CHESSNOID

So we have the CEO talking about an employee making a bailed out company making $100 million bonus as too much.  I agree with him.  If this for profit company wasn’t rescued by the American taxpayer money, then I wouldn’t care.  However, if the government didn’t commit the moral hazard, then this company would have went bankrupt the way it should have been and then there would of have been no excessive bonuses to pay out.

Reuters:

Citigroup (C.N) Chief Executive Vikram Pandit said on Thursday that $100 million is too much for an employee to earn given the bank’s circumstances.

In an interview before an audience in New York, when asked if $100 million was too much money for a Citigroup employee to earn given the government support the bank has received, Pandit said, “Yes.”

Andrew Hall, a trader at a Citigroup unit, is contractually entitled to a 2009 pay package that could be worth $100 million. Prior Citigroup management signed the agreement that compels the bank to pay Hall so much, Pandit said.

Hall’s massive pay package is a serious challenge for Kenneth Feinberg, the man U.S. President Barack Obama appointed to review executive pay at banks that accepted government bailouts. If the “pay czar” is seen as soft on Hall’s pay, the public outcry could be strong. Hall’s potential $100 million payday is equal to about 2,000 times median household income in the United States in 2008.

So now let’s see if this appointed “Pay Czar” does any justice to this unconfirmed Senate position created by the Obama administration. Personally, we shouldn’t have saved these companies with tax payer money nor should any employees be paid any excessive bonuses.