Bailout Watch 549: Feds to Crack Down On ChryCo, GM Exec Pay

by Robert Farago

Published: June 8th, 2009

bailout watch 549 feds to crack down on chryco gm exec pay

Don’t worry Detroit: you’re not being singled out for “special” federal supervision (perish the thought). The New York Times reports that Congress is taking control of the pay and compensation for all beneficiaries of federal largesse who’ve double-dipped into the taxpayer’s purse. “The Obama administration plans to require banks and corporations that have received two rounds of federal bailouts to submit any major executive pay changes for approval by a new federal official who will monitor compensation, according to two government officials.” A Pay Czar! Heads-up, bosses, meet the new boss of bosses: Kenneth Feinberg. You may remember Mr. Feinberg as the 9/11 victims’ compensating lawyer originally tipped to be Obama’s Car Czar—a job so big the Prez eventually gave it to Wall Street insider Steve Rattner and 24 of his closest friends. Anyway, there’s an important (if not exactly auto-oriented) dynamic in play here . . .

Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a handful of others have worked to rid themselves of their ties to the government in order to shed restrictions on pay that they say put them at a competitive disadvantage.

But under the administration’s new plans, even companies that repay the taxpayer money will not escape some form of oversight on their compensation structure.

Tin hat time. Is that why Uncle Sam was so reluctant to take back the bailout bucks? OK, this is scary.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner plans to testify on compensation on June 18, and that may be when he outlines the principles for the entire industry. Those principles will be permanent: when bailed-out companies return the government money, they will still have to follow those principles.

The days of Chrysler and GM executive tough-snuffling are over. Or are they? Chrysler has already figured out a way to pay its suits as Fiat employees. And if GM can’t find a loophole somewhere, well, they wouldn’t be GM would they?

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 25 comments

Robert Schwartz on Jun 08, 2009

I think this a great idea, anything that makes sure that GM and Fiatsler fail sooner, rather than later, will eventually save us money.

Like Reply
U mad scientist on Jun 09, 2009
Unless the SEC is proactive and makes effective shareholder democracy a reality then the opportunity cost of investing time and money in persuing specifically an engineering or science education will just not be cost effective. Is this what we want ? We're currently resorted to importing all of our talent. Seems to work ok, especially at suppressing the price/wages of that talent. - 1) On people making more than $250,000. $338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire $179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction $118 billion - capital gains tax hike Excuse me while I look for the world's smallest violin. Number 3 makes no sense. I thought obama was going to bring about financial Armageddon. Where exactly are they getting their capital gains? I demand an investigation into this suspicious figure. - $17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes $210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform $4 billion - information reporting for rental payments $5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas $3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs $62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants $49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties $13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies $1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers Isn't this the stuff the corporate subsidies and tax loopholes that free market balanced budget "conservatives" usually rant about? Aren't you glad the gov is out of the business of distorting the market? I mean, you can't be serious bringing in such self-humiliating arguments. This has to be a trick.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Analoggrotto Kia Tasman is waiting to offer the value quotient to the discerning consumer and those who have provided healthy loyalty numbers thinks to class winning product such as Telluride, Sorento, Sportage and more. Vehicles like this overpriced third world junker are for people who take out massive loans and pay it down for 84 months while Kia buyers of grand affluence choose shorter lease terms to stay fresh and hip with the latest excellence of HMC.
SCE to AUX That terrible fuel economy hardly seems worth the premium for the hybrid.Toyota is definitely going upmarket with the new Tacoma; we'll see if they've gone too far for people's wallets.As for the towing capacity - I don't see a meaningful difference between 6800 lbs and 6000 lbs. If you routinely tow that much, you should probably upgrade your vehicle to gain a little margin.As for the Maverick - I doubt it's being cross-shopped with the Tacoma very much. Its closest competitor seems to be the Santa Cruz.
Rochester Give me the same deal on cars comparable to the new R3, and I'll step up. That little R3 really appeals to me.
Carson D It will work out exactly the way it did the last time that the UAW organized VW's US manufacturing operations.
Carson D A friend of mine bought a Cayenne GTS last week. I was amazed how small the back seat is. Did I expect it to offer limousine comfort like a Honda CR-V? I guess not. That it is far more confining and uncomfortable than any 4-door Civic made in the past 18 years was surprising. It reminded me of another friend's Mercedes-Benz CLS550 from a dozen years ago. It seems like a big car, but really it was a 2+2 with the utilitarian appearance of a 4-door sedan. The Cayenne is just an even more utilitarian looking 2+2. I suppose the back seat is bigger than the one in the Porsche my mother drove 30 years ago. The Cayenne's luggage bay is huge, but Porsche's GTs rarely had problems there either.