The New York Times reports that "For 80 other financial institutions that have received federal assistance, Mr. Feinberg will develop the overall compensation structure, but without setting the exact level of pay. For these 80 companies, the goal is to reduce excessive risk-taking by executives whose compensation is tied to company performance. Mr. Feinberg will also determine whether it would be in the public interest to force any executives at companies receiving assistance who might have been overpaid to return some pay."
An executive pay czar is a great idea but a Washington lawyer? Really? The problem of course is that Mr. Feinberg is not a corporate governance expert, doesn't have extensive experience as an investor and, in short, doesn't really know what he's doing.
Who should Obama have picked? That's easy: Carl Icahn. As the most powerful activist investor of the past thirty years, Icahn has a long track record of taking on overpaid and poorly-performing CEOs -- and replacing them with new managers with the competence and incentives to generate tremendous wealth for shareholders. Icahn is a pioneer in good corporate governance and a major critic of excessive pay: But at the same time, he isn't a kneejerk populist, and he understand that great managers require great incentives.
Will Rich Ross really have a positive impact on Disney's movie operations?
Consumers sick of recession, may spend extra on holidays
Corrections, seasonality and Santa Claus
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-10-2009 @ 6:02PM
SouthernMan said...
No czar is a good idea. Czars do not have to answer to anyone except who appointed them. An executive pay czar? To go along with..16 or so other czars? This is just another sht on to add to an already too long list and created in all of 4 moths time. Sorry no czar and no reason to have this one in particular.