Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Who Would You Clawback?
CHOICE 1 - Short of troops to fight in Iraq & Afghanistan a decade ago, the California National Guard enticed thousands of soldiers with bonuses of $15,000 or more to reenlist & go to war. Audits reveal widespread bonus overpayments by the California Guard at the height of the wars. Investigations determined that lack of oversight allowed for widespread mismanagement by California Guard officials under pressure to meet enlistment targets. 
CHOICE 2 - For years, mortgage giant Fannie Mae has produced smoothly growing earnings. And for years, observers have wondered how Fannie could manage its inherently risky portfolio without a whiff of volatility. Now, thanks to Fannie’s regulator, we know the answer .. Fannie set aside an artificially large cash reserve. And — presto — in any quarter its managers could reach into that jar to compensate for poor results or add to it to dampen good ones .. This flexibility also gave Fannie the ability to manipulate earnings to hit — within pennies — target numbers for executive bonuses. In one particularly volatile year target EPS for maximum payout was $3.23 and Fannie reported exactly . . . $3.2309. This bull’s-eye was worth $1.932 million to then-CEO James Johnson, $1.19 million to then-CEO-designate Franklin Raines, and $779,625 to then-Vice Chairman Jamie Gorelick. (source: Wall Street Journal)
RESULTS - Go after the vets in choice 1 but let the executives in choice 2 keep the bonuses .. "Rules for the politically connected, the 'Just Us' crew, are far different from those for common folk."
LINK HERE to the article
"Why is the U.S. government aggressively going after the soldiers themselves, who accepted a bonus to re-enlist and actually served again in a war, putting themselves in harm's way, in good faith? .. If there is a problem why are they not addressing it with the local government officials who may have offered the bonuses in error to achieve the ends demanded by the powers that be in Washington? It is because the soldiers, who faithfully served their country and kept their end of the deal, are the most vulnerable. They are individually weak, and not equipped to lawyer up and fight back against legalistic injustice .. Does the U.S. government really need the money from those soldiers? The bonuses obviously mean a lot to their lives and those of their families, but is just a drop in the bucket to the technocratic war machine."
LINK HERE to the article

No comments: