Jim LaCampPortfolio Manager, Portfolio Focus, RBC Wealth Management
Co-Host, Opening Bell Radio Show, Biz Radio Network
And what I mean is that it should be decided by market forces, by shareholders and boards of directors, not by political mandates or agendas.
I do think compensation should be tied to performance, but again, that is to be determined by market forces. Besides, who is overpaid, a trader who made millions in profits for his firm, or for example, Britney Spears?
Donald L. LuskinChief Investment Officer, Trend Macrolytics LLC
It depends on the banker, and the formula by which the $100 million is derived. Warren Buffett makes much more than $100 million a year and everybody loves him.
Steve MooreSr. Economics Writer, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
In this environment, these Wall Streeters who take 100m are likely to be tarred and feathered.
Money & Politics Columnist
If someone negotiates a deal that pays him $100 million, it should be honored. It's called a contract. And if someone can generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and profits, then such a pay level is far from obscene.
Former Labor Secretary
Professor of Public Policy, UC Berkeley
The New Republic
Not necessarily. But the pay should be structured so that the bankers' incentives are aligned with shareholders' incentives. So, for example, any bonus should be contingent on the long-term profitability of the bet that generated it.
CEO, Patriarch Partners
It is far too much. There should exist a vast distinction between payment to an executive for hire where no cash investment has been made and funds are paid from the coffers of shareholders and compensation to those who have built businesses with their own investment of cash, creativity and commitment. I believe that a $100 million paycheck to any executive for hire is out of the realm of reason and more so for someone who was present and accounted for during the failure of his institution.