Geithner aides made millions on Wall Street

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,080
Likes
10,923
Points
113
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f012c4b2-b8f6-11de-98ee-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Geithner aides made millions on Wall Street
By Tom Braithwaite in Washington

Published: October 14 2009 20:49 | Last updated: October 14 2009 20:49
Obama administration officials now working on fixing and regulating the financial system were beneficiaries of several million dollars in pay from Wall Street and private equity companies, it has been revealed.

Financial disclosure forms show that prior to joining the government, Gene Sperling, a senior Treasury adviser, was paid $887,727 by Goldman Sachs and $158,000 for speeches to companies that included Stanford Group, the company run by Sir Allen Stanford, who has since been charged with fraud.

Mr Sperling’s compensation from Goldman was for work on a philanthropic project. His overall pay, including for his main job at the Council on Foreign Relations, totalled $2.2m in the 13 months to January.

The forms, which were first obtained by Bloomberg, showed that Matthew Kabaker, another adviser in the Treasury, earned $5.8m at Blackstone, the private equity firm, in the two years before joining the administration to work on plans to support banks and spur lending. Much of the compensation was in stock.

Lewis Alexander, another adviser, was chief economist to Citigroup before joining the administration; he was paid $2.4m in the last two years.

Even though some of the officials whose previous salaries were disclosed are senior, many were appointed as “counselors”, meaning they escaped Senate confirmation hearings which could have highlighted their past remuneration and employment at a time of heightened animosity towards the financial industry.

Earlier this month the release of the telephone call logs of Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary, showed he had numerous conversations with a number of Wall Street executives, sparking allegations that the administration was too close to the industry.

Officials argued then and on Wednesday that it was important to have skilled people working for the government as it crafted complicated financial rescues and for Mr Geithner to communicate with financial sector executives. Mr Geithner, the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, has never worked on Wall Street.

Mr Obama, however, has hit out at the culture that he said prevailed before last year’s financial crisis – at a time when many of the Treasury officials were working on Wall Street and related businesses.

“We will not go back to the days of reckless behaviour and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses,” he said at a speech in New York last month.

Previous releases of disclosure forms revealed the $5.2m paid to Lawrence Summers, chief economic adviser to the White House, by DE Shaw, the hedge fund, in the two years before he joined the administration.

The disclosures come during a complicated time for the relationship between the Obama administration and business, with officials accused of being too close to companies on the one hand and encountering increased criticism from business lobby groups on the other.

The US Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday launched its “campaign for free enterprise”, arguing the private sector was under threat from various over-reaching government plans, including for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency and a cap-and-trade scheme to reduce carbon emissions.
 
Saw this on C-SPAN this morning.

No wonder the DOW hit 10,000 so quickly?
 
[Yawn!]

Starting with Clinton, to Bush to Obama, the name of the game is corruption. This is not only nothing new, but is to be expected these days.

Look, the people have voted for a socialistic state whereby the leaders gain wealth and the middle class becomes the lower class. This is a necessary part of that process.
 
What's the big deal? Those aren't outrageous numbers for working at places like GS or Blackstone. I'm actually surprised that those were the two they chose to single out. We're those the highest compensated people that came to work for President Obama? If so, they're pikers.
 
I don't see why someone is neccesarily corrupt just because they made big bucks on wall street.

barfo
 
I don't see why someone is neccesarily corrupt just because they made big bucks on wall street.

barfo

:check:

What made America great was that we cheered success. Russia has remained a backward country for 1,000 years because there the tallest blade of grass is the first to meet the scythe.

Why are we choosing to ridicule and punish those who did well for themselves?
 
What seems to be missed here is that we have the fox guarding the hen house.

These guys are going to set policy for what their former colleagues can make.

Another metaphor would be bringing up the ladder behind you after you already are in the boat.
 
What seems to be missed here is that we have the fox guarding the hen house.

These guys are going to set policy for what their former colleagues can make.

Another metaphor would be bringing up the ladder behind you after you already are in the boat.

Well, until they make policy, what really can you say? They've already pushed for a world-wide limit on executive pay so that all the top CFOs don't flee to China (I silently giggle at that one).
 
Well, until they make policy, what really can you say? They've already pushed for a world-wide limit on executive pay so that all the top CFOs don't flee to China (I silently giggle at that one).

I've never had a beef with CEOs' pay.

The CEO of Disney gets paid $250M/year but writes multiple checks for $50M each to a movie star for a movie.

It's all relative.

The CEO of GM might have made $10M, or .001% of all compensation for all employees of the company (the union workers got many $billions combined).

&c
 
I've never had a beef with CEOs' pay.

The CEO of Disney gets paid $250M/year but writes multiple checks for $50M each to a movie star for a movie.

It's all relative.

The CEO of GM might have made $10M, or .001% of all compensation for all employees of the company (the union workers got many $billions combined).

&c

And then the CEO of Disney and most of the MPAA crap themselves when they realize they can't charge $15 a head to see a movie so they start suing everyone claiming piracy is at fault for all of their troubles meanwhile they slash the salaries and headcount of all of the real workers in the industry therefore adding to the second great depression.

I actually do have a huge problem with executive pay especially when certain executives (I think it was the Home Depot one a couple of years back) get hundreds of millions for running a company into the ground. Sure, the board is to blame, but then they'd never harm one of their own.
 
I think the CEOs should be paid based upon performance (meeting certain sales/earnings goals).

I think the top sales guys should be paid even more than the CEO.
 
I think the CEOs should be paid based upon performance (meeting certain sales/earnings goals).

I think the top sales guys should be paid even more than the CEO.

You would.

Coming from the tech/ops side of things, the sales guys always get the big money. But then who does it take to make things work the way the sales guys said it would (which never seems to match reality, only what is possible in their minds)...
 
You would.

Coming from the tech/ops side of things, the sales guys always get the big money. But then who does it take to make things work the way the sales guys said it would (which never seems to match reality, only what is possible in their minds)...

I don't get your point here.

The CEO is responsible for the financials.

The sales guys are responsible for the revenue side of the P&L.

If the CEO manages the company so it's profitable to a certain degree and the revenues are sufficiently high, hasn't he done a good job and deserves his high pay?
 
I think it's none of the government's damn business how much these people make. They have the right to invest or not invest, but once they do, they don't get any special say.
 
I don't get your point here.

The CEO is responsible for the financials.

The sales guys are responsible for the revenue side of the P&L.

If the CEO manages the company so it's profitable to a certain degree and the revenues are sufficiently high, hasn't he done a good job and deserves his high pay?

My point was that being on the tech / ops side of the business most times that we're the last ones considered for any sort of pay. You said you thought sales should get more than the CEO! But you need to consider that it takes everybody working in concert to make a company tick. Selling a piece of crap will only get you so far. Unless you're a fertilizer salesman.
 
[Yawn!]

Starting with Clinton, to Bush to Obama, the name of the game is corruption. This is not only nothing new, but is to be expected these days.

Look, the people have voted for a socialistic state whereby the leaders gain wealth and the middle class becomes the lower class. This is a necessary part of that process.

Learn some history.

Corruption has been around since the 2nd man was born.
 
I don't see why someone is neccesarily corrupt just because they made big bucks on wall street.

barfo

They didn't.

That's peanuts on Wall st.

If they stole it or defrauded people, as many on Wall Street have, that would be different.

But that doesn't seem to be the case, or at least not Denny's problem with them.

He just doesn't like them because they're helping Obama.
 
They didn't.

That's peanuts on Wall st.

If they stole it or defrauded people, as many on Wall Street have, that would be different.

But that doesn't seem to be the case, or at least not Denny's problem with them.

He just doesn't like them because they're helping Obama.

I have to ask: do you even so much as 1 ounce of objectivity in you at all? Even 1??
 
What seems to be missed here is that we have the fox guarding the hen house.

We don't hire poets to run the prisons. We don't send the church club ladies to Iraq. Sometimes it takes a bit of knowledge of the enemy to put up a good defense. I'd argue this is one of those times. Finance isn't something you can really regulate using people from a jury pool.

These guys are going to set policy for what their former colleagues can make.

Sometimes people don't really wish the best for their former colleagues.

Another metaphor would be bringing up the ladder behind you after you already are in the boat.

The government service dingy is quite a different sort of boat than the HMS Wall Street.

barfo
 
The government service dingy is quite a different sort of boat than the HMS Wall Street.

barfo

All this time I thought you were a terrorist/nazi/fascist, when really you just want to turn Wall Street into a constitutional monarchy! :cheers:
 
My point was that being on the tech / ops side of the business most times that we're the last ones considered for any sort of pay. You said you thought sales should get more than the CEO! But you need to consider that it takes everybody working in concert to make a company tick. Selling a piece of crap will only get you so far. Unless you're a fertilizer salesman.

You can build the world's greatest widget, but if you can't sell it, nobody's boat is floated.

If the sales guys get the bulk of their income from commissions, then the top guys should be getting big pay if they're making big sales. The only danger is in them selling that widget that costs $2 to make for $1 in volume.

In spite of these guys getting paid big bucks, their salary is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall salary expense of any decent sized company. Even at the companies where the CEOs and top sales guys get the biggest bucks, 98% of the pay is going to the tech / ops guys.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top