But I suspect that there will be a turnover of the executives in these companies. They will need a new crop to deal with the new issues. I don't have any problem denying severance to departing CEO's who were part of the mess.
But how will you attract CEO's of talent on $200,000/yr.? That doesn't even pay their property tax.
The one thing we are going to want is for these companies to function well with good talent if we need them to move houses again which is the point of the plan.
True.
I’m just guessing: if the CFO and CEO et al believe that they can turn around the operation with a cleaned up balance sheet, they might stick around. If not, screw em — they got into the mess in the first place, and that would open an opportunity for a hero-wannabe to come to the rescue. Also, what is the market for a CEO who drove a company into near bankruptcy with Uncle Sam coming to the rescue.
I hear that Blount is now pushing an alternative plan. Guaranty of the bad assets with some capital infusion. That was the Japanese model, and didn’t work well.
I betcha a dollar that some version of the Paulson plan goes thru. ;-)
We’ll know by next week. The clock is ticking.