Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As to why this is allowed, I think it's seen as a private transaction between well-informed and consenting parties, so there needs to be a compelling reason for legislation and regulation. In this specific case (zone of bankruptcy) there are externalities so it’s not a purely private transaction. For that matter limited liability always creates the possibility of an externality and so creates a hook for government…
Employees are already treated as unsecured creditors in the bankruptcy process (unless you're the UAW), and I think lawmakers are reluctant to meddle with employment contracts in a situation which is already quite complicated.
On eve of bankruptcy, US firms shower executives with bonuses
51–60 of 306 posts
Re: On eve of bankruptcy, US firms shower executives with bonuses
#52Re: On eve of bankruptcy, US firms shower executives with bonuses
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
It still sounds immoral even if you read the rest of the comment.
Perhaps it would make more sense to you if the headline were phrased: "On eve of bankruptcy, US firms restore a fraction of executives' previous salaries with retention bonuses, now that their options and RSU's are worthless, which of course made up most of their salaries." But that doesn't sell clicks as well to people who already have their minds made up.
Re: On eve of bankruptcy, US firms shower executives with bonuses
#54Is there any research claiming that giant executive bonuses, in this case seemingly at the expense of the company they govern, is optimal for some macroeconomic quality that benefits the society at large? Or do we allow this behavior because we believe it is immoral to prevent giant executive bonuses as a matter of principle?
Re: On eve of bankruptcy, US firms shower executives with bonuses
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in this case. That is the oversimplified emotional response you see in the comments, but it doesn't jive with reality. Let's say you are the COO of Hertz, making 300K salary and 1M in options. The shareholders vote for Chapter 11 and those options are now effectively worthless, so your income decreased by ~70%. Are you going to stick around and try to dig out the company without a retention bonus? Given that the…
> Are you going to stick around and try to dig out the company without a retention bonus? No. You have a couple of times framed opposition to executive bonuses in these situations as "simple" and "emotional", while expressing an appreciation for "creative destruction". So, if an executive would rather leave than turn a company around while tightening their own belt -- especially given that some of these executives ca…
I agree with part of what you are saying, hence my tirade about how Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws need reform. But what bothers me is that most people just assume the executives (who mostly aren't even responsible for their pay) are evil, without understanding how everyone acted rationally and morally under the incentives of the broken system. The fact that it's happening on such a broad scale should be a clue that the system is broken, rather than a statistically significant collection of individuals.
Just to spell it out for everyone, there are a few actions happening here, highly incentivized by the system. I doubt many of the self righteous commenters here would do anything differently put in a position to make any of these decisions.
1. You are a major shareholder of a company. The company cannot pay its debts. The debts are greater than the company's assets. You have two options. Vote to file chapter 7 (liquidate to the debtors and get nothing) or file chapter 11 (get the court to forgive as much debt as possible and maybe you will get something back if the company turns itself around). Many of the major shareholders hold significant portions of their net worth in one company, or are institutions (e.g. Vanguard) which have a responsibility to do the financially prudent thing for mom and pop investors like you and me.
2. Predictably, the shareholders voted to file chapter 11. This has already happened. Given that it has happened, you want to give the company the best chance of making a recovery and returning value to shareholders. It makes sense to partially restore executive salaries with retention bonuses, so that you have leadership to keep the company afloat while restructuring. Note that most of these salaries would have been heavily impacted by the bankruptcy filing, in which options and RSU's (the majority of most exec salaries) are now nearly worthless. So you sign a retention bonus as soon as you know bankruptcy is inevitable.
Don't hate the players, hate the game. As I tried to elucidate in this thread, the problem is not any immoral actors, but the power of corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy and the fact that creditors' do not get to vote on the likelihood of it being a better ROI for them. It's simpler to blame it on the evil greedy executives (which makes no sense in this case) or try to make all sorts of band-aid amendments to how you can give bonuses to executives during a bankruptcy, but that misses the core problem.
Re: On eve of bankruptcy, US firms shower executives with bonuses
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
It still sounds immoral even if you read the rest of the comment.
Perhaps it would make more sense to you if the headline were phrased: "On eve of bankruptcy, US firms restore a fraction of executives' previous salaries with retention bonuses, now that their options and RSU's are worthless, which of course made up most of their salaries." But that doesn't sell clicks as well to people who already have their minds made up.
It's just buddies taking as much as possible before they lose control. And everybody knows this. It's weird to read these invented reasons of why they need extra compensation at this point.
Re: On eve of bankruptcy, US firms shower executives with bonuses
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Employees are already treated as unsecured creditors in the bankruptcy process (unless you're the UAW), and I think lawmakers are reluctant to meddle with employment contracts in a situation which is already quite complicated.
The bonus money paid to executives is not available to the bankrupt estate and therefore to innocent third parties. They arguably should be subject to clawback.
I think this would quickly get complicated and have many unanticipated results; you might have situations where key employees start leaving when they think the company is going down, thereby causing a complete failure.
Re: On eve of bankruptcy, US firms shower executives with bonuses
#58While it looks immoral if you don't understand the mechanics, people are simply responding to incentives around bankruptcy laws. Nobody wants to try to turn around a bankrupt company at their old salary (with their old RSU's and options now worthless). The real question is, should Chapter 11's even be allowed for corporations (as opposed to Chapter 7)? Shareholders vote for these because they know that in a Chapter 7…
It’s not like I’ll do any worse than they did.
Re: On eve of bankruptcy, US firms shower executives with bonuses
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in this case. That is the oversimplified emotional response you see in the comments, but it doesn't jive with reality. Let's say you are the COO of Hertz, making 300K salary and 1M in options. The shareholders vote for Chapter 11 and those options are now effectively worthless, so your income decreased by ~70%. Are you going to stick around and try to dig out the company without a retention bonus? Given that the…
> Are you going to stick around and try to dig out the company without a retention bonus? No. You have a couple of times framed opposition to executive bonuses in these situations as "simple" and "emotional", while expressing an appreciation for "creative destruction". So, if an executive would rather leave than turn a company around while tightening their own belt -- especially given that some of these executives ca…
I’m not an expert but it seems like these people may not exist and that keeping the existing management on may be in the shareholders’ interest.
Re: On eve of bankruptcy, US firms shower executives with bonuses
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
It still sounds immoral even if you read the rest of the comment.
Perhaps it would make more sense to you if the headline were phrased: "On eve of bankruptcy, US firms restore a fraction of executives' previous salaries with retention bonuses, now that their options and RSU's are worthless, which of course made up most of their salaries." But that doesn't sell clicks as well to people who already have their minds made up.
That's the ball they dropped. Yes, handing them a shiny new one out of a foundering company's budget is rather infuriating.