03-19-2009, 09:24 AM
That was Cohen's point:
These execs DID have a stake in the company. A sizable part of their compensation is in the form of stock and they all lost a lot of money (or potential money) when the stocks tanked.
They're still rich, but they'd be many times richer if their company didn't fail.
I'm not sure how you could more closely tie execs to company success. Maybe ONLY pay them in stock options that vest over time so that it's in their best interesting to stick around and see the stock go up.
Or what about Chris Dodd?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/a...index.html
These execs DID have a stake in the company. A sizable part of their compensation is in the form of stock and they all lost a lot of money (or potential money) when the stocks tanked.
They're still rich, but they'd be many times richer if their company didn't fail.
I'm not sure how you could more closely tie execs to company success. Maybe ONLY pay them in stock options that vest over time so that it's in their best interesting to stick around and see the stock go up.
Or what about Chris Dodd?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/a...index.html
Quote:(CNN) -- Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.So there's part of the reason these execs are getting their bonus pay with bailout money: the government arranged it for them.