"We don't know if they're bonuses or sales commissions."
Correct.
"We don't know if they are "performance" bonuses which are clearly unjustifiable, or whether they are contractual commitments that must be met."
Correct again. Your point?
Again, that was the point of the "might". I guess you didn't understand the post you are responding to. So, I will try to explain. I don't buy that these guys are just paper pushers just following orders. If so, they are awfully overpaid.
"Apparently, Frank wants to be able to control how much executives are paid -- even where no federal money is involved. If this is true, it is clearly far beyond any reasonable power for government to have."
Probably. But, the current situation is untenable. They have been paid billions over the past few years to run what appears to be a con game. They definitely engaged in fraud with the unsecured CDS's. That, combined with the possibly poorly named bonuses, has gotten a lot of people pissed. To the point where they will be looking for ways to "do something". Granted, it isn't the best possible motivation, but it certainly is a natural one.
Especially the way this has been handled. Contracts can be changed. It happens all the time. It takes negotiation, but it can be done. A recent example, as part of the bailout of the auto companies, the government required that they get some concessions on their union contracts. No such strings were put on the bailout of the financial system. Why is that? |
