|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 28, 2010 17:44:05 GMT -6
www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60R6DU20100128by Joe Rauch " Bank of America Corp's (BAC.N) new chief executive, Brian Moynihan, will receive a base salary of $950,000 this year, according to a source familiar with his employment agreement....
Base salary is generally a small portion of a bank CEO's total compensation. Stock options, cash bonuses or other awards usually make up the bulk of their pay....
Moynihan will earn more in base pay than Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N) Chief Executive John Stumpf earned in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis. Stumpf received $878,920, the lowest base salary among the four largest U.S. banks.
JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) Chief Executive Jamie Dimon received $1 million in base pay that year, while Citigroup Inc (C.N) CEO Vikram Pandit received $958,000.
Lewis received a base salary of $1.5 million in 2008. He forfeited any pay and bonus in 2009 and retired from the bank on December 31."
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 28, 2010 23:53:24 GMT -6
that sounds fine by me. It's the stock package that's always the troubling part (especially executives who have an option to backdate sales of their own stock). only $1 mill when there must be somewhere around 100 athletes who make more than that per year who do much less for the economy.
of course, what he does (or more appropriately does not do) is also a bit of an issue.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 29, 2010 3:38:51 GMT -6
only $1 mill when there must be somewhere around 100 athletes who make more than that per year who do much less for the economy. of course, what he does (or more appropriately does not do) is also a bit of an issue. Yes. What he does, or does in a negative direction, certainly is an issue. If he subtracts from the economy, he shouldn't be getting paid anything at all. If they're hurting the economy, they're income should be negative--i.e., they should be getting fined. In my opinion, that applies to every remaining investment bank, and most large commercial banks (i.e., Bank of America, Citibank, etc.). Regarding horrendously overpaid and under-worked professional athletes, at least they're not directly subtracting from the economy. (That is, unless they're contributors to large taxpayer-funded handouts to their teams to build new sports stadiums. If that is the case, they too should be fined.)
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jan 29, 2010 9:48:52 GMT -6
Well, lets look at this a bit closer then. Here we have a ceo who was brought in less than 12 months ago. So there isn't much that we can blame on him (yet). (I do have to admit that as a junior member of the board, he may be complicit in the shenanigans that occurred before, then again, he may be 100% innocent because he was in a different department).
Going back before him, the CEO (i'm surprised i can't remember his name off the top of my head) didn't do that bad of a job until he let Bernanke convince him that he had to buy homelender(again, not sure on the name) and swallow their debts. If it wasn't for that, we might have had one less superbank that we would have had to bail out. (or maybe bofa would have won out and we all would be banking with our "bank of america" ... sadly ironic).
btw- I still have my account with bofa and I'm trying to change away as fast as possible because I don't like being their customer
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 29, 2010 17:52:10 GMT -6
Going back before him, the CEO (i'm surprised i can't remember his name off the top of my head) didn't do that bad of a job until he let Bernanke convince him that he had to buy homelender(again, not sure on the name) and swallow their debts. If it wasn't for that, we might have had one less superbank that we would have had to bail out. I certainly don't think he should be excused because he let Bernanke convince him of anything. This is these guys' business, and they're responsible for knowing what they're doing. If they follow bad advice, they should pay the price (or the fine). This notion that "we didn't know" or "we got bad advice" doesn't fly in any other industry (certainly not in Medicine). But again, even when you listen to advice, you're expected to use you own judgment and discretion on whether to follow it or not. I can't fathom a banker claiming he just didn't know, when it was obvious to most lay people. This is kind of like "the blame game" on steroids. I just closed mine a couple of months ago.
|
|