GMAC CEO awarded $11.62 mil in 2008

[highnote]

GMAC CEO awarded $11.62 mln compensation in 2008

Nice work if you can get. Who knew the U.S. automotive industry was doing so well?

You gotta love the fact that they release this news on a Saturday afternoon.

Can you say "clawback"?


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GMAC-CEO-awarded-1162-mln-rb-14503247.html

[Tom]

OK, compare that salary to those of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi.

How many families did GM provide a paycheck and benefits for last year?
How much tax revenue did GM generate last year?

Now, ask the same question of the lsit of morons above.....I have no problem with 11 mil. None at all.

[highnote]

You might be right. It seems like a lot to pay someone whose company performed so poorly.

Auto companies go in 5 year cycles. Maybe this is the bottom of the cycle and he is setting the company to prosper in 2012-13.

And as Henry Kissenger also said, it's 90% of the politicians that give the other 10% a bad name. :D

Same with CEOs probably.

[The Judge]

be justified? He got it because the deck is stacked in his favor. How can anyone look a union employee in the face and say we want you to take a cut in pay, we want you to re-negotiate you signed contract downwards while at the same time paying yourself as if there is no tomorrow!

These are the Un-Americans they won't fight or send their kids to fight in any war although the certainly will start a war (war means an extra buck or two) and in times of need they keep paying themselves massive amounts of money while asking for tax breaks , lower health cost for them, lower pension obligations ,and laying off their workers. Oh I forgot bailouts becuase they don't lose even when they have lost.

If you can't see there is something wrong with a man getting 11 million dollars for losing there is nothing I can say.

[rastajenk]

It happens hundreds of times over in professional sports.

[skate]

I,ll bet on the guy (?) that got $24 Million for six months work at what was the bank ? Leeman Bro.

Not even a "thank you"

[Tom]

be justified? He got it because the deck is stacked in his favor. How can anyone look a union employee in the face and say we want you to take a cut in pay, we want you to re-negotiate you signed contract downwards while at the same time paying yourself as if there is no tomorrow! Probably because that 11 mil is a drop in the bucket compared to the huge union saddle GM carries.

These are the Un-Americans they won't fight or send their kids to fight in any war although the certainly will start a war (war means an extra buck or two) GM started a war? Which one? and in times of need they keep paying themselves massive amounts of money while asking for tax breaks, lower health cost for them, lower pension obligations ,and laying off their workers. Imagine, whining about having to paty the world's highest tax rates! The ingrates! Oh I forgot bailouts because they don't lose even when they have lost. Loans, not bailout. Look it up. They are different.

If you can't see there is something wrong with a man getting 11 million dollars for losing there is nothing I can say.

And yet you keep saying it.:lol:

[HUSKER55]

Tom, the man ran the company into bankruptcy or almost close to it. Hence the baiilout.

If you think under those terms that 11 m a year is ok then I can assume you think the bailout is as well?

I know how to run a corporation into the ground. So where is my performance check?

[JustRalph]

GMAC is not the auto company.

GMAC is the financing division, Loan Marketing Division of the company. This guy has nothing to do with the way the Auto Company runs............ :bang:

[kenwoodallpromos]

How many of those kind of execs are voted on by proxy because middle class stock holders do not bother to check into the companies they are buying stock of?

[dutchboy]

GMAC is one of the largest home mortgage lender in the country. GM only owns 49% of GMAC. 51% is owned by the the same money fund that controls Chrysler.

[Tom]

Tom, the man ran the company into bankruptcy or almost close to it. Hence the baiilout.

If you think under those terms that 11 m a year is ok then I can assume you think the bailout is as well?

I know how to run a corporation into the ground. So where is my performance check?

No, capitalism has a built in remedy - bankruptcy. The salary is too high for poor performance, the company goes broke. No bailout. I am opposed to ALL bailouts. I can accept some form of loans, but bailouts and nationalization....no way. No company is too large to fail.

[Tom]

GMAC is not the auto company.

GMAC is the financing division, Loan Marketing Division of the company. This guy has nothing to do with the way the Auto Company runs............ :bang:

My point was that he was part of the GM family, and that by financing those cars, he was part of the service provided to the country.
No salary should ever be regulated.

[sandpit]

As CEO of a publicly held company, the guy's primary responsibility is to increase shareholders' wealth. From Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2008, GMAC's stock went from $17.25 to $11.60 a share. To compensate someone for this kind of performance is sad.
Also, the dude was previously CFO for Bank of America...wonder what kind of miracles he worked there? GMAC is getting what they deserve.

And lots of salaries are regulated in the US...union contracts set limits on wages, the NFL, NBA and NHL all have salary caps, which are essentially regulations, it's just that some players are more "regular" than others. :D

[chickenhead]

as much as anything...all this has pretty clearly exposed a good portion of these corporations as essentially fraudulent, with management seeing self enrichment as their primary duty. That is fraud, as it's not the duty shareholders have assigned them. The Boards of Directors have not come close to doing the duties they have been assigned. Why should investors invest when it's clear the ship is not being run with their interests in mind.

If investment wasn't a cornerstone of capitalism, then we could say who cares...but it's kind of important the process works.

[prospector]

the largest shareholders are the fund holders who vote in block...someone should be looking at those elections each year...no fund ever asked me how to vote for companies...they voted for me..it seems fund managers weren't doing their jobs either..

[Tom]

If investment wasn't a cornerstone of capitalism, then we could say who cares...but it's kind of important the process works.

And we all know that when government is involved nothing ever works.

[robert99]

the largest shareholders are the fund holders who vote in block...someone should be looking at those elections each year...no fund ever asked me how to vote for companies...they voted for me..it seems fund managers weren't doing their jobs either..

Problem is they set up these grotesque rewards when times are good and the excuse is always how can you not reward these people well who have worked so hard to make you so much money. Its a big company and we must pay the going rate (ie 15% more than any other sector company) or they will leave. There is nothing in the contracts for the bad times except in the small print where they award themselves enhanced payoffs and pensions if fired. It is basically widespread engineered theft by default from the shareholders.

[sandpit]

And we all know that when government is involved nothing ever works.

99.9% of the programs the gov't perpetuates stink, but there are 3 which affect us all that I think have served the country pretty well:

1. The military has protected us wonderfully
2. The interstate highway system changed the face of commerce and transportation in the country.
3. The National Parks should make us all appreciate the incomparable beauty of our country.

[Dannyboy]

OK, compare that salary to those of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi.

How many families did GM provide a paycheck and benefits for last year?
How much tax revenue did GM generate last year?

Now, ask the same question of the lsit of morons above.....I have no problem with 11 mil. None at all.

General Motors sold its majority interest in GMAC to Cerberus Capital. In 2005 I think.

http://www.cerberuscapital.com/

Ceberus is run by John Snow, Secretary of Treasury under George w. Bush.

This 11 million dollars was a kiss for getting GMAC approved as bank holding company thereby making it eligible for TARP funds. That's the bank bailout fund orchestrated by George Bush and Henry Paulson the Secretary of Treasury at that time.

Cerberus Capital owns Chrysler who is also getting Billions in the Automotive bailout.

Tom all these folks want to do is pick your pocket. You should make it a bit harder by not slobbering on them like a fool in love.... :(

[Lefty]

tom, your posts 12, 13. Well said.

Sandpit, yep and the govt should stick to the 2-3 things they are good at and stop trying to pick winners and losers in business. They should also get rid of all the social programs. Charities do a better job, with less money.

[PaceAdvantage]

as much as anything...all this has pretty clearly exposed a good portion of these corporations as essentially fraudulent, with management seeing self enrichment as their primary duty. That is fraud, as it's not the duty shareholders have assigned them. The Boards of Directors have not come close to doing the duties they have been assigned. Why should investors invest when it's clear the ship is not being run with their interests in mind.

If investment wasn't a cornerstone of capitalism, then we could say who cares...but it's kind of important the process works.And that's why Jim Rogers is 100% correct when he says these companies should be allowed to FAIL. The fact that they are NOT being allowed to FAIL is the bad part. Not the fact that management seeks enrichment as its primary goal.

Because in a truly capitalistic society, companies that are run is such a manner are bound to fail eventually. And those companies that are run properly will BENEFIT either from less competition, or the ability to take over the assets of these failed companies at an exponentially reduced price.

Capitalism has been and is being corrupted by the government that is not allowing sick companies to die.

[PaceAdvantage]

The moment the government or anyone else starts dictating what the open market is willing to pay for managerial talent is the day this country truly does turn into the U.S. of S.R.

And the fact that some are eating up this whole "sink the rich" stuff is truly sad. The MSM is promoting this at every level...class warfare is upon is in a dangerous way...

[chickenhead]

I don't get the argument about the banks, either I'm missing part of the "don't nationalize" argument, or someone else is, maybe someone here can help me.

When banks go bad they get taken over by the FDIC. The shareholders get wiped out. Sometimes the bondholders take a hit. The FDIC sells them off. Ever since we've had an FDIC, that is what happens when banks fail, right?

We nationalized Continental Illinois in 1984, took over management, and eventually sold them off.

That is nationalization. Nationalization is what we do with failed banks. I guess the question is....why are people against us doing what we've always done with failed banks?

I can understand some of the reasons why, like I guess we are currently bending over backwards to protect bondholders, but not the reasons having to do with this scary kind of socialism relating to nationalization. Obviously you want to get them broken up and sold off as soon as possible...but Reagan was no socialist. I guess my point is, nationalization is a tool for capitalists. It's a goal for socialists. I don't think anyone is arguing they want permanently nationalized banks, or at least no one serious.

It seems to me nationalization is the only alternative to what we have now with the zombie banks we keep throwing money at. Everyone wants the banks to be allowed to fail. That is called "nationalization".

[Tom]

Chick, agree with what you say, but the plan is to nationalize ALL banks.
Some were forced to take TARP money. This is going far beyond the normal.

[slewis]

Chick, agree with what you say, but the plan is to nationalize ALL banks.
Some were forced to take TARP money. This is going far beyond the normal.
NO banks were forced Tom.

They were encouraged so they would be more aggresive lenders.

But in this current economic climate, would you lend (Especially aggressively) Tarp or not???

What's really taking place in the banking world is similar to someone who has $100k in savings, blows it at the racetrack cause he thinks he's a great handicapper. Then someone he knows comes along and tells him his friend knows the trainer of a longshot in the last race. (The US GOVT).
He hits the super and it pays $160,000. (Bailout)
He realizes he's even after taxes....
He stops gambling......

[slewis]

The moment the government or anyone else starts dictating what the open market is willing to pay for managerial talent is the day this country truly does turn into the U.S. of S.R.

And the fact that some are eating up this whole "sink the rich" stuff is truly sad. The MSM is promoting this at every level...class warfare is upon is in a dangerous way...

The Govt, which is an extension of the taxpayers (who hold a stake in these companies through a bailout) MUST dictate compensation and have a right to.

If you or anyone else is going to tell me that the "move" Merill executives pulled in December right before the BOA takeover wasn't immoral, anti-american, un-ethical and technically illegal, you and I will never agree.

PA before I worked in the banking industry I spent a few years as a broker, (Registered Rep as they're called). I followed the moves of new CEO's.
I thought if I started a business some day I might learn a few things.
This is what most of them do when they take over a company:

1) Fire 20-30% of workers...
2) Fire as many older, higher paid workers as possible.(Perfectly legal as ruled by the courts unless your in a "protected age bracket")
3) Look to "outsource" as many jobs as possible overseas to save on Salary, tax, benefits, etc.
4) With all "highly skilled, high salary positions" keep costs down by bringing in and sponsoring foreign workers (through programs like H-1b visas) who will work for 25% less then American workers.
Good for the stock today... bad for the country down the road.
One of the reasons we are in this mess.

Businesses accomplish all this with strong "managerial talent" moves, through the use of heavy lobbying..thus forcing law revision and change.

Wonder why you have no middle class left in the USA?
Wonder why Americans are in "sink the rich" mode????

All societies, in order to function, need Chiefs and Indians.
Not everyone can be a Chief. But when the Chiefs have everything, and the Indians have no food, water, or homes......Your headed for a big pow-wow.

[Tom]

NO banks were forced Tom.

They were encouraged so they would be more aggresive lenders.



No, some were told they had no choice.

[The Judge]

nicely put I can't see how anyone can argue with what has been said. The public is being ripped-off by greed. I had no idea that CEO's would continue to steal with the light so plainly shining on , them but they are addicted they can't stop stealing.

They are strung-out they are so addicted to having it their own way they can't stop.

They have more money then they could ever spend yet they risk jail and the imposition of new rules which would hamper them their successors
just so that they can steal today. Amazing greed ,the whole world is watching and they don't slow up. They show up to beg in JETS, the nerve.

I want to say they are stupid but in America if you are super-rich you can't be stupid even if you are a gangster and a crook.

[Tom]

So your answer to their greed is to sick the even greedier government on them?

[ddog]

No, some were told they had no choice.



name them?

the ones who "said" they had no choice are at least bending the truth.

the way that works is that the ones that took the help were then foolishly thought to be better off than the ones that didn't take it.

so the ones that didn't take it, even though they may have thought they didn't need it were in a bind at least pr wise to be seen as strong so they took it as well.

you couldn't do a few of them and not do the other big ones in the room at the same time.

of course if you look back , even the ones that said they didn't need it, turns out they were either lying or stupid or both as they have needed it since the funds were handed out to remain "well capitalized". :lol:

the simple problem they are grappling with is that no matter what the talking heads and lamestream media would have you believe , nobody wants to dive in and commit a ton of money to buy up the parts of these banks right now.

They are petrified and rightly so at the black holes that may be out there.

So, it comes down to a slow bleed down until the black holes have been filled in with gvt money or a chance of a big crash down all at once, which we may get anyway.

The gvt and fed are taking the only path they think they can handle and that's the slow bleed down over many years to get to a place where the leverage and just ugly stupid bets have been wound down.

I don't like it , but it's not some plan 9 from the commie bunker or other outlandish bunk that's spread for ratings points.

[ddog]

So your answer to their greed is to sick the even greedier government on them?


and your answer it would seem is to do nothing.

all that "nothing doing" while they are backed up with gvt/taxpayer gurantees.

when ceo act as badly as many of these have for many years , then yeah since the boards are normally cherry picked by the same frauds that run the joint then yeah sick the gvt on them.

they have proven to be terrible managers and risk takers.


trust but verify.

where did I hear that before?

[Tom]

How about this...stockholders OWN the companies.
THEY are allowed to vote on the BOD and president.
How many actually do?

Maybe owning stock might mean you have a responsibility.

Stop bailing them out and let them fail.

[ddog]

stockholders in the main are not voting on what you think they are,.
the days of mom and pop showing up at the meeting with their 10 shares and making any kind of a diff are long past.


the people that move the markets are on the side of the buy and hold buy and hold everything is great, at least that's how they try to sell it.

they are loath to rock the boat if the div and share price look ok.


its only after the looting has taken place that the bag gets passed to the public.

I don't disagree with let them fail, but the more i see the more i can tell it just isn't that easy anymore.

If we tossed AIG and some of the other zombies under the bus i think the EU would implode and that would be felt here i can assure you.

I am afraid it may happen anyway.

if you think some of the pensions , etc. look bad now, let them fail and wipe out a bunch of the bondholders and wake up with 0 in the old 401,etc. and the fail may be more than you could take.

Much of this fed/gvt stuff has been about protecting bondholders, stockholders , not so much.




We have let the thing get to a very very VERY dangerous point.

[Marshall Bennett]

Boils down to allowing the artery of the system to collapes , and expect the economy to continue to beat . I suppose a fine line exist between those important enough to be considered critical , and those we can live without , so to speak . Imo , AIG , Citigroup , GM , to mention a few would be considered critical . Add a dozen or so more to the list and without them , there wouldn't be very much left would there ?