<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;bonuses&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 1 Jun 2009 18:22:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Suggestion For Warner Music: Maybe Look At  How Much You're Paying Your Execs</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/1358105071.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/1358105071.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's no secret that Warner Music has been struggling -- employing a highly questionable strategy of shutting down or suing all sorts of useful services that make its music more valuable, and then demanding ridiculous payment terms or equity in any company that might help them survive... all while the company slowly goes bankrupt.  Following what can only be called a disastrous 2008, the company has shown a minor improvement in 2009, but it has all the indications of a dead cat bounce.  The company was in desperate need of cash, and was able to get a loan of $1.1 billion last week to ease some of those concerns... but at a staggering 9.5% interest.  Meanwhile, the guys over at Hypebot are wondering <a href="http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/05/wmg-to-pay-95-on-11-billion-in-new-notes.html" target="_new">why WMG's top two executives were given $6.25 million in bonuses last year</a> as the company was collapsing.  And with some back of the envelope calculations, they note that the company could save hundreds of millions of dollars by dropping the bonuses and using the money to pay back the debt earlier, saving on some of the massive interest payments that are on the way.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/1358105071.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/1358105071.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090531/1358105071.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>might-save-some-money</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090531/1358105071</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:40:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Populist Outrage Over AIG Bonuses Scaring Private Investors Away From Buying Toxic Assets</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090322/2132384208.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090322/2132384208.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Before anyone gets that upset, I'll say that I'm pretty much in exact agreement with Adam Davidson from NPR's Planet Money when it comes to <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/03/why_aig_story_is_so_hard_to_co.html" target="_new">how to feel about the AIG bonuses</a> that were big in the news last week.  It's definitely disgusting and troubling to see the money handed out that way, but it's really a tiny sum in the big scheme of things, and there are a lot bigger and more important things that the government should be focused on.  Besides, the populist anger is really misplaced -- often directed at the current management or the recipients of those bonuses, rather than those who put in place the contracts that made those bonuses required.  But, the very fact that Congress spent so much time on it highlights something we warned about earlier this year: as soon as the government steps in to help a business, it's going to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090301/2206063939.shtml">greatly hamstring</a> what that company can do, since its every move will be extra-scrutinized and critiqued.  That will certainly limit what many companies are willing to do.
<br /><br />
And we're seeing that right now.  With the administration spending the weekend trying to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/business/economy/23toxic.html?_r=1&#038;hp" target="_new">convince private firms to buy up a bunch of the "toxic assets" out there</a>, many are (reasonably) worried that they might face AIG-bonus-style backlash.  It makes them a lot less willing to act, exactly at a time when we need private firms to step up and clean up the mess.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090322/2132384208.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090322/2132384208.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090322/2132384208.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>backlash...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090322/2132384208</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:41:09 PST</pubDate>
<title>Bankers Getting Toxic Assets For Bonuses</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081218/1508383168.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081218/1508383168.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The various banks on Wall Street  have a bunch of problems that they're dealing with right now, including getting rid of toxic assets on their balance sheet, properly compensating staff who are expecting big bonuses even in such a down year and figuring out ways to motivate staff to invest in <i>good</i> assets, even in such tough times.  It appears that Credit Suisse Group may have come up with a creative solution to all of those things.  Instead of cash bonuses this year, it's going to <a href="http://mp.blogs.com/mp/2008/12/on-a-different-shot-at-bonuses.html" target="_new">give employees some of those toxic assets it holds</a>.  This is incredibly creative for a variety of reasons.  It starts to get some of those assets off the balance sheet.  It gives them to employees who want bonuses, and it gives those employees quite the incentive to make sure those assets are actually <i>worth</i> something.  Of course, since many of those employees recognize that the assets aren't worth much at all, many of them are pissed off, but it's pretty difficult to come up with any reason at all that they deserve <i>any</i> sort of bonus, so they're probably a lot better off accepting what they're given and seeing if they can actually make it worth something.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081218/1508383168.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081218/1508383168.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081218/1508383168.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>two-birds,-one-stone</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081218/1508383168</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>