This guy is a piece of work... I hope he suffers for taking profit in a situation where others are suffering. I'm not saying the situation was his fault, but wow.

Not only did Mr Fisman cdollect handsomely after only 3 weeks on the job @ WaMu, he also sold out his former comrades and co-workers @ Independence Bank.

Why should ANY CEO be paid more than, say three times what the President of the USA earns?

This exorbitant salaries have become absurdly ridiculous for CEOs whp are nothing more than "management employees". . . many/most of whom have BLATANTLY FAILED to do anything commensurate with the salaries, bonuses, and "other benefits that they are being paid.

The use of payments in stocks, or stock options at preset low purchase prices has been a two fold devisive sham. Prior to the corporations going bankrupt, it assures them of profits on the stocks, AND it increases their "stock voting privleges" which enables them to gain more control in boosting their income.

Bonuses for, in essence, not achieving substantial improvements in the corporations profitable operations is assinine; and "golden parachutes" are ridiculous . . . Shouldn't these "compensations" be the equivalent to what employees receive when they are laid off?

Where and how did this "ELITIST CLASS" of "employees" come into existence where they get such absurdly, and obscenely, and unbelievable "compensations". I have NEVER heard of a single CEO who truly warranted these types of compensation based on their performances.

And I'm sure that there are a substantial number of "qualified business managers" who could easily have done as well (or better than) these CEOs who have "managed their corporations" to "failure" like the existing CEOs.

It is past time for these CEO "salary, bonus, and compensation plans" to be reigned in to realistic levels commensurate with what these guys actually produce and accomplish. The stock holders should sue both the CEOs, CFOs, etc., and the Boards of Directors to recoup these monies that have been defrauded from the corporations with such exorbitant unwarranted compensation plans . . . which amount to nothing less than FRAUD.

If these people want to become entrpreneurs; and earn money based on THEIR RISKS of starting and running businesses, that is fine. Otherwise as "paid employees" for "publicly owned corporations, they are only entitled to salaries, bonuses, etc. commensurate as "management employees". The situation has been absurd for too long.

CEO Salary Question again. My question is how they will justify it? Sometime it is too ridiculous. I agree with Harrison, it should be balanced. And if you check www.salarylist.com you can see that salary should be more connected with experience and capability in real job salaries, not just a CEO title

Ah yes, Mr. Fishman,...a substantial reason my money migrated over to credit unions from WAMU. Let's forget about terms like financial pre-nup or "golden parachute". These are guaranteed seats in lifeboats along with the women and children. Sorry...being at the right place at the right time does not a "money winner" make. If less than a month on the job at WAMU justifies 11 to 18 million, then morality and fairness have been left out of the equation. In this case, Mr. Fishman is a "money winner" when he gives back what he hasn't earned.

Why are we all talking about all the CEO's receiving all this money while the rest of us struggle to buy food for our tables. When will something be done to stop all the corruption in America! The rich get richer and the poor get poorer! It will take an uprising from the people to stop this. Everyone at once not just pockets of protestors.

I hope this guy, and others who would take advantage of less fortunate, financially inferior people, will get a festering chancre on his (their) genitals. I am physically sickened by the audacity of these people, and indeed embarrassed to be an American. Happy Holidays to you all, sorry for the downer post, I'm a little angry.

I have emailed, telephoned, hand written letter to WAMU execs and have received nothing. Vacation, apathy, embarrassment? Please, someone, make this go away!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111375729952451.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



By PETER EAVIS
Bad times are worse when it looks like the rule book has been thrown out the window. That's one reason bank stocks may find it hard to rally from bombed-out levels in 2009.

As the weakening economy weighs on financial shares, extra uncertainty has been created by the spectacle of regulators seizing banks or forcing punitive rescues, even when the banks appeared well-capitalized.

Seeing this, bank-stock investors can reach one of two conclusions, neither reassuring. Either established capital measures don't fully capture banks' weaknesses -- before its seizure in September Washington Mutual had a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.4%, well above the level necessary to be called well-capitalized -- or the regulators themselves are flawed, pushing for drastic action at banks that may have had enough capital to find less-destabilizing solutions to their problems.

For instance, National City Corp., which agreed to sell out to PNC Financial Services at a rock-bottom price in October, had a Tier 1 capital ratio of 11% at the end of September. That's much higher than J.P. Morgan Chase's 8.9% and the 7.6% at Bank of America at the end of the third quarter.

Wachovia, which agreed in October to sell out to Wells Fargo, had a third-quarter Tier 1 ratio of 7.5%, significantly above the 6% threshold regulators use to classify a bank as well-capitalized.

Against this chaotic backdrop, regulators are working to reform bank regulations and are looking closely at capital, which acts as a buffer against losses. But isn't clear yet whether they are willing to make the sort of big changes that would boost investor confidence.

One key area that needs reform is how banks manage their liquidity. Banks can have high capital ratios at the same time as funding sources start drying up -- a factor that helped prompt recent regulatory actions.

In a securities filing explaining the immediate background to the Wells-Wachovia merger, the banks revealed: "Liquidity [at Wachovia] continued to decline and by the end of September 26, Wachovia's management was concerned that, without accessing the Federal Reserve's discount borrowing window, Wachovia's banking subsidiaries would not be able to fund normal banking activities on Monday, September 29."

In theory, a bank experiencing short-term liquidity problems would borrow at the Fed's discount window and not opt for a merger at a distressed stock price. As a result, the regulators that oversaw the Wells-Wachovia deal should explain why that more orthodox route wasn't taken.

Maybe they felt any indication that Wachovia needed substantial liquidity support would deepen the bank's problems and add to systemwide jitters.

But if that is the case, it means the old tools didn't work and reforms have to come fast to address the liquidity problem.

Granted, regulators are drafting proposals that require banks to do a better job managing liquidity. But investors likely wouldn't be able to monitor those from the outside. While regulators track liquidity as part of internal ratings procedures, that data isn't made public.

Perhaps the solution is to build protection against liquidity problems into capital. Paul Miller, analyst at FBR Capital Markets, suggests that banks hold extra capital to reflect the proportion of their funding sources that have a high propensity to dry up at short notice. That has the advantage of making it economically attractive for banks to beef up their more stable funding.

Building a new gold standard in capital regulations should be one silver lining of the credit crunch.

Write to Peter Eavis at peter.eavis@wsj.com