StrangeSox Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 (edited) QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 03:14 PM) Did I hear right this AM that the Feds were going to not allow the golden parachutes for the former CEO's of these two? That would be a good thing. Yeah. I saw an article on Bloomberg yesterday on this. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home Edited September 16, 2008 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 02:14 PM) Did I hear right this AM that the Feds were going to not allow the golden parachutes for the former CEO's of these two? That would be a good thing. Haven't heard that, but, good. I've said before, I'd like to see Congress propose a lead parachute act. Basically, it goes like this. If C-level executives want to run their companies in to the ground, fine. BUT, if they should do anything that results in the federal gov't stepping in - bankruptcy, bailout, etc. - they should all be let go, with ZERO compensation from that point forward. No parachute, no severance, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 02:43 PM) Haven't heard that, but, good. I've said before, I'd like to see Congress propose a lead parachute act. Basically, it goes like this. If C-level executives want to run their companies in to the ground, fine. BUT, if they should do anything that results in the federal gov't stepping in - bankruptcy, bailout, etc. - they should all be let go, with ZERO compensation from that point forward. No parachute, no severance, etc. I think that is slightly harsh. They should receive exactly what their lowest paid employee gets. And maybe if I'm in a generous mood, I'd even consider going double based on their tax contributions through the years. Oh, and if they had outsourced any of those jobs overseas, that would be the lowest paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 (edited) Here's my issue with what is going on... Basically if these lenders know that they can make reckless decisions, as they will get a bailout upon fail, this type of thing will happen again if they are not regulated. These lenders are now borrowing money from us, the taxpayers. Honestly, if they want to barrow money from us we should set the terms of this loan (aka regulate them). I believe we as the taxpayers are completely within our rights as a lender to demand limited risk of our investment, executive compensation terms, and a number of other things. If they do not want regulation that is fine, but they need to realize that they will get no bailout. If they lose all their money, it's gone, as they did not agree to our terms. The consumer can decide if they wish to keep money in an unregulated bank or one which is regulated and has taxpayer insurance. Edited September 16, 2008 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 05:43 PM) I think that is slightly harsh. They should receive exactly what their lowest paid employee gets. haha i like this idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 QUOTE (Texsox @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 04:43 PM) I think that is slightly harsh. They should receive exactly what their lowest paid employee gets. And maybe if I'm in a generous mood, I'd even consider going double based on their tax contributions through the years. Oh, and if they had outsourced any of those jobs overseas, that would be the lowest paid. These people make gobs of money. Which I have no problem with. But you can't make gobs of money for years, run a company into the ground, and then expect taxpayers to pay you even more. Sorry, I have zero sympathy in those cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 05:47 PM) These people make gobs of money. Which I have no problem with. But you can't make gobs of money for years, run a company into the ground, and then expect taxpayers to pay you even more. Sorry, I have zero sympathy in those cases. I have no sympathy either. But at some level I want them to see what they did for the lowest members of the company. Maybe getting that check for $142.80 a week will remind them more than zero. Either way I think we agree. And I understand businesses fail. Hell, I've been around one or two that closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 06:43 PM) Here's my issue with what is going on... Basically if these lenders know that they can make reckless decisions, as they will get a bailout upon fail, this type of thing will happen again if they are not regulated. These lenders are now borrowing money from us, the taxpayers. Honestly, if they want to barrow money from us we should set the terms of this loan (aka regulate them). I believe we as the taxpayers are completely within our rights as a lender to demand limited risk of our investment, executive compensation terms, and a number of other things. If they do not want regulation that is fine, but they need to realize that they will get no bailout. If they lose all their money, it's gone, as they did not agree to our terms. The consumer can decide if they wish to keep money in an unregulated bank or one which is regulated and has taxpayer insurance. I'm confident that they will get regulated more severely from here on out. The problem is, the government can't by taking them over rewrite contracts that have already been agreed to. So the deals with the executives are pretty much set. We always have dictated the terms of the loans. That won't change. Fannie and Freddie are pointless without the implicit guarantee. It's a false choice, asking them to choose about regulation. Let's just do some hardcore regulation while reducing their size. (Although I don't support a complete decommissioning.) FannieFreddie need the guarantee and the sweetheart credit arrangement, and the gov't cannot credibly allow them to fail. I don't see what the problem is in deprivatizing the two while reducing the role they play in mortgage markets to that of a bit player in normal times. Like they (actually, it) were (was) originally intended -- an emergency stabilizer, not something to replace a true market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 06:04 PM) I'm confident that they will get regulated more severely from here on out. The problem is, the government can't by taking them over rewrite contracts that have already been agreed to. So the deals with the executives are pretty much set. We always have dictated the terms of the loans. That won't change. Those terms we set obviously sucked and need to be redone. As far as the contracts with executives, that is something I've thought about too. Not sure what the solution is for the current contracts, the Bush admin likes to dance around the law, so what the hell do it again and screw them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 06:15 PM) Those terms we set obviously sucked and need to be redone. As far as the contracts with executives, that is something I've thought about too. Not sure what the solution is for the current contracts, the Bush admin likes to dance around the law, so what the hell do it again and screw them. I'd say the capital requirements sucked much more than the lending terms. Hopefully, Fannie isn't private anymore, so we don't have to worry about these things so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 05:04 PM) I'm confident that they will get regulated more severely from here on out. The problem is, the government can't by taking them over rewrite contracts that have already been agreed to. So the deals with the executives are pretty much set. We always have dictated the terms of the loans. That won't change. Fannie and Freddie are pointless without the implicit guarantee. It's a false choice, asking them to choose about regulation. Let's just do some hardcore regulation while reducing their size. (Although I don't support a complete decommissioning.) FannieFreddie need the guarantee and the sweetheart credit arrangement, and the gov't cannot credibly allow them to fail. I don't see what the problem is in deprivatizing the two while reducing the role they play in mortgage markets to that of a bit player in normal times. Like they (actually, it) were (was) originally intended -- an emergency stabilizer, not something to replace a true market. On the bolded, this is not the case. No contract is binding that is in violation of the law. If a federal law is passed as I stated earlier, then any compensation occurring after the law passes can be subject to it. Any contract stipulations in violation of the law, even if the contract was written prior, are null and void. ETA: I should note that said legislation COULD stipulate that all current contracts are exempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 16, 2008 -> 07:35 PM) On the bolded, this is not the case. No contract is binding that is in violation of the law. If a federal law is passed as I stated earlier, then any compensation occurring after the law passes can be subject to it. Any contract stipulations in violation of the law, even if the contract was written prior, are null and void. ETA: I should note that said legislation COULD stipulate that all current contracts are exempt. My bad, and apparently that's what happened. The FHFA legislation stated that the director could basically nullify whatever he doesn't like in the exec severance package. I'm a little surprised this would fly, and that the contracts didn't include more creative packages, but alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 Is Barney Frank (D) smoking crack or something? Does he not listen to the news or read a paper? With the mortgage disasters that are now here, he seems bent on continuing to let bad loans live. http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0918ng.html The committee, chaired by Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, took steps to gut a modest reform of the bad lending policies that helped get us into this mess. By voice vote, members moved to overturn a ban on something called “seller-financed down payments” for some government-guaranteed mortgages. Congress largely banned government support for such mortgages just two months ago at the request of the Federal Housing Administrationmore at the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 Are seller-financed down payments really what got us into this mess? I realize the correlation between them and foreclosure, but isn't there a better way around this than banning this practice? If I were going to be buying a new home and the builder wanted to offer me $5000 towards the down-payment, why shouldn't they be able to, and why will that make me more likely to default? Couldn't they reform the rules so that you can have this payment assistance only if you are well-qualified? I also just realized that every sentence (except this one) is a question in this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2008 -> 01:27 PM) Are seller-financed down payments really what got us into this mess? I realize the correlation between them and foreclosure, but isn't there a better way around this than banning this practice? If I were going to be buying a new home and the builder wanted to offer me $5000 towards the down-payment, why shouldn't they be able to, and why will that make me more likely to default? Couldn't they reform the rules so that you can have this payment assistance only if you are well-qualified? I also just realized that every sentence (except this one) is a question in this post. There is no one thing that got us there, but sure, this could be part. And at the link they descibe how it isn't such a good ting because the buyer has no money on the line at first and the home price is inflated making it less likely that they or the bank would recover enough should they default. You would think that the politicians would be trying to make it a little harder to get these loans, and the loans themselves less risky, but here, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts