a homeless shelter and not too many people here got paid last year and I guess you just forgot to mail them their bonuses. And if any of you bankers who are being driven away are reading this don't even bother looking for the sarcasm thingy. And one more thing: IF you are driven away by this year's small bonus, please hope that it isn't to a homeless shelter where--trust me--no one will have a lot of sympathy for your plight. x(

[Cha]

19. Jon Stewart will love this, too..

He was giving a mini lecture last week on the rules and etiquette for "The Rescuers and The Rescuees" after he heard all the bellyaching on Wall Street. :rofl: Cracked me up!:rofl:

[TBF]

20. "Forcing bankers to take small bonuses will just drive them away" -

we should be so lucky.

[marshall]

21. Why can't the government just come up with one salary for everyone?

One equitable, livable salary that every person makes, regardless of what he or she does. Then there would be no working people who can't pay their bills, and there would be no more gazillion dollar salaries for executives that run companies into the ground.

[Lisa0825]

23. ummm.... no

That means no one could earn more for working harder, studying harder to earn advanced degrees, taking on more responsibility, etc? Horrible idea.

[Abq_Sarah]

32. Seriously

Why would I bust my ass working 80+ hours a week to run my own company and keep people employed if I am only allowed to earn a set amount? I'd be better off bagging groceries at Kroger's.

[firedupdem]

22. K & R! Thanks n/t

[Towlie]

25. Who cares? It's a zero-sum game between competitors. Reasonable salaries won't affect the outcome.

[Sebastian Doyle]

26. Oh poor billionaire bankers missing their bonuses.....

What?? They have to wipe their ass with $1000 bills now, instead of $10,000 bills? Poor fucking babies. :cry:

[Number23]

27. But wasn't there a big diary at Daily Kos just a few days ago saying the opposite of this??

That caps on executive pay had been eliminated? The diary writer was furious.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

28. I haven't seen that article...

Perhaps they were mistaken. The Financial Times is normally on top of things.

Oh, wait! This thread is about the bonuses, not the pay. They are different things.

Someone else upthread made the same assumption. But the bonuses were capped. NOT the pay.

[Number23]

29. Ahh, I see. That does make a difference. Thanks, Madame!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

30. Glad I could clarify!

[Honeycombe8]

34. I don't see how they can make this retroactive. After the execs have rec'd and spent the $$$? nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

35. I have no idea either...

But someone has figured it out, I guess...