10 comments

[ 112 ms ] story [ 455 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
Good. Claw back the sold stock value as well from top execs.

It won’t make a drop, but it’s more than these corrupt/stupid banking execs got in 2008.

I disagree, that sounds dumb. It would set precedent for failing companies with moderately good financials to just throw in the towel early and get away with not paying employees for their last month of service. The closer we get to employment contracts that are "here's your paycheck, but if someone on social media doesn't like us we'll need that back in 30 days" the closer we get to becoming a mafia that ends up hurting the weakest first and extending the moats of large businesses infinitely.
What are bonuses paid for?
"The closer we get to employment contracts that are "here's your paycheck, but if someone on social media doesn't like us we'll need that back in 30 days" the closer we get to becoming a mafia that ends up hurting the weakest first and extending the moats of large businesses infinitely."

Alternate theory: there is not a uniquely slippery slope between limiting the compensation for banking professionals at a failed institution and fascism.

(comment deleted)
Executives cashing out their stock right before their company fails seems pretty self-evidently bad. Captains go down with their ships, they shouldn’t be the first people on the lifeboat.
TFA is about bonuses, not stock. Stock sales were (as is usual) automated and scheduled. Executives simply cannot have discretionary "day of", impromptu kind of stock sales.

But even the bonuses were on a scheduled calendar.

That said, it's possible they kept the ship afloat just a little longer, to make sure those payments occurred first. /Then/ they took on the risk of a cap raise. I'm not saying that happened. I haven't studied it closely enough.

For me what's more worrisome is the incestuous relationships.

(comment deleted)