UnderArmour CEO cuts salary to $26K

Yeah, it is a cheap publicity stunt, but such things can sometimes be important for inspiring us. The CEO of UnderArmour clothing has cut his salary from $500K to $26K when his company failed to meet sales goals. The salary is the same amount he earned in his first year as CEO.

Such symbolic gestures are sometimes important to motivate the rank-and-file that make a company run. Moves like this bring about hope and a sense of teamwork. The alternative is the sense of fear that comes with layoffs, or the sense of injustice that comes from seeing failed executives walk away will millions in bonuses.

Obama to limit spending/compensation of bailed out companies

We have all been sickened by the hubris-filled spending choices of several bailed-out companies, where taxpayer money has apparently been used to buy private jets, pay for huge parties, or been paid out in bonuses to failed executives. Now, the Obama administration is planning to reveal new rules governing how bailed out companies can act.

"Tomorrow I'm going to be talking about executive compensation and changes we're going to be making there," he said. "We've now learned that people are still getting huge bonuses despite the fact that they're getting taxpayer money, which I think infuriates the public."

Under the president's plan, companies that want to pay their executives more than $500,000 will have to do so through stocks that cannot be sold until the companies pay back the money they borrow from the government.

The restrictions will most affect large companies that receive "exceptional assistance," such as Citigroup.

The struggling banking giant has taken about $45 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program....

The new rules also will mandate that shareholders of banks have a greater say about the salaries paid to company heads. The measures will put in place greater transparency for costs such as holiday parties and office renovations.

While at first blush this seems like a wise and prudent move, I have to wonder about the unintended consequences here. Let's say you are one of the CEOs from the "Age of Irresponsibility" whose company has two choices: take government bailout money or go bankrupt and put hundreds of thousands out on the street without jobs. If you are an irresponsible executive, won't you take your money and run, leaving the company to collapse? In which case, the general economy is worse than beforehand. I hope I am wrong about this, but I have to wonder.

Updated 11:25 AM EST with the right link. Sorry folks, sick-brain was in full effect this morning.

Do banks understand this is how they are viewed?

My sense is no. Bankers are like anyone else, and think they are the victims and innocent in the current economic slump. From here.