Executives should be held accountable
 

News at AIG seems to indicate the executives were crooks like at Enron. At all of these companies that are failing I believe the executives that made the decisions, or allowed the decisions to be made, that caused our new situation should be held economically accountable. That's right! The investors are wiped out - so should they be. Take all of their money and property and divvy it up to the investors. They make 90 million a year and walk away with it. What is to stop this from continuing if a precedent is not set? Take the executive's assets and put them in jail!

So you're suggesting we pass a(nother) law that allows the gov't. to seize people's assets? Do want due process with this or just flat out seizure for anyone you think makes too much money or performed poorly for their shareholders? Where does that stop? If you get a huge bonus at your job and then get fired a few mos. later, should the gov't. just be able to seize your bonus?

I find it interesting how many people respond to posts that don't understand them.

Its unlikely that there will be much in the way of criminal action against execs in the financial/mortgage sector. Much of what those guys did was legit due to deregulation...maybe greedy but not unlawful.

OTOH, the insurance industry is much more heavily regulated and that is where you'll see succcessful criminal indictments.

What about the fact that many companies were sued by the Clinton Administration for not making enough subprime loans?

This seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing.

There are already way too many laws governing business practices. we don't need another. We need to improve enforcement.

While we're at it we should throw people in jail who knowingly apply and get a mortgage that they can't afford to pay back and then walk away from, and we should stop trying to blame "big business" and "corporate fat-cats" for the irresponsibility of the lazy, dumb, and greedy consumer. They are the ones who created this mess.

Of course, if executives do unlawful things then they should be thrown in jail. But....the law allows business decision-makers a WIDE latitude. W-I-D-E. In fact, our system vigorously encourages the riskiest of decision-making. Even in a legal sense. The "market" is diversified, which means investors are less risk-averse than managers. Not only does our system require, in a legal sense, the riskiest of behaviors but our culture similarly admires and rewards these "heroes." Reaching for the brass ring. Taking chances and winning BIG. That's a cultural value here. The problem is not really about isolated, individual risky decisions. It is systemic. These people you are calling "crooks" are, in fact, heroes.

Apparently, there is a law on the books in NY that allows at least jail time for fraud, if it can be proved that the execs knew it was a sinking ship and took/gave big bonuses anyway. Difficulty will be in proving that to a jury....

Maybe a special taxation of CEO income is in order....;)

I was the only person to respond between your first two posts. So how many people is that? Ok, just explain it to me better then.

Yes, but that's not what was in the original post. Of course, I support enforcing existing laws and especially those on fraud. But just seizing someone's money because you think they earn too much, especially in the absence of proof of fraud? I don't think that's a law here (yet).

"seizing someone's money because you think they earn too much" - are you reading this in another thread? Where is that written above? That is not at all the basis of what I am saying.
Like I said - people respond without thoroughly reading or understanding simple english text. I am not using large words or complex sentences.

Yeah, I think these words might not be simple enough for me. Sounds like you want assets seized.

who's on first?

Much more difficult to find a jury that has an IQ equal to the task at hand.

You guys will love this...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/aig-executives-blow--getting-bailout/

Hope there was a lot of happy endings...

+1

I am a huge competitor of AIG. But they are nothing like ENRON.

But still - heat up the tar and bust open a few pillows.

I will be there!:D

Looks like some people agree with me. Some criminals were taking advantage of the situation and the government is seriously going after them. It's on CNN and FOX. Buttholes that drove their companies into the ground will be losing their Golden parachutes. Isn't that a shame! :)

Good question. One that will most likely, and conveniently, be left unanswered.

Not at all the same. These people were/are crooks looking to get over on the system, not people who were following the rules and doing what was expected. This is not a grey area. These people deserve to be in jail.

I'm sorry. I saw boobs bouncing in your avatar and lost my concentration. As in real life I suspect people who tried to pay attention to what you wrote, couldn't. That's why you see the off topic responses. It's all your fault, really.

Steven

hope everyone realizes that is a distortion of what really happened


also - 2/3 of the people who have sub-prime loans actually were qualified for normal, lower interest, lower fee loans! we clearly want to go after loan brokers in those cases

last i heard the fbi had two different investigations going on the big bank/ins. houses

Why is it wrong to put someone in a subprime loan who could get an A paper loan? Isn't it up to the borrower to shop around? If I can get a better rate from my credit union, but go with the builder's lender, does that make the builder a criminal for not turning me away?

Of all the subprime loans I originated, I never saw one that could could have gone A paper. When you have a FICO in the low 600's, no documentable income and no cash for a down payment, believe me, you don't qualify for anything better than subprime. My own boss got a subprime loan for his big house. As a 100% commission income guy, he'd have had to average two years of tax returns minues expenses to qualify in an A paper loan. He didn't want to bother, though he made almost enough in a year as the house cost. So he did a stated income, 100% loan. He could have gotten A paper but didn't want to. Is that criminal? Are lenders required to give someone their rock bottm price every time? How about car dealers? Airlines? Why can I get a ticket for $300 sitting next to someone who pauid $600 for the same flight?