Joining their fellow banking CEO cohorts, the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were approved for $6 million in pay each for 2009. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to refresh your memory, purchase bundles of mortgages to ensure that money is always available to lending institutions which give loans to homebuyers. They are quasi-private companies backed by the federal government.
Fannie CEO Michael Williams and Freddie CEO Ed Haldeman each received $900,000 in salary and another $3.1 million in salary with payments deferred to 2010. That’s $4 million apiece. Each also is eligible for another $2 million in performance incentives. Considering that Fannie and Freddie needed a combined $111 billion, yes billion, in federal bailout money, one wonders exactly what their performance bonus was contingent upon. Perfect attendance? Turning their homework in on time? Spelling their names correctly?
The argument by their cheerleaders is that the former CEO’s of the two companies, who were both fired in September, 2008 when the bailout money was proposed, made a lot more money. The Fannie CEO received $10.2 million in 2008 and the Freddie guy nailed $13.1 million. It practically took an act of Congress to stop them from awarding themselves another combined $24 million in termination pay.
The case for Williams and Haldeman continues that each would command up to $10 million in yearly pay in the private sector. The argument typically concludes with, “No one else would do the job for less money.”
Bullfeathers!
I’ll do the job for one year for a measly $500,000. I’ll move to Washington, DC for one year, rent a condo, and work 365 straight days. A lot of qualified people would do the same thing. And I’ll donate $100,000 of that money to DC soup kitchens for the homeless. That would make my take home pay about $250,000. Not extravagant, but fair!
I really get tired of hearing how top company management and all government workers – federal, state, and municipal – feel justified in making a lot more money than their small business and working stiff counterparts because, “No one else would take this job.” And the benefits they receive, including health insurance and retirement packages, are way beyond reasonable and equitable.
Is anybody mad yet?
- Mountain Man
