One of the stupidest things to happen during the 2008 "crisis" was congress shoveling money at a bunch of firms "that couldn't fail", and companies immediately paying them out as "bonuses they were contractually obligated to pay".
Clawbacks somewhat arbitrarily limit the penalty to the amount earned in a way that doesn’t exist in other professions. They also seem to complicate the legal process of enforcement.
He made $470 million running Countrywide into the ground and had to pay a fine of $67.5 million.
Retired to live out his old age worth about $600 million.
Who is the fool in this equation? Hard to say it is Angelo.
My issue with clawbacks is that they set an upper bound of $470 million for a fine in his case, when I think the fine should be whatever it takes to deter lawbreaking.
If you're saying that they shouldn't have been bailed out, then that's legit, but it was a rapidly evolving situation and it's easy to play armchair quarterback with future knowledge.
If you're saying that the funds shouldn't have been allowed to be used for executive compensation then you're just sweeping the problem under the rug. Money is fungible, so it just means different funds would have been used for those bonuses. You can easily find examples of this with PPP loans, and there are similar parallels in lottery money being used for schools (it technically is, but at the cost of other money being taken away).
If you're saying that they shouldn't have honored those contracts, then that's a pretty easy lawsuit to win and they'll have to pay out the bonus anyway, plus the additional legal fees.
Once the federal gov starts tampering with private contracts it's game over for the American economy. Maybe even America itself.
Who do you think ultimately enforces "private contracts"?
We could've.. Not bailed them out?