In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
What the Poor CEO'S make on our Misery
TooBig
Member Posts: 28,560 ✭✭✭
See How Much These Big-Name CEOs Took Home Each Year
By ZUNAIRA ZAKI
ABC NEWS Business Unit
-
As Washington lawmakers debate as massive, $700 billion, bailout for Wall Street firms that invested in mortgages, CEOs have come under new scrutiny for their multi-million-dollar salaries, even when their companies have suffered.
The bailout plan is likely to have limits on the so-called "Golden Parachutes" for executives forced to leave.
ABC News, in collaboration with James F. Reda and Associates, complied a list of some of the companies in the headlines today and looked at just how much money some of these CEOs are taking home.
CEO Cash Salary Stock, Other Pay Total Pay
Lehman Brothers
2007 Richard Fuld $5,000,000 $66,770,000 $71,770,000
2006 Richard Fuld $7,000,000 $55,323,679 $62,323,679
2005 Richard Fuld $14,500,000 $89,500,000 $104,000,000
2004 Richard Fuld $11,000,000 $24,300,000 $35,300,000
Morgan Stanley
2007 John Mack $800,000 $16,431,500 $17,231,500
2006 John Mack $800,000 $6,321,000 $7,121,000
2005 John Mack $337,534 $30,000,000 $30,337,534
Goldman Sachs
2007 Lloyd Blankfein $27,600,000 $15,500,000 $43,100,000
2006 Lloyd Blankfein $27,800,000 $15,700,000 $43,500,000
2006 Henry Paulson $129,087,000 $34,900,000 $163,987,000
2005 Henry Paulson $600,000 $3,363,422 $3,963,422
2004 Henry Paulson $600,000 $11,660,000 $12,260,000
Bear Stearns
2006 James Cayne $17,300,000 $14,800,000 $32,100,000
2005 James Cayne $12,900,000 $10,300,000 $23,200,000
2004 James Cayne $10,200,000 $9,500,000 $19,700,000
Merrill Lynch
2007 John Thain $15,800,000 $0 $15,800,000
2007 E. Stanley O'Neal $584,000 $161,000,000 $161,584,000
2006 E. Stanley O'Neal $19,200,000 $45,116,327 $64,316,327
2005 E. Stanley O'Neal $14,800,000 $3,120,000 $17,920,000
2004 E. Stanley O'Neal $700,000 $16,766,448 $17,466,448
Washington Mutual
2007 Kerry K. Killinger $1,000,000 $3,468,625 $4,468,625
2006 Kerry K. Killinger $5,100,000 $17,153,715 $22,253,715
2005 Kerry K. Killinger $4,600,000 $8,876,608 $13,476,608
2004 Kerry K. Killinger $2,900,000 $12,335,416 $15,235,416
AIG
2007 Martin J. Sullivan $10,200,000 $5,647,439 $15,847,439
2006 Martin J. Sullivan $16,900,000 $5,838,656 $22,738,656
2005 Martin J. Sullivan $7,750,000 $159,000 $7,909,000
2004 M.R. "Hank" Greenberg $1,400,000 $12,002,880 $13,402,880
Fannie Mae
2007 Daniel Mudd $3,200,000 $5,200,000 $8,400,000
2006 Daniel Mudd $4,400,000 $2,290,000 $6,690,000
Freddie Mac
2007 Richard Syron $5,590,000 $0 $5,590,000
2006 Richard Syron $5,150,000 $0 $5,150,000
Copyright c 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=5876413
By ZUNAIRA ZAKI
ABC NEWS Business Unit
-
As Washington lawmakers debate as massive, $700 billion, bailout for Wall Street firms that invested in mortgages, CEOs have come under new scrutiny for their multi-million-dollar salaries, even when their companies have suffered.
The bailout plan is likely to have limits on the so-called "Golden Parachutes" for executives forced to leave.
ABC News, in collaboration with James F. Reda and Associates, complied a list of some of the companies in the headlines today and looked at just how much money some of these CEOs are taking home.
CEO Cash Salary Stock, Other Pay Total Pay
Lehman Brothers
2007 Richard Fuld $5,000,000 $66,770,000 $71,770,000
2006 Richard Fuld $7,000,000 $55,323,679 $62,323,679
2005 Richard Fuld $14,500,000 $89,500,000 $104,000,000
2004 Richard Fuld $11,000,000 $24,300,000 $35,300,000
Morgan Stanley
2007 John Mack $800,000 $16,431,500 $17,231,500
2006 John Mack $800,000 $6,321,000 $7,121,000
2005 John Mack $337,534 $30,000,000 $30,337,534
Goldman Sachs
2007 Lloyd Blankfein $27,600,000 $15,500,000 $43,100,000
2006 Lloyd Blankfein $27,800,000 $15,700,000 $43,500,000
2006 Henry Paulson $129,087,000 $34,900,000 $163,987,000
2005 Henry Paulson $600,000 $3,363,422 $3,963,422
2004 Henry Paulson $600,000 $11,660,000 $12,260,000
Bear Stearns
2006 James Cayne $17,300,000 $14,800,000 $32,100,000
2005 James Cayne $12,900,000 $10,300,000 $23,200,000
2004 James Cayne $10,200,000 $9,500,000 $19,700,000
Merrill Lynch
2007 John Thain $15,800,000 $0 $15,800,000
2007 E. Stanley O'Neal $584,000 $161,000,000 $161,584,000
2006 E. Stanley O'Neal $19,200,000 $45,116,327 $64,316,327
2005 E. Stanley O'Neal $14,800,000 $3,120,000 $17,920,000
2004 E. Stanley O'Neal $700,000 $16,766,448 $17,466,448
Washington Mutual
2007 Kerry K. Killinger $1,000,000 $3,468,625 $4,468,625
2006 Kerry K. Killinger $5,100,000 $17,153,715 $22,253,715
2005 Kerry K. Killinger $4,600,000 $8,876,608 $13,476,608
2004 Kerry K. Killinger $2,900,000 $12,335,416 $15,235,416
AIG
2007 Martin J. Sullivan $10,200,000 $5,647,439 $15,847,439
2006 Martin J. Sullivan $16,900,000 $5,838,656 $22,738,656
2005 Martin J. Sullivan $7,750,000 $159,000 $7,909,000
2004 M.R. "Hank" Greenberg $1,400,000 $12,002,880 $13,402,880
Fannie Mae
2007 Daniel Mudd $3,200,000 $5,200,000 $8,400,000
2006 Daniel Mudd $4,400,000 $2,290,000 $6,690,000
Freddie Mac
2007 Richard Syron $5,590,000 $0 $5,590,000
2006 Richard Syron $5,150,000 $0 $5,150,000
Copyright c 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=5876413
Comments
What are you for and what are you against? Being against both is (an oxymoron) not capitalism, which is what you claim when you say you are against the bailouts.
Being against the bailouts is capitalism.
Being against large executive compensation is not.
The reason the banks are failing is because of governmental interferance in the financial markets, which would be healthy had they not been messed with. Forcing banks to make bad loans and then making matters worse by buying those loans was a recipe for disaster. If people are not qualified for a mortgage, they should continue to live in an apartment until they have a big enough down payment that the banks feel comfortable giving them a loan, be that 20% or 80%.
Giving irresponsible people loans also fueled the housing bubble by creating a market for people that would not otherwise have bought up or bought a house at all. Now all these neighborhoods are in foreclosure - who wants to move into a neighborhood where there are 25%+ abandonded and foreclosed houses?
This was a chain reaction started by the Democrats to make sure that everyone had a part of the "American Dream".
Maybe I'm alone in this, but those stats don't make me hate those guys, it makes me want to be them and strive to get to that level. You guys poo poo the bailouts but also poo poo the executive compensation.
What are you for and what are you against? Being against both is (an oxymoron) not capitalism, which is what you claim when you say you are against the bailouts.
Being against the bailouts is capitalism.
Being against large executive compensation is not.
The reason the banks are failing is because of governmental interferance in the financial markets, which would be healthy had they not been messed with. Forcing banks to make bad loans and then making matters worse by buying those loans was a recipe for disaster. If people are not qualified for a mortgage, they should continue to live in an apartment until they have a big enough down payment that the banks feel comfortable giving them a loan, be that 20% or 80%.
Giving irresponsible people loans also fueled the housing bubble by creating a market for people that would not otherwise have bought up or bought a house at all. Now all these neighborhoods are in foreclosure - who wants to move into a neighborhood where there are 25%+ abandonded and foreclosed houses?
This was a chain reaction started by the Democrats to make sure that everyone had a part of the "American Dream".
I don't think most of us have a problem with these guys making this kind of $$$$, if the business they are leading is SUCCESSFUL and making a PROFIT. Heck, I'd like to be in their shoes too. The problem is these guys are FAILING as leaders and continue to be compensated with astronomical salaries and bonuses. These guys fail and are forced to leave and still get huge severance packages. I think that is where most of us have the problem. How did we get to this point in America where FAILURE is rewarded so handsomely?
The CEO then donated $2.5 million to the University of Kentucky, his alma mater, on behalf of the insurance company. Not with his personal funds, but with the company's funds.
I was outraged. $2.5 million spread among the 5000 employees would have meant $500 to each employee - not a great raise, but still a raise.
Saying that, I don't believe it is within the government's authority to dictate salary terms to private entities... EXCEPT if the government is going to bail out (something I am against as well) the company. Once Joe Taxpayer has to fund the business, Joe Taxpayer has the right to dictate terms - just like any other investor would.
The sycophants for rush Limbaugh capitalism are always quick to point out that being against huge, obscene paychecks for the bloated spider at the center of the web is `un-American' ;
Much less quick to point out civic responsibility, duty to ones country, ethics, and morals.
Why should Paulson, Franks,Cox,Pelosi, Dodd and the Board of Directory not suffer in jail for their part. Hell no they are going to be running the ship still and hadn't learned a thing.
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregulaties in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. h**p://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner." These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.
Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. In everyday English - he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,"
On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.
Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.
Where are they now??
FRANKLIN RAINES?
Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor.
TIM HOWARD?
Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama.
JIM JOHNSON?
Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.
can someone answer this question on this, are they going to investigate the companys and put someone behind bars?
Look at the last three lines of the previous post and you'll have your answer.
As for the rest, it is part of the economic machine.
Notice I did not insert "capitalism" "socialism" or any other political model into the above comment.
It is not possible or realistic to expect otherwise.
We are the frivelant many, they are the vital few.
Far too many people care far too much what other people make. This cry baby jealousy is just plain sad. A private business can pay its' employees, including the CEO anything it wants and owes no appologies to anyone.
Exactly, as long as they ARE NOT in line for my tax dollars.
G R E E D !!! ...plain and simple
panzer I would be cautious disclosing things like that even vaugely on an Internet forum.
It's public record. It's buried 10 reports deep from the financials but it's there. Beside that pretty much standard for the segment