Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Forty on the -- -- become one of these up and down -- -- we'll see how we finish off the week here just under 8300.
The number of cross currents in terms of what investors are focused on whether it's.
Economic data or -- the story which to me he's one of the most interest -- -- of the day and that's these insurance companies.
Getting involved on the tar.
Next up here we yes somebody knew about this yesterday as the first thing I'll say -- only started way up ahead of it then went out there and after -- -- now we know that these insurance companies to Hartford and others aren't gonna have access to -- And every we've in fact.
To a passenger and I broke the story last November that this might be coming book talking about -- -- creep in other words the park which is backed by taxpayer funds.
Was supposed to bail out initially banks now it's being brought in submitting a bill that players in the securities markets the automotive companies.
And now life -- so we know that you know companies like -- financial Prudential Financial Principal Financial Group Lincoln National.
Allstate and -- enterprise naked at 22 billion dollars in TARP money some of these companies are saying there on the fence that they won't take TARP money.
But we're still seeing yet a lot of agitation from life insurers that they want TARP bailout -- -- riots of the controversy it's because.
You know the insurers are regulated by the states in other words they issue policies that are backed.
By state insurance guaranty associations.
And state guaranty funds that.
And protect existing policyholders.
They'll reject the federal taxpayers step in to protect with the state.
Basically regulated business states also -- seventeen point five billion dollars guys in taxes and fees.
Frontal life insurers that -- it make their way to the federal coffers not just 8% of that -- goes to support their industry regulation.
But what's more -- -- -- controversy is that these states have been lobbied by the law life insurers to get their capital cushions -- and it was a life insurance.
Have routinely lobbied state regulators.
To get them to not force them to set aside and enough money in terms of a cushion to protect their business -- Hartford did it.
-- -- -- -- And also we're doing with this thing going on now is is -- tournament is essentially being used to -- very risky.
Life insurance products including variable annuities.
Which are taken stock market returns and pay -- a minimum guarantee payment even if the stock market dives so there's a lot of issues that are being it's.
Circulating around this very I think it's a growing controversy by using talked federal taxpayer money to pellets to regulated business and.
Right -- -- on that hole here about whether about our audience what they think if at all do you think -- should be eligible for TARP.
One of the rare polls glory -- a simple yes or no answer -- we'll see how it comes down.
Throughout the show today it's a great race is a number of issues lasagna and and you -- in over the -- a moment ago but.
You know it.
These companies it is.
In terms of pure dollar value that's being spent on -- what's twenty some odd billion that looks like it was really wanted to go at both of my thoughts and prayers and I this does have a lot of money headed in terms of the -- -- million dollars for the TARP.
We're investing this in the stability of these companies and that's the argument for it.
-- They pose a systemic risk but you know what executives executive life tells me you know this you were part of this.
Honest to -- that executive life created in 1991 that you can put everything you know shot to the moon and that didn't break everything and done.
You know so basically they did they run our businesses into the -- they improperly invested in not take care of their business models.
Yes yes -- -- I'm just afraid to let anything go they have they've -- about the fragile stability of the economy that they're just going to put money in all these businesses to keep that little bit of momentum to be upset that we pot and they worry that if we.
You don't give them money -- -- Terry further than that and that -- do.
I think I think -- and they think crazy -- when you know look at the tax system is demoralizing and if you figure out your taxes on some of the -- And you know base of the federal taxpayers being really abused it really -- let's face of the tooth tigers are right.
I don't care what media pundits say you know that.
It that you know they they're making fun of them because of the extra this placards and you know we -- extremists in the group.
Look at they have a point well we are gonna have to pay for this 128 billion dollars in interest I was going to -- down on the debt.
I'm forty billion dollars in Germany's state excuse me government -- second back.
Really tax cuts we could get from that.
You know and what politician would -- won election.
If do you see it -- told the electorate that yes I would -- to spend three point six trillion dollars within one and campaign I don't think so.
Have a job the CEOs of these -- coming to manage risk I mean isn't that -- -- there for the fact that they completely eight point -- everything you know just bit they'll go and not make it's that you know in the situation.
He's such an ironic point that apparently doesn't raise these people still doling out tax Payer money with -- you know.
As it flies -- and that is is that that the life insurance and risk models had.
-- that you know big pro Kremlin -- -- the -- -- -- Then and I used on Wall Street they are the ones that -- pervade risk models they do risk model based business alliance -- business -- hearing.
My -- and they -- you know the put things in place -- that come -- -- -- economy went down which historically.
We have -- we ups and then downs and they go in certain patterns and anyone who's all of these could see that this couldn't -- at the scene.
At that level it was going on for so long that they might have put something in place.
That if it not.
The debt that we're seeing now -- a lot of people say we couldn't have predicted that you know the extent to which the economy has fallen but certainly.
There could have been more.
Things put in place to protect the company's -- shareholders.
And -- the economy the taxpayer because they're gonna have to step in and say this if we don't want the economy to to -- so yeah it just looks like being exact area Latin.
-- of our viewers think insurance companies get a -- all that along to us the good old consumers don't -- that.
Premiums in an obvious trucking company getting -- TARP that means that you know essentially.
The Teamsters union you know the UAW or it got through tar.
Right on any of these you know settle out there that truly an in the automotive sector is basically run by the UAW now they're getting TARP money is well we're president.
That's -- -- -- retailer what do you find the answer money I'm going to be can't hear you -- on this car.
Here my heart that -- economic benefit on your boys.
All right let's have a good -- happy weekend I take -- -- -- with us today now.
-- we're gonna spend a lot of the show here talking of one -- the big top topics of the week that people seem to be real worked up about it almost plays up the story in some ways.
That's executive compensation.
You know because we talk about the responsibility -- selling insurance companies you talk about banks where there were poor job.
Practices put in place or management practices and companies -- run into the ground in a normal environment.
You would be punished for that you lose your job and whatever the case be the firm might fail and I know that happen in some cases.
But in many cases we did not allow that to happen.
And then you get people angry -- -- will these bankers are still making tons of money in their firms are are or not being allowed to fails they can be propped up by the government and everybody.
Seems to lose monitor is making so much money during that time now that it's -- Proving that that they weren't actually you know reminding us dollar and yet -- -- taking a lot of profits a lot of bonuses and again in his retirement before the taxpayer has to -- in -- bail them out and you know most taxpayers who were working on Wall Street we're not getting you know hundreds of thousand billion dollar -- -- million dollar bonuses and -- -- those people -- to keep that money.
And that's why it makes this big populist issue doesn't mean it's right by the way -- -- mean it's very popular politically to be against Wall Street and amount of money is being doled out there.
Most of that by the way -- he knows most of that money has got to Charles Payne.
Well I think John but it is not here Ed can -- wanted to take his life and and ultimately what the.
Well -- felt like -- work hard and and that bonuses are big part of their pay packages.
So we're not saying they didn't deserve to make money but it -- -- is it seemed excessive time.
Oh absolutely particularly in hindsight -- and I mean is no doubt it was excessive.
But you know the way the system should work is -- I'm -- shareholder.
At one of these firms I should be outraged enough to be able to make an impact.
That the board of directors obviously should be controlling this the notion that the government's gonna command and control it.
You have to be very very Carol for that everyone's got to be careful what they're hoping for right now because -- you like humans -- get these -- you know.
At some point in May turn around and come back and haunt you as well.
Tell whoever the one thing you know that I went back and -- in -- Wall Street Journal article from 2005.
And it Buffett has been against excessive pay packages for awhile and he's probably one of the most well known you know -- few people out there and not only we have.
Businessmen but it what investors buying companies.
He ninety's when he bought a stake in Salomon incorporated.
When -- prop -- profits decline right he actually went in and voted against bonuses for top executives which.
At the time to -- -- the journal saying a rare event inside this -- Mr.
Buffett was outvoted and hasn't been asked to serve on a compensation committee -- So if -- Warren Buffett can't make -- do you wish to change that -- holders the right directly but you know we're thanks shareholders should be responsible and have more pathetic.
But if at that -- you know somebody like mr.
Buffett can go in there and then of course you know they close ranks around and don't let him into any.
You know even to -- in the -- anymore than how the -- real well you know.
But to it to to certain degree I am Buffett's not the right person for -- -- -- of on the second richest person in the world you know what.
-- I don't need to pay myself a whole lot of money you know what I'm really afraid of this to trickle down effect it's it's the middle level folks.
And this whole overall battle -- the do war on upon success.
Their politics of envy.
That's what I'm concerned about this slippery slope that we're going down in what I worry about more than he's rich folks on Wall Street is the guy who.
Pulled himself up by the bootstraps.
Worked in auto body shop for fifteen years opened his own and and ten years later -- 45 of them.
He's making about 350000.
Years got three kids want to put through college.
That that's that's the person -- been vilified in all of this along with the the people have Buffett tried to rain and so you have the a couple of hundred people.
But I'm worried about the millions of success stories in this country.
Who we should be looking up to but instead we're demonizing.
But the idea of shareholder power vs.
The power of competition committee to set these level -- you think back to the Dick -- story.
Years back at the stock exchange and made -- people so this is exorbitant amount of money what you want.
Would you refuse it if you're given a much money somebody sent him to pay you come under -- okay thanks -- -- -- position.
And -- the money back that was the same position he was -- and then but now to go back on that and if you say if you think that was not that he didn't deserve that money.
Let's just say for argument sake you think you didn't deserve -- whatever reason.
Shouldn't have been -- board of directors and of the compensation committee that held responsible for that because they're the people that approved it and to -- point on the Warren -- situation.
-- whether -- buffet or anybody else.
Who's standing up and saying enough already where the owners of this company and we don't wanna pay these guys as much because they don't deserve it they haven't their performance hasn't lined up.
If someone was doing that I mean that's that's how -- that that's so private business.
That that's you know publicly owned by the shareholders and they are having their say not the government right back -- the right right but.
Another thing that I think that the public feels a little frustrated about is that.
They can see where someone like a Michael -- or Steve Jobs makes a certain amount of money because they create these companies insure.
And then but ten years from now twenty years from now with someone else is running these companies and they're making sixty million here.
I think that's what really -- the public the wrong way it's like these guys yes they're detectives and -- and the tremendous amount of responsibility.
But they they really put this sort of elbow grease into this thing or you know they -- have to sort of skin in the game.
That towards these sort of -- put it all boils down to somehow.
Getting these shareholders to to be able to use their rights understand their rights just like -- voters just like regular voters who have to.
Every year they have to sort of be told listen go to the polls go to the polls when they spend millions of dollars just encourage people to exercise their right to vote.
And here people are what their retirement money in these things they don't -- Lamar intimidated by its -- Understand that there they have a minute running their business -- automatic bid for the death of the shareholder meetings there's a lot of things that have to change and then who has the best and answers and educating the shareholder.
Not a lot of people.
Read and -- they don't want they don't know if they don't and phils general we've covered the shareholder meetings the rubber stamps usual.
And you know there's ever ever perhaps there should be.
Some rules in place I don't know they should come from the government or from corporate America themselves to say it's somebody CEOs you know if we pay you.
All the money and the company you know five years after you leave present -- -- Stan O'Neal give back his 10160.
One point eight million dollar bonus that when Maryland went down said that -- Charles I'll get back -- thirty million dollar exit.
Packet -- no doubt -- a lot of money some sort of a lot box.
You know you just can't say we had a great year.
And it's a house of cards and you walk away with all the money there there's no doubt there should be a lock box.
Particularly when it comes to these fancy financial instruments where we're learning more more that after in the aftermath.
That they can be as harmful and that's fantastic on the way up but to your point there should be -- some sort of lock box where the money is put away.
And the company as -- fall apart you get that you get this money later on so on I don't.
That's what basically shareholder's right and that the public wants us to some.
Transparency and somebody looking over -- two or at least rules and -- you here's the problem you know to make sure about the public they feel that you know all this goes on behind closed doors at the compensation boards are very -- You know board right there very you know helping on my board and you you help me and I'll help you and they walk up with a lot of money that sometimes even after they -- the position they're still getting -- corporate network to club's course and it just it makes them.
And -- that you put the public say look that the public wants this but they have to make it happen I think what I'm afraid of is that -- we want things and we can sell men -- hope this happens.
So can you guys make it happen the government.
I got -- with your point we have it be careful what happens is there's all of the reality -- gonna buy shares in the company you've got to get on it and learn and being vocal if you don't agree with that with the.
But a lot of this is politics of Remington and it's a great time to be able to to push that agenda forward as well -- -- the comments coming and I was gonna read the one from a bond guys one of our regular viewers about shareholders -- to stand up and be heard and also the need to change the way the boards are voted in should be up and down vote.
Every year -- -- brings up the Bank of America story.
That we had where the you know apparently and this is also -- this is what this is what the arguments about Charles is about (%expletive) this is the government's role to do this or is it.
Do we need to make changes or maybe just the government make some overall changes in.
Board structures and then just get out of the way for tougher government out of the way about -- level headed by because that's the Bank of America stories now.
Ken Lewis apparently boarded been very loyal to him and you know now looks like -- maybe.
Some of these members will be pushed out.
Then you don't have a -- -- -- to Ken Lewis does he survive there.
And you know that's that the larger issue of boards and quality below the CEO or they -- -- right.
And I -- that they think they should be loyal to the to the company.
What's right for the company and more often than not that should get that should be the same for the shareholders and probably get hit -- a ton of money to do it.
What I really wanted to give this year some of these boards have really -- come -- -- -- the joke that's it's it's really silly some of the people that you see on some of these -- and you say what do they bring to the table and -- more often than not it's nothing.
And again it's sort of that that -- Collegial full of familiarity.
From the board that once the incident on board and going to another and in that -- I think.
-- in your point people want to -- change I think you're right we have to bring it from the American people maybe not coming down from the government but maybe even corporate America needs to get together.
And -- certain industries and put -- what shows you what and then.
-- -- It kind of shows you what mistakes if you make mistakes today and you're a company right over there -- a number of years.
What the consequences of those mistakes can be to be very careful because now your position that you've made all these mistakes -- company XYZ -- just industries in general.
And now be careful what you and what you ask for because now the government's getting involved where may -- years ago.
Corporate America could have clean this up on their own and done a better job and if they had we would be in this.
-- -- -- look how much money these banks -- raise overnight.
All of these so called troubled banks raise the billions of dollars private markets like that.
Let the markets work in I mean if they've gone down the tubes and then they need to raise money that the free market will determine whether an -- good risk and they'll go and they'll support them if it's not to let him go out.
But that's the way it should work and then again that's -- that's the real threat here now.
With the government getting so involved.
And the idea that there's no no one's going to be allowed to fail yet and of course did the flip side courses that you're gonna have limited compensation we'll tell you who's gonna run this division we'll tell you.
Products to make.
That's the scary that's that we talked out of the auto makers Kelsey with the idea that now they come out of bankruptcy right and if your Chrysler.
Purity of bankruptcy GM seems like it's going that way and -- could be surprised but say they go into bankruptcy.
And then they emerge.
Is are they better off for having the government more involved -- was they've been -- they have.
-- government help me before doesn't or they worse off for -- point because the couple of sitting and saying.
You don't make this little small car that -- of these Americans wanna buy and then in the long run it hurts their business.
I think there were -- -- -- longer the government statement the government is not in the automotive business they -- elected officials have no business running a car company -- got I have to leave it to the professionals.
But the candidate that they have to clean up and these companies just half to get on board with the American people want -- have to McCarthy wanna -- it's only gonna answer.
We don't necessarily know that -- -- small cars Charles -- when he that he likes that GM secular country but not like him because you can go to the reason for briefcases.
Left skate and -- lot of uses for the little bitty cars but I think I don't think I think that's enough for all right.
Many people who think of the American government can run business better -- that into that that's going to be a fascinating thing.
But the president's government -- -- they don't want business for profit that's he has got to remember they were they have a different separate agenda.
They want to run these businesses.
-- to put through an agenda that says we're gonna redress the rights the wrongs of yesteryear.
We're gonna make sure that people don't make a lot people who haven't had a chance ever make money somehow we're gonna -- those corporate money.
Back at this assessment -- you Charles because the government -- come out and said many times job whether it's the president or others that we don't wanna run car companies we don't want around banks and you you don't buy them I don't buy that and I mean I listen intently listened to all the speeches and I seen the -- since then then.
You know there was that brief period where the word pragmatic was thrown -- a lot with respect to the president.
But I think he's in there now and he's he's -- his heart.
And when he believes is right and we he believes is right is that for far too long only a few people in America really had a chance to -- that the apple and that somehow he's gonna change that -- And then have him comment letter.
-- -- -- -- that they would name one thing the government hasn't run that actually worked.
The military I think it's a good you have really good the US military and is one of the most successful.
Organizations and in history but it's not a for profit organization.
Yeah you know I mean it's kept us safe it's kept us free root for a couple hundred years so.
I think that's it the best example but it's not a for profit entity.
Night Charles thank his only around have a good weekend if you -- money for breakfast we can with Charles and his.
The trapped by the co host the fact that that.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- But still see you -- -- -- a Monday that it -- Charles -- with -- today on on fox this is dot com live because every show -- nervous again true.
It's always -- we're gonna talk about compensation gonna spend a lot of this shot our viewers have been weighing in a number ways that we have.
Three guests coming up here -- to address number of the issues that -- been brought up.
With compensation one way shape reform bill -- -- -- they'll select few get to -- in the markets were down forty plus.
On the Dow right now since you know an 82 so you know 82 mediate so.
We'll keep on top of that as well.
Principal compensation resources and it didn't want to hand who's joining us to talk.
About compensation and isn't it -- are -- related.
Long story short yes you are related -- -- -- reform to the -- exactly it is four to mobilize it a long story.
My grandfather name is -- morning hang married and related Margaret my hands so Margaret morning and morning and is my grandmother had ten fingers intent.
Oh good so bullet -- tough amateur is on my -- so that's the relationships on -- -- to defend our.
No -- want to talk about.
Our ideas I looked at the same exact name could have been but I couldn't find any your violence that we had -- a lot in the air that's how works -- -- has nothing to do with what you're talking about today we're gonna talk about I don't know how much you heard about what Charleston.
Kelsey and I were talking about there with the the compensation question but.
Let's let's get your view on the table though it's mother gets wanna bring in the book where do you stand on all this does view changes need to be made that this system or do we need to let things work.
I think it's really a little bit of both.
My real perspective is that it's probably a new -- in government involvement.
Yeah we've gone over the last fifteen or twenty years where every year two years three years the government's doing another layer of involvement into executive compensation.
Have we gotten excessive ingredient sometimes yes some companies have but I think the predominant.
Yeah most companies are really doing a good.
Job with corporate governance and all the things that really make compensation flow and -- businesses and unfortunately it's the go back to the -- the world -- -- the other you know now the banks with some of the -- compensation practices that.
Make it hard for everybody sound that's a bad -- argument that I -- that things like little kids.
But it -- the executive compensation really you know it.
I don't know of the few bad apples out there and in the world and -- not even -- -- these people.
Our car but the argument that they need to keep pace with celebrities and athletes that seems a little.
I don't know I don't have a quite buy that.
Well let me -- a good example -- I've made and I give myself at times is that.
Let's take somebody like Carly Fiorina.
A number years ago she took over.
An organization and try to -- Compaq and HP together.
And came out on the wrong side of that deal so she made some big compensation during that time period but -- Carly -- and it.
-- -- his job prospects today.
It's kind of like the professional football player that -- 567 years and then blows out of me would -- go from there.
Yeah but if I go into the job knives guns -- get hired and GM don't perform as well leave I mean I I won't sit at home thinking and not gonna get another job and gets hurt.
Job to reinvent herself to come out right -- but she did on the campaign means UN you know and was.
You know campaigning from McCain -- -- I don't and that it sort of missile unless with the demand a lot of money for my.
Employer because I'm gonna say well you know this doesn't work out really am I'm not gonna have a more prospects that you need to -- mile I mean is there any other job.
It's -- I think you that you that -- that would work for this country.
I don't think there would make that example anywhere else and I think that's kind of the one that it's made quite often but what are those for the fact that this kind of -- he -- in some ways because.
Are -- save a bit of football on bass or not great examples because -- salary caps and of the bus just take a baseball player everybody talks about why a router Manny Ramirez whatever the case -- that make.
A ton a money right.
The idea here is that there there's nobody forcing it seemed to pay them and they can pay them as much as they want to -- is there's a demand being set.
Other teams and their free agency you don't see -- -- no matter how good he -- -- point two years old and had as not eligible for free agency making that must never gonna pay the but when they -- -- of the free agency it's a free agency the demand is set by the market more by Scott Boris but is set by the markets -- the -- They they did and they get paid what they deserve I mean the same way essentially it in our business right that if it's somebody's making if you know your contract is up and and you wanna go and look for another job and and somebody offers you more there's a bidding process and that and that's the way it works mean that.
But that doesn't matter how long you work and why -- why wouldn't CEOs should be set the same way based on how much revenue they bring -- -- like that right that -- and I think we're here we're going to.
When you're looking at executive compensation and organization the -- we tackle was let's look at appears.
Let's see what they're earning what's the fare media in middle of the market for that job and let's help the organization the comp committee the board set the appropriate pay levels.
For that people for that person for the talent that they have for the role that they're doing in their business and where they're going.
You have to look at their salaries that's pretty -- it's a tight -- we can look at it but then you've got bonuses in the equity piece is the long term incentives and that's really typically where the pay.
Has grown exponentially really -- since the ninety's to today right but you know now we're seeing government stepping in putting a little bit more restriction there and also.
But that's the question is what's the role of government in that process I think you've got two things -- one's institutional shareholders and their watchdog groups saying we want better governance here and you've got the government stepping in and and putting some limits on I mean I think it was a great idea to.
Try and fix up some of the TARP companies know they've taken financial bailout money.
And the stimulus companies -- got the ten car companies the 400 stimulus companies they're asking for money and help in their organizations.
Put in some controls but I think it's to what level do you put those controls -- The degree quit because you bring out the -- and a taxpayer money being brought in and I think that this is comes down to that the core of what the American people are so upset about is that.
You know they have had to step in to bail outs in the of these companies from -- the CEO's were making hundreds of millions of dollars -- country clubs private jets and where they even kind of -- they didn't they -- it -- too much risk -- too much leverage out there.
And they were protecting the shareholder which is the number one job so why get so much money I mean you.
An end in maybe there should be more rules put in place but again with a -- -- -- didn't know -- shot it well I mean you know.
When Nardelli was brought in Home Depot and after sixty years in the share -- up -- -- you know whopping 3% he got handed two -- and ten million dollars suit to leave I mean.
It doesn't making.
Now and I I think there are some really solid governance good governance provisions within -- and the stimulus.
You know having to plug get a job but now -- -- -- -- -- that -- have some of those claw -- makes a great it's a great.
Situation if you've done something wrong we're gonna ask for the money back.
I -- looking -- this can corporate America police itself and and can they be trusted to rein themselves in because historically.
They haven't done such a great job of that so that's -- people are looking to the government because throughout -- gonna do it.
They're arguments against why the government might not be the -- to do it but -- who's gonna do it if they're not replace themselves.
And put those in place then where does that leave the road where does that leave us who's gonna do.
Yeah I think right now we're in a new -- also of corporate responsibility where boards and compensation committees in particular in these public companies are stepping up to a new level you know I've worked in this industry for fifteen years closely with boards.
Where the way they were back in 1994 is not the way they are here in 2009.
They are much more conservative they are looking harder at performance management and saying.
Can we pay for performance and let's put in the right performance metrics it's no longer -- fog a mirror and get your options are -- you know if you're still breathing you get paid.
Now it's let's go let's have good shareholder return total shareholder return let's focus on -- Economic metrics that we can look back and say.
Have we produce for our shareholders and is there a correlation.
That's the biggest challenges that I think.
The boards are struggling trying to find where's the correlation.
Between the performance in the pay OK there's a there's a disconnect there it's right so how is this all gonna look when we come through it I -- what pat what's what are the big changes do you think it be if you had to predict.
Once we get through all the back and forth in Washington -- politics and everything else.
About how executives are paid in this country that I think he said that the best thing is how -- come through it.
I liken it to being on the playground and saying you know no fair I wanna do over -- and a great place for the do what ever.
So let's sit down I think the organizations have to start one with what's what are we believe about pay and how does it fit into our corporate business -- our philosophy about.
Are how -- our mission our goals are values and how -- pay fit in there.
And then it's salaries in -- components market driven let's putting good performance metrics that are tied to a shareholder return for annual pieces but -- the long term component.
Listen organizations like -- metrics and others have -- and said.
You can't have a lot of options and restricted stock they're just time based we need at least half of your package in performance based metrics.
I think that's a good thing TARP and stimulus put in some of those things saying no more than a third of your pay can be and restricted stock.
They're trying to do a lot of good things I think on the when we wake up in a couple years parks will be less severance will be minimized.
There will be controls in place to make sure that we're getting to a place where the average shareholder can look and say yes they're making a lot of money but they're delivering results -- those years and they make -- I feel good because they probably made less -- Part hang in there with us for a moment nothing gets when he -- to you to stay in -- level that the discussion with this identical morning and by the way is for principal compensation resources we've been talking with which for Lotto joins us now from.
From DC they had to continue this discussion richest -- the pension benefit policy at the American federation of state county.
And municipal employees so that brings the state employees argument -- -- again rich I always don't know how much you've heard of what we've been talking about.
But get your view -- there OK good so get your -- out there in terms of how much change do we need to make in the current system where your organization cents.
Well I think I agree with some of the previous -- is that they have currently the CEO pay system is broken and needs to be re calibrated.
And and -- and and built a new there's some basic principles here is that you want to pay for long term.
You want to make sure that that pay in the incentive.
For the CEO for the talking top executives is really aligned with -- of the long term shareholders.
That pay system that we've got now in the model that we're driven.
At is not really based on that it's really based or recruitment and retention.
And benchmark to a peer group -- peer groups can be manipulated in various ways and so long as we've got the I need to be in the 75%.
Of the peer group.
You've got the link global -- -- everybody's better than average and ultimately everybody -- overpaid.
-- that it needs to be a break in the system so that gets re calibrated.
So that pay is aligned with performance.
And that there are aligned with good strong.
I'm still trying to get -- -- -- that though right admitted that to me it seems like that's all sounds good and we wanna be paid out of we performed but.
You know I think the dead brought up the point about how the market is setting a lot of this in salary and that seems to me to make sense.
Certainly just from personal experience I I don't wanna get paid the same as as in all or be in some sort of bracket or be confined -- be paid whatever.
You know your boss figures you're worth based on the market or did that that's the good so we have to be real careful that we rich about how we set these limits -- any of these standards.
-- well no I think I think that's right and what we're not talking about when -- took about limit so much as creating new frameworks right now.
And and you know clearly the -- for a more money.
You know -- -- the framework is that.
You want top executives at least to hold there to holder equity awards performance based equity awards for substantial period of time.
So that you may want to require them and we've been advocating this.
That the 75%.
Of the equity will award -- net taxes needs to be held for two years -- your tenure with the company.
That aligns you with the long term shareholders.
Rather than claw backs you know once you give the money -- I think it's kinda hard.
To pull it back in and it's unfair.
The executive also in the cases of fraud that we believe -- that but Freud but that bonus should be should be given out.
And a war that only after three years after there's been three years of constant performance up to that.
If you know bonus.
Metric that -- that's been created.
Paid him -- then and then have rolling system so that it would be an expectation they get paid out over time.
Those are two I think very strong fairly simple innovations.
That would help align pay and performance and then as a backstop to all of this.
A say on pay it exists right now.
For the TARP companies but across the board every company -- should be required and many are voluntarily doing it now.
Aren't shareholders are voting for it.
Not necessarily doing the particular -- number but on the philosophy the program.
And that that metrics.
That are disclosed -- that the CD NA the compensation disclosure and analysis.
So that there -- some input to the compensation committee as to have shareholders.
That company's resources should be distributed to pay good incentive effect for the the CEOs to perform better.
Get enough aren't rich thanks I would we'll get back in a -- to Daniel thinks this it tells you probably the question I just wanted to bring up.
That this issue really divides people who almost enough and I'm surprised but but -- with the one of the great things I would say about the shows we can real time kind of gauge what people are thinking we're doing a poll right now and it's unscientific as.
As could -- it is on the people are watching who knows what kind of simplest.
But the idea we asked them.
-- executive compensation has spiraled out of control second -- was exactly 5050 now it's 42 fifty to 48 someone else -- vote.
But the point is people get worked up and we we've been talking about one side of this.
And then somebody like Tim in Chicago writes in -- you know what they should be a cap on executive salaries maybe ten times the lowest paid worker in the company on scene as people running companies into the ground.
Receiving compensation getting bailed out.
-- that shows you where the -- the political side of people get angry and this is an easy political argument to me.
But it is always a real easy political argument and people do get excited about it's hard for me sometimes a good cocktail parties has got one attack.
But actually you know there's a there's a good example -- whole foods they've got something in -- executive compensation plan a says no executive can make more than seventeen times the average worker.
There's also -- bill right now in congress I believe of the house not sure.
That is trying to put a hundred time cap.
On the conversation and it's not a hard cap it's actually deductibility cap.
-- up the average salary is 50000 they wanna say once somebody makes over five million the company can't deducted so they're trying to say.
We just won't don't want that government and the taxpayers to have to bear some of that burden as a non deductible expense.
Which again might be a good idea might curb some of -- but I think we've had 162 -- which is the soft million dollar cap for a long time.
And you can see where the pay as it has really impact does that -- in many ways.
And -- here opinion an -- -- you wanna commend to the of the succession.
-- CEO's in companies Jack -- spoke about that something -- that not enough companies really put plans in place.
To succeed the current CEOs -- -- -- happening is that the company maybe it's in trouble with the -- out then they're scrambling to fill that.
-- that void and sometimes you know back at the Brinks truck to the other prospective person.
Because the coming into a tough situation and they want some guarantees that they'll get paid if they can't fix it right and you know when Immelt got referred from Jack -- It essentially won the job.
Got -- -- a couple of million dollars whereas you -- and we said Nardelli went to Home Depot because that was in trouble he got paid you know a lot more -- -- easily won the job.
And so is it a problem with corporate America that they do not.
Groom up have to come up and coming executives and so again these companies get themselves in the position where we -- CEO.
We've got to pay out we've got you know guarantee a large sums of money to get -- -- run.
I think wholeheartedly agree with you that one of the biggest challenges boards are facing is that executive succession.
It's a challenge in every role in every organization from two for two issues one is -- to afford to do it because that backstop too many positions.
Ultimate at Leander -- many layers of management in an effort to Kyle could always be growing here inside talent but.
I I agree that you can find a good town inside you'll always be less expensive than having to go out to the free market to bring that talent and.
But then you think those people they know their top talent we'll say -- -- go to another company because they're gonna pay me more then just being you know.
Bumped up -- the top you know floor in my own company.
I think I was a wrist I do want to take to have great people in my organization and the great ones we'll spend some logo but I think to not invest in your people.
-- -- a long term mistake for the organization right -- aren't so we have.
-- Daniel -- with us here in the studio we already average for a lot of -- in DC to get back to Richard a moment but we also want to bring in Charles Elson is a law professor at the University of Delaware.
Rich joining us from Delaware he's testified.
A couple of times and -- -- congress on executive compensation already this year -- just throw your hat in the ring here.
And and and tell us -- Charles where you stand and what kind of change you'd like to see made if any.
I think we clearly having overcome a problem country at that that I think is from the Franklin undisputed by most people involved.
I think the question is what do we do about it and to me the solution really has to be boards of directors who are properly.
Comprised incentivized to negotiate effectively with management over -- The way you do that is number one independence on the board.
Number two substantial shareholdings on the part of the directors and never -- and open election process -- the board is accountable to the investors who elect them off from time to time.
I think that ultimately the solution I think the government approach to this thing.
Will end up creating some very serious consequences unintended consequences which we saw the last time they got -- which was once 62 -- Back in 1993 that in in the -- created the options mess that we're dealing with remnants of -- you're dealing with now.
-- better to focus on the board not to focus on on external influence.
Let me ask you one question about a term he is right at the beginning of your answer saying that we have a quote over compensation problem.
That that kind of language makes a lot of people uncomfortable you know I.
Again personally I don't think there's amount of money that I can ever say to myself would be too much for me to get there amusing New -- that.
Right exactly that would -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Credited fair catch and look at I'm similar in a lot of ways book about the same I'd have to -- -- -- -- -- -- a baseball player writers that he over how to.
They rotten -- right here goalie -- an obvious that other about a lot of that stuff but the point is it being over is it over copies with the term over compensation.
Or is it tying compensation and some way to performance and -- what what exactly are you living through that -- it.
It's tying compensation performance I mean I don't have a problem with high compensation as long as it's burned and as long as the investors here working for share in the profits if you've created.
But I object to and I think most -- -- is paying someone a lot for a lousy performance that's over compensation -- -- -- high compensation.
It's over compensation and that comes about because boards don't effectively negotiate with management.
Mentioned you know the last four acts in the boards will say fine.
Maybe the board should say no one half facts are -- quarter action at some point you meet in the middle.
But you're not seeing that kind of negotiation and that's been the problem you also have a -- consultant culture.
That sort of feeds into this -- based on things like.
That comparing baseline he will salary dollar salaries.
And I think -- a process where there's some potential issues with the consultant working both sides of the street.
That he's into the -- frenzy to.
You also have a legal regime that's very protective of process.
But not so protected in my view of compositional factors and I go back again to that independents and ownership point.
The boards have independence and ownership.
And -- disciplined by an effective election process I think the problem begins to go -- And -- -- one of the comments here from mark and Lansing he thing you know pleasant lost touch with the real worker there.
Is no employer loyal -- -- worker loyalty towards an employer anymore and I -- first of all layoffs -- seeing.
That's real real problem and I think a lot of the workers feel that you know there.
Lot of times paychecks barely kept up -- inflation in the if they look to embassy suites across corporate America.
And it is making so much money and you know you talk about the teams have to come from the board have to be more independents and between -- and the management and the board but.
You make that happen I mean I think historically those things have been tried and haven't succeeded very well so who sets the rules of the -- that the government command and -- Okay corporate boards we need to clean house here and change the rules does the management coming up and it did at -- that they're not gonna say I'm not gonna take that money you're gonna give -- -- And who makes the decision I don't know who think who facilitate that change that the question.
And say come from the shareholders I mean ultimately independence is not something that's been tried and failed we haven't really ever and bush implemented it independence means complete.
Financial separation from the -- director and management either either direct financial or indirect and it's never really been accomplished.
Ownership that is substantial ownership positions on the part of the board.
Has been experimented with but we've never seen it full force an election process is just opening up so it's really really early to say those things -- work.
They they it in companies I think when you see executives compensated appropriately.
By everyone's standards I think you tend to have boards that are independent have a lot of stock in the company.
And tend to be disciplined by responsibility investors something very important remember by the way.
That American workers.
Are are not just American workers are also shareholders -- their retirement funds for their pensions the folks -- misrepresents.
Obviously they are investors to senators say well you know -- you know it's us vs them this kind of silly we're all in this order a separate -- from investors kind of silly though.
Because I guarantee that almost all if not all taxpayers.
Our investors as well through their retirement plans or pension funds we've all got a stake in this thing in it we all began.
Be a little tougher on those we elect whether it's in congress or on boards.
I think you begin to see a change yeah having the government come and say you know XYZ I don't think kitchen it.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- How do we get the shareholder -- it to take that type of it all sounds good in other words a minute this is great at the shareholders get about everybody out they're gonna to make a -- the board and -- accountable.
But the problem is are they really -- to do it.
Well two things what is that shareholders really haven't had that power and as a matter fact this week the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Will be hearing a rule that would finally.
Much more directly to nominate.
Directors to sit -- boards.
-- we think that will be a huge step forward.
But beyond that you've got financial intermediaries out there -- big mutual funds for example that haven't always voted in the interest of the shareholders are.
The investors in those mutual funds -- to hold those other institutions accountable to.
And finally what we need to do and they agree that we need to empower shareholders the -- boards of directors accountable.
But to recalibrate the say the -- system.
I disagree with my friend Charles a little bit I think you need some government intervention for the short term.
To really frame.
The compensation picture so we move away from this peer group benchmarking system that has thrown everything out of whack.
So that there is a greater alignment between pay and performance.
And value added that executives give and the only way to do that really is to start over to create some new rules.
Requiring long term equity holdings to require three year payouts for bonuses right to give shareholders the -- yet the ability.
To vote pay packages up -- down.
Okay we'll see if any of this -- comes to fruition rich and and Charles and Daniel -- here with us who is related to longtime senator from New York believe it or not even though they have the same -- on his mother's side -- so that.
We've learned a lot today.
Special thanks I said -- -- all right we have a lot more to do here in the fifteen minutes we have left or so the markets are lower still we're down 37 points on the Dow.
We'll talk about a couple of big issues here.
What is the autos because it's a big day for the GM dealers the other is Bernie Madoff and -- -- Shapiro have some news on mister Madoff -- a moment along and have a little fun.
We hear about this video game coming up but first to Jeff Flock on the the GM dealers he's out of the dealership in -- Illinois taken away Jeff.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Let's call with the mark -- they've had it on a speakerphone here is the vice president of sales.
Four General Motors and he was the guy in charge of sending out those 11100.
Dealer letters that just went out here we confirm in the Chicago land area some dealers have already received them though fortunately.
Is not want a bill states that it got him over there Haley can you bring him over.
This is bill states it here.
Worked in this dealership since 1970.
You started out at the bottom well I started out here receives her manager.
And and then work my way out.
Eventually the general manager and then he came upon a piece of the dealership then bought the whole dealership it's now your whole life.
And you're worried today.
Well I yes -- I was concerned because.
He you never want to take anything for granted and I think we've performed well for Chevrolet.
But the last year or year and a half has been tough for alternatives.
I wanted to just go through what mark when they've had to say is those of the headlines.
He said these are these guys that you and so just to confirm you didn't get -- the FedEx that is correct -- you're good you're you're good for the moment but.
He did indicate solace -- sort of interesting this is the first wave 11100 dealers the remaining -- so many of them will likely be asked to.
Either consolidate with somebody else may be -- the guy down the road may be provide more capital into the business.
Yeah this there could be some more hoops for you to jump through before you're you're totally -- there there could be.
But Jeff I would -- in the Chicago market.
I think you share relays.
Opinion general Morris opinions they -- Chevrolet -- used to be standalone dealers they don't want him come back and everybody else.
In in other markets that might not be quite this big I think they're going to be looking for that consolidation.
Yeah I got you.
Just to so our viewers know we're talking -- how many.
Employees do you have.
We've got 68 full time in ten part time so certainly you've gotten a letter today those folks would all be looking at.
-- -- Well it it's certainly you would have put aside dared to have go out and fight for.
Whatever we -- -- news and business what bill selling of their Connell is essentially not only him but other dealers that are -- you know what they got a letter today.
They're not given up and build has led the dealer council here in the city and there around Chicago.
These guys are -- -- prepared for a fight if if it costs of that and of course.
You know it may come to bankruptcy which case they've got a little less leverage than they would do if they don't go to bankruptcy but either way there -- -- some of these guys wanna want to keep their dealerships -- interest thing you know and one of the things that brings up Jeff and you know this better just from covering the story for so long is that.
In -- Chrysler scenario.
There are a lot of Chrysler -- that you sell other brands -- or work with other manufacturers -- GM GM dealers are usually just GM dealers right.
In fact that was it a question on the call today because we did get a tip on one guy who we understood had a Chrysler dealership.
Lost yesterday and then today was in a position made -- -- loses his Chevy dealership.
Very few of those guys at their GM does not unlike Chrysler some of these cars for guys have other dealerships in well with them as well GM tends to -- -- -- -- standalone.
Yeah -- -- chips dealers and GM especially in a major metro area like this has has been pretty stringent and making sure that there's no other franchises.
Associated with the GM franchise and also Connell -- very much -- like the Chrysler scenario these guys did not get what they call termination notices today even the 11100.
They were essentially.
Being told today wind down years your operations Chrysler was told the crisis -- we're told yesterday you're done you know.
As quick as you can get out of business these guys are being given to the end of their franchise agreements which in some.
Cases stretch into next year well into next year so he'll be around for awhile at least in the short term anyway that's interest and anything else come out of that call you're listening to would like to get back to anything in terms of question and and -- -- -- -- -- and its -- Just ended other headlines.
Bill we're asking for other headlines at a model and it's -- just looking at it.
-- into quick question before it was another viewer if you got a -- -- there is -- sure the public list of all the GM closings you know there's -- that the public can go and find out what's.
-- -- -- -- There is no list and I was who reiterated to me again by mark -- there will not be a list -- and a different situation from Chrysler Chrysler had a file that lists with a bankruptcy court.
Because -- need to be public record.
In this case these guys are out of bankruptcy and they are a lot allowing the individual dealers to say yes or no I'm on the -- I'm not doing here is -- you know agreed to.
Let us be within today and reveal whatever it was good or bad.
But no there will be no list.
I thank you for helping -- -- number of differences between GM and -- are right Jeff.
Always good to see it thanks likes guys took a story for -- -- -- the human element of what's happening there mark when they've done that called talking about numbers than they wanted about a 3604000.
It was by the end of 2010 and well above 5000 now so a lot of do -- being closed on both sides okay.
Anyway ten minutes until the top of the hour and now to Adam Shapiro and we're gonna talk.
How atom of atoms are are Bernie Madoff domain and the yeah.
After it does -- -- Michelle musically or something like that.
With that we can go ahead bring us all about made up in a minute because we have this sell -- -- game cellphone game coming up with that a little fun with that.
So let's start without -- for you just got back from that.
Who will love from the indictments in.
In Texas at the CIO Laura and I guess hole and that the real question because all of these teams are so -- the real question is one of the going to indict.
James Davis those are the the two key players according when you read the documents.
This is going to be a battle between those two men in court look at it gets hold it really why are they going after this -- Other than they hope to get some information from our.
The art when you read the original SEC complaint it's Stanford in Davis and already set for now Davis -- get ready for a Texas brawl like like we haven't seen.
I mean Davis we know Davis is cool while operating.
We have federal authorities signed documents this -- -- they go after bank accounts overseas and then you had Stanford going on TV point in the -- Davis I mean this could be biblical.
Fill in -- you'll be -- unloaded by it's going to be a bloodbath.
-- Laura pentagon told they think have the information that they can get against us in -- They won't say the only the question is they move so quickly on her and she was cooperating with the SEC.
So they have to believe she has something that can help them in that case but she's the only person who's been charged and it's an obstruction of justice charge it's not even you know would -- -- to cut she could be indicted down the road.
By it you know -- they in the indictment yesterday talk about all the executives the lawyers.
Who were giving her information are co conspirators in the conspiracy to affect -- -- And they did indict any of them.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- We literally get -- they talk about the figures eight million almost in the CDs.
He gave himself a one point six billion dollar loan.
That money he was allegedly repaid by just that he would buy real estate -- he would throw up the value of the real -- given back to the bank and say.
I bought it for eighty million it's now with 544 million while like you've got -- loan forgiven down and the defense that by the way it will be marked to market accounting period it's going to be.
-- -- The Stanford if it the fun thing to watch is going to be stand for that lawsuit but then when that thing gets to court that's -- be -- Al soap opera yes.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Who's also charitable organization -- they were shut down.
You know once and go on that list this is that I found very interesting Fairfield Greenwich.
They haven't filed yet against Fairfield Greenwich and that's seven point five billion worth of Madoff money there when classes theaters what -- that they did get a letter saying outlets talk gentlemen.
But -- they've they've not gotten one of these lawsuits where they say were moving to recover substantial funds at the card in his -- press briefing yesterday alluded to the fact that they will be going after substantial funds he's always said substantial.
And they're still substantial funds to go after the thinking is that's a matter of time although I guess we don't know but the ideas that that that -- put money on it and I don't like to bat crap that gets up off the whole bucket load of cash but I bet on that one and and they also -- the the sentencing -- got pushed back which is on to the twenty -- when he -- -- -- case it's as you know it's -- you have to -- official -- on some of these things but -- it's more gathering of information building cases and but the other question there is will there be other indictments let.
But some family members have been in name's Rick -- has been trying to get guns and.
-- that'll help that Peter Madoff you know today.
There's the seventeenth floor.
If you look at how they might be doing this you you work that the prosecutors in gathering information work up the pecking order the food chain.
So -- seventeen is where the Ponzi scheme was taking place.
And who may have facilitated -- we know the names of people who work there -- to the scholarly and that -- -- Judy cruelty.
Would those people being guided their lawyers insist they did nothing wrong.
Five you know -- -- taken.
When this place goes down out of it's going to be the eighteenth when they come after her for a date to but yeah I know a lot of people you know the -- -- the fox web Larijani saying okay nobody's supposed to know that the right we have some real questions about Cody -- to -- and -- -- entire city when he -- the -- According to start all right Adam thanks good to see how it by the way you stick around the cell phone that.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Let's figure quick look at the markets before we get to that is so.
We have an idea where we are right now the Vista the whole hour we've been on we've been around this range in in trading down 51 points.
Talked a whole lot about stocks today can you -- -- with the next move in this market is going to be assuming everybody's expecting to sell -- we started to get it came back yesterday now we're down again.
Yeah I think we're gonna see that throughout the summer a little bit -- -- -- -- the downside -- I think there was a rush to you know that over the rally we had an investors.
You basically coming to the conclusion that the American economy was not going to him completely in distress -- -- and that it would again emerged from this it's just a question of one.
They keep looking a lot of economic data coming out but you know little -- with her while there.
Probably and that seems to be what -- a lot of people seem to think that you'll see anyway.
Neal Edwards is here now the CEO of a company that's called sell you fun you'll get to see -- thanks for coming on I think you very much so you've got to Bernie Madoff gain on the cell phone.
And what what is to come out by the way I'm launch some -- this land that is what he got a ton of people -- -- Have 20000 people -- decision -- the first four days of playing so.
You know we expect will probably get around a 100000 people -- next two weeks playing the game explain how it works really simple.
I'm you can be your own fund manager.
Did you don't you recruit your friends either own -- -- -- dot com.
Which other one point seven million users or email your friends to come play.
He set up a few set up a fund invite your friends they invested and -- and then -- you play the game for several for several days.
Our emphasis it on the screen right yes that's -- this is the game so tell us what what are -- looking at is what it looks like when you know so what you're looking at there is your individual fund you said the fund you offer 51020%.
Interest right you get investors to come -- investing your fond.
Or you can be an investor in the game.
And -- the deal list sometime after Madoff is sentenced to gain hands.
If you're if you're fund manager -- fund goes you get to keep the points that are left in the game if you're an investor you take your do you take your money off the table.
Before the fund goes -- I started my fun last Monday when broke last night.
Offered 40% yes sort of around mimics a Ponzi scheme and right now is there were 151000 funds have been created in four days.
And the president did that the Fed come then decides what a good spot though is that coming behind it is a big -- going -- -- things behind the scenes exactly.
Exactly if that's you we created did you guys -- -- avatar may without me playing the game and their by the way on the on the screen are now.
It was me whoever nodding along yeah I have an idea in my out of the mud broke like -- -- So that it's it's it's kind of it's kind of funny because the whole thing was is that me.
That's -- you know.
And that's me.
Anyway all of that I got to play the live arcade controls -- I don't play the game to -- how much money a couple of it's kind of funny because well it's funny for us since that now wonderful at.
You know if people are even offended by something like this and we know that's a really good question in you know we created the game originally because of one we were company that creates you know mobile content that's entertainment.
And you know the Madoff story along with seven the other Ponzi schemes -- it's been it's in our psyche for the last you know year right yep and done.
We didn't Madoff because we thought it would be one educational for people number two is just fun and entertaining.
And you know we've had a tremendous you know interest in people playing you know and lots and invites her friends.
And them we have not had any negative feedback up -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- And you know this bringing in more obvious is that talent and this is exactly have they were they don't have money involved as long problem -- there's no real money and -- -- -- his.
All that -- video game -- and one of the things we had a really good question from Genoa last night would we donate money to the victims -- -- and we actually you know contacted mr.
Picard the fund manager.
Waiting to hear back from where we were gonna put up -- to donate link on the game tonight make big money to the victims of charities and we're gonna do that in the next week when are we.
Hear back from here how in her how to do that but the -- -- it's all about fun told doll line people experience how does Ponzi scheme work.
And do -- friends that.
Lot of people -- -- game -- not playing with real money but you're putting up -- links so that they can actually don't email money do you think.
Directly definitely -- our company's -- I mean that's it that's not why not have a little but fumbled it right exactly loses uncle thinks I'm crazy when he and the whole thing has been absolutely crazy hesitant to hold David just even look at the Madoff thing -- -- I'm saying this earlier we were on the air we were talking about how we're gonna have realized that something like.
It is amazing what we all sit back and somebody sees an opportunity -- everything you sit back watch and are made -- covered saying.
I think his cell phone.
Well what we will we do is you know -- -- has more than sixty different games today and those social community now Samarco FaceBook for mobile.
And what we do is we launch a new game a month either based on holidays.
Or based on some event or some something that's in the social conscience so we have threatened because things have -- -- -- -- Now couple years none of the simplest game I mean I would say a million -- two months from -- unreasonably -- -- come out of the new game a month.
And what we do is we delivered across 7000 phones around the world and you know.
Anybody can play on whether you're an iPhone -- on just a normal.
You know -- Chicago sun filled and money -- for good good juggler we've we've let my people educate themselves by Dexter -- I appreciate -- -- -- I think I gonna play with my avatar is the idea to have.
Yeah we can notice it until they gonna see again thanks for coming in right thanks for having me.
They hit a great -- from the -- with us and -- will be back on Monday check out our podcast on iTunes anytime you get a chance.
Have a great weekend everybody we'll see back here Monday at the new foxbusiness.com.
Filter by section