Good work if you can get it.

[banyon]

WaMu CEO could get $13.65 million for 18 days work
Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:22pm EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE48P8LG20080926

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The chief executive of the failed savings and loan Washington Mutual Inc (WM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) could get $13.65 million for the 18 days he was on the job, a regulatory filing shows.

Alan Fishman was awarded a $7.5 million signing bonus when he joined the Seattle-based thrift on Sept 7, according to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

His employment agreement also provided for a $6.15 million lump sum payment as severance if he were terminated without cause, the filing shows.

Washington Mutual hired the former chief executive of Brooklyn, New York-based Independence Community Bank Corp to help the thrift rebound from soaring mortgage losses.

That plan was derailed when depositors started to quickly withdraw their money, prompting federal regulators on Thursday to close the thrift and broker a sale of most of its banking operations to JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) for $1.9 billion. The holding company was not part of the sale.

A Washington Mutual spokesman did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Some Congressional lawmakers negotiating a proposed $700 billion bailout for the financial services industry have called for limits on compensation and so-called "golden parachutes" for departing executives.

In a conference call with reporters on Friday, JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said he was unaware of Fishman's possible status with his bank.

"I would assume at this point that Alan is an employee of the holding company," he said. "We're not buying it, we're not responsible for it and I really don't know what's going to happen to him."

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Additional reporting by Elinor Comlay; Editing by Bernard Orr)

Society truly received a great benefit for his entrepreneurial innovation, right?

[alnorth]

If this man has an ounce of integrity he'll do the same thing that the AIG ex-CEO did.

Similar to that AIG CEO, it was obviously not his fault that WaMu went down since he only joined so recently, but he certainly did not earn that kind of money.

[alnorth]

Society truly received a great benefit for his entrepreneurial innovation, right?

I'm not outraged at the dollars involved, its not like competant CEO's are walking the streets. They have to offer these crazy guarantees to out-compete the other hiring companies. However, they really should have written some kind of tenure clause in there saying he doesnt fully vest into these benefits (ie have to pay back some of the signing bonus) until maybe 6 months on the job at least? A couple years?

[banyon]

I'm not outraged at the dollars involved, its not like competant CEO's are walking the streets. They have to offer these crazy guarantees to out-compete the other hiring companies. However, they really should have written some kind of tenure clause in there saying he doesnt fully vest into these benefits (ie have to pay back some of the signing bonus) until maybe 6 months on the job at least? A couple years?

I guess I would just fundamentally disagree and state that I think it is just a symptom of how out of whack our national priorities are.

[Rain Man]

I'm not outraged at the dollars involved, its not like competant CEO's are walking the streets. They have to offer these crazy guarantees to out-compete the other hiring companies.

I have to disagree. I think that a CEO skill set is not so stratifed that it justifies million-dollar-a-day salaries. I think it's a matter of people on the boards being high-level executives themselves who know the CEO candidates, and they all work together to give each other completely unjustifiable money. I'd bet that there are a whole lot of people who would be delighted to do the job for $500,000 a year and would be successful. CEOs of large companies have enormous resources to do their jobs, so it's not like they're personally carrying the load.

This whole bailout thing is just another example of the fact that these high-level people look out for each other and that it's very easy for them to simply work the system to get more payment from those without the inside connections. It's unfathomable to me that the taxpayers are about to be robbed for this. When the veneer is peeled away, our government is scarcely better than the ones like by Mugabe and Mbutu and Amin.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Most CEO's are just master politicians; it doesn't mean they are the most gifted person @ their company.

The idea of meritocracy in an environment as political as an office setting is ****ing hilarious.

[NewPhin]

Disgusting.

[patteeu]

I agree with al north. It's the going rate for these guys so they deserve it by definition, generally speaking.

[banyon]

I have to disagree. I think that a CEO skill set is not so stratifed that it justifies million-dollar-a-day salaries. I think it's a matter of people on the boards being high-level executives themselves who know the CEO candidates, and they all work together to give each other completely unjustifiable money. I'd bet that there are a whole lot of people who would be delighted to do the job for $500,000 a year and would be successful. CEOs of large companies have enormous resources to do their jobs, so it's not like they're personally carrying the load.

This whole bailout thing is just another example of the fact that these high-level people look out for each other and that it's very easy for them to simply work the system to get more payment from those without the inside connections. It's unfathomable to me that the taxpayers are about to be robbed for this. When the veneer is peeled away, our government is scarcely better than the ones like by Mugabe and Mbutu and Amin.

:clap:

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I have to disagree. I think that a CEO skill set is not so stratifed that it justifies million-dollar-a-day salaries. I think it's a matter of people on the boards being high-level executives themselves who know the CEO candidates, and they all work together to give each other completely unjustifiable money. I'd bet that there are a whole lot of people who would be delighted to do the job for $500,000 a year and would be successful. CEOs of large companies have enormous resources to do their jobs, so it's not like they're personally carrying the load.

This whole bailout thing is just another example of the fact that these high-level people look out for each other and that it's very easy for them to simply work the system to get more payment from those without the inside connections. It's unfathomable to me that the taxpayers are about to be robbed for this. When the veneer is peeled away, our government is scarcely better than the ones like by Mugabe and Mbutu and Amin.

Precisely because it is owned by these same business interests.

[NewPhin]

I have to disagree. I think that a CEO skill set is not so stratifed that it justifies million-dollar-a-day salaries. I think it's a matter of people on the boards being high-level executives themselves who know the CEO candidates, and they all work together to give each other completely unjustifiable money. I'd bet that there are a whole lot of people who would be delighted to do the job for $500,000 a year and would be successful. CEOs of large companies have enormous resources to do their jobs, so it's not like they're personally carrying the load.

This whole bailout thing is just another example of the fact that these high-level people look out for each other and that it's very easy for them to simply work the system to get more payment from those without the inside connections. It's unfathomable to me that the taxpayers are about to be robbed for this. When the veneer is peeled away, our government is scarcely better than the ones like by Mugabe and Mbutu and Amin.

Exactly. Croneyism is at the heart of their ridiculous salary, not market principles.

[banyon]

I agree with al north. It's the going rate for these guys so they deserve it by definition, generally speaking.

The rationale is that they need extra incentive to use their "entrepreneurial prowess and innovation" at some point, that motivation just goes away.

I mean does Bill Gates really work that much harder for that last billion of his 400 billion$, and if we had only paid him 500 million for that last bit of work, he would've just quit?

[RJ]

There is nothing wrong with the system. Let the free market work itself out.

[RJ]

Exactly. Croneyism is at the heart of their ridiculous salary, not market principles.


As best I can tell, the main qualification needed to be hired as a CEO is to have been a CEO before.

[banyon]

As best I can tell, the main qualification needed to be hired as a CEO is to have been a CEO before.

Sounds like the NFL coaching carousel.

[alnorth]

There is nothing wrong with the system. Let the free market work itself out.

What are you going to do? Pass a CEO salary cap law? If these guys are overpaid, let the stockholders pass judgment. Outside of this bailout, its really none of our business, and if competent CEO's really were that easy to find off the street they wouldn't get these salaries.

[Rain Man]

patteeu and alnorth, how can you watch Carl Peterson hire his cronies for coaching jobs time after time and still argue that it's a market decision to give people high-wage jobs? When you see Marty hire Kurt and Brian, can you say that they deserve it just because they're getting paid? Did George Bush benefit from his father being president? Did Al Gore benefit from his father being a senator? Let's talk about Ted Kennedy's half-century career, or the fact that Tori Spelling is a highly paid actress. Examples abound.

At the uppermost levels of the salary scale, I think that market forces cease to exist, and the world becomes feudal and hereditary again, and the goal is to amass gold and jewels. The kings don't believe in meritocracy, they believe in keeping the bloodlines going and in maximizing their estates. I wish it was different, but I don't think it is.

That's not to say that newcomers can't break into it, which is the best thing about America. But once the newcomers are there, all it does is start a new line of royalty.

[Rain Man]

What are you going to do? Pass a CEO salary cap law? If these guys are overpaid, let the stockholders pass judgment. Outside of this bailout, its really none of our business, and if competent CEO's really were that easy to find off the street they wouldn't get these salaries.

The problem is that the stockholders are too diffuse, and they only get their information from the Board in most cases. Then the major stockholders are others running in the same circles and they control the big blocs of shares. The thread title says it all: if you can get in, you're golden. If not, just know that your cost to play the game is much, much higher because they're going to take what they want.

[banyon]

What are you going to do? Pass a CEO salary cap law? If these guys are overpaid, let the stockholders pass judgment. Outside of this bailout, its really none of our business, and if competent CEO's really were that easy to find off the street they wouldn't get these salaries.

How about a worker-CEO proportionality law?

Also let's not forget that corporations are publicly chartered entities and get benefits from the public by virtue of their incorporation.

[BucEyedPea]

patteeu and alnorth, how can you watch Carl Peterson hire his cronies for coaching jobs time after time and still argue that it's a market decision to give people high-wage jobs? When you see Marty hire Kurt and Brian, can you say that they deserve it just because they're getting paid? Did George Bush benefit from his father being president? Did Al Gore benefit from his father being a senator? Let's talk about Ted Kennedy's half-century career, or the fact that Tori Spelling is a highly paid actress. Examples abound.

At the uppermost levels of the salary scale, I think that market forces cease to exist, and the world becomes feudal and hereditary again, and the goal is to amass gold and jewels. The kings don't believe in meritocracy, they believe in keeping the bloodlines going and in maximizing their estates. I wish it was different, but I don't think it is.

That's not to say that newcomers can't break into it, which is the best thing about America. But once the newcomers are there, all it does is start a new line of royalty.

The thing is if those cronies or family connections didn't produce results for their firms, they'd suffer the consequences on the free-market...just as the Chiefs are. Many of them do. That tells us right there the market is working.

The problem is that there is so much govt connected with business today and/or the privileged ones are politically connected. They get to be bailout out due to these connections. What no one is talking about is the amount of govt oversight that is coming with this bailout...in essence a nationalization of the finance. This just marries even more govt making it more likely gov't can insist on it's pet projects be funded and will lock in the priveleged few. It'd be more feudal. You want that as a solution? This is not a good idea. It's the type of power a despot dreams of.

As far as people knowing each other most of jobs are filled this way.
As far as nespotism goes, well that's a right that stems from property rights.
The market will either punish or reward them.

[RJ]

What are you going to do? Pass a CEO salary cap law? If these guys are overpaid, let the stockholders pass judgment. Outside of this bailout, its really none of our business, and if competent CEO's really were that easy to find off the street they wouldn't get these salaries.



I agree it's none of my business and it's up to the boards and the stockholders of these corporations. But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. CEO's of big corporations get paid that much money because they get paid that much money, not because it's what they're worth. IMO, of course.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

What are you going to do? Pass a CEO salary cap law? If these guys are overpaid, let the stockholders pass judgment. Outside of this bailout, its really none of our business, and if competent CEO's really were that easy to find off the street they wouldn't get these salaries

1% of stockholders own half the stock
4% own 80%

Who do you think has the say?

[Rain Man]

The thing is if those cronies or family connections didn't produce results for their firms, they'd suffer the consequences on the free-market...just as the Chiefs are. Many of them do. That tells us right there the market is working.

The problem is that there is so much govt connected with business today and/or the privileged ones are politically connected. They get to be bailout out due to these connections. What no one is talking about is the amount of govt oversight that is coming with this bailout...in essence a nationalization of the finance. This just marries even more govt making it more likely gov't can insist on it's pet projects be funded and will lock in the priveleged few. It'd be more feudal. You want that as a solution? This is not a good idea. It's the type of power a despot dreams of.

As far as people knowing each other most of jobs are filled this way.
As far as nespotism goes, well that's a right that stems from property rights.
The market will either punish or reward them.

Have you read about the severance packages these CEOs get when they fail? The market does not work at the CEO level. The company takes the risk, and the CEO gets the reward.

I agree on the government/business thing, which is why I think the banks should be allowed to fail. They obviously did not manage their businesses well, and shouldn't be rewarded for it. If they fail, the banks that are well-managed will get the business and grow as a result, and that's what we want to happen. Good management is rewarded, and bad management is punished. That's not going to happen, though. The bailout will punish good management with higher taxes, and reward bad management with free money.

This stuff just kills me.

[BucEyedPea]

Have you read about the severance packages these CEOs get when they fail? The market does not work at the CEO level. The company takes the risk, and the CEO gets the reward.
Just because some of us don't like this or the results of the market in terms of others getting better pay we feel they don't deserve, doesn't mean the market isn't working. Those are private contracts decided between individuals. If those companies can't afford them, then they wouldn't give them. It's how they attract talent. If wrong, the market punishes them and they lose that money. The market does not bring guaranteed income equality.

If they fail, the banks that are well-managed will get the business and grow as a result, and that's what we want to happen. Good management is rewarded, and bad management is punished. That's not going to happen, though. The bailout will punish good management with higher taxes, and reward bad management with free money.

This stuff just kills me.
But the bad ones are going under, and they are being bought out by others. Lehman and WaMu for example. It's happening. Now, all that's needed is to allow to them to decide the best way of liquidating any malinvestments. Not the govt.

[RJ]

The problem is that the stockholders are too diffuse, and they only get their information from the Board in most cases. Then the major stockholders are others running in the same circles and they control the big blocs of shares. The thread title says it all: if you can get in, you're golden. If not, just know that your cost to play the game is much, much higher because they're going to take what they want.



Those folks live in an incestous world and it's not an easy one to break into.

[RJ]

But the bad ones are going under, and they are being bought out by others. Lehman and WaMu for example. It's happening. Now, all that's needed is to allow to them to decide the best way of liquidating any malinvestments. Not the govt.



Which brings you full circle to the thread starter and the WaMu CEO possibly receiving $13M for a few days work.

[Rain Man]

Which brings you full circle to the thread starter and the WaMu CEO possibly receiving $13M for a few days work.


RJ makes the kill shot.


Sorry, buc, but market forces break down where some people have power over other people's resources.

[Logical]

1% of stockholders own half the stock
4% own 80%

Who do you think has the say?Exactly, as I believe Obama would say, mainstreet is not the place where the focus of the markets have concern.

[patteeu]

patteeu and alnorth, how can you watch Carl Peterson hire his cronies for coaching jobs time after time and still argue that it's a market decision to give people high-wage jobs? When you see Marty hire Kurt and Brian, can you say that they deserve it just because they're getting paid? Did George Bush benefit from his father being president? Did Al Gore benefit from his father being a senator? Let's talk about Ted Kennedy's half-century career, or the fact that Tori Spelling is a highly paid actress. Examples abound.

At the uppermost levels of the salary scale, I think that market forces cease to exist, and the world becomes feudal and hereditary again, and the goal is to amass gold and jewels. The kings don't believe in meritocracy, they believe in keeping the bloodlines going and in maximizing their estates. I wish it was different, but I don't think it is.

That's not to say that newcomers can't break into it, which is the best thing about America. But once the newcomers are there, all it does is start a new line of royalty.

I actually didn't see your post when I posted mine. If I had, I would have acknowledged that there's surely a lot of truth in what you say. I don't think market principles go completely out the window, it's just that the market principles might be a little bit different. At that level, they pay you to come work and then they pay you (sometimes even better) to go away. But I'm confident that you're right about it being a privileged club once you get into it.

I thought the NFL coaching analogy was a pretty good one. I'm sure there are bunches of guys out there who would gladly coach an NFL team for a couple hundred grand and a few of them would probably be OK at it. But I don't resent the saps who make it into coaching on someone's coattails because the process ultimately works and because it's not my money so why should I care about the guy who gets it?

[Ultra Peanut]

The thing is if those cronies or family connections didn't produce results for their firms, they'd suffer the consequences on the free-market...Things must be nice in Candyland, but in the real world, executives who fail don't suffer shit.