Government Grants for All

Why Hard Money Lenders Georgia feel frustrated

You have all planned to make your career in real estate investment, and you need to have more of real estate education, in order to place your feet firmly in this field of business.  You have to have a clear understanding of the role of hard money lenders.  They are actually a key to your success team and being able to make money as a real estate investor.

If you don’t have a good lending agency like hard money lenders Georgia, you need to get one and you need to get one right away.  One of the things that I want to make sure that you realize is that hard money lenders across the entire Unites States are really frustrated and they are frustrated with one thing, and that is borrower are not coming out with good property proposals. You see hard money lenders are facing such kind of problem too. Once a loan application or a deal is submitted to hard money lenders Georgia, and then a hard money lender is going to send evaluators to the property to look at the value of the property and my guess is that on average that most properties are submitted by investors are more than 30% off in value from what they really need to be buying them for.

Most of the deals that are submitted to hard money lenders as I talked to them all over the country and it came to my knowledge that the deals being submitted are actually retail deals, not the wholesale ones.  Let me explain differently.  Retail transaction is one where homeowners actually are purchasing the property.  While a wholesale transaction is purchasing something that is below market value.  The frustration of lending agencies like Hard Money Lenders Georgia is due to these phenomena. They want you to purchase a property, which is going to give you Profit at the end. They are your well wishers and they want to see real estate investor successful.

It is kind of interesting because you see all these applications and people bringing in properties to fund and there are Hard Money Lenders, who is going to help you out in these tough times too. There are also hard money lenders across United States that actually did approve the findings.  They are having problem with some of those and they are actually going into foreclosure and taking properties back.  So there are some real estate investors that are concerned that hard money lender are too stringent on their guidelines but the evidence to that shows quite contrary because if hard money lenders are actually taking properties back that means may be their guidelines are little too loose to be honest.

If you want to be a successful as a real estate investor you got to find a good hard money lender.  You are also required to find good properties, and to succeed with the help of hard money lenders Georgia.  If they earn money on a good property they are going to make money and you are going to make money too.  So it’s the thing which matters at the end.

Hard money lenders can be a very important source of financing for real estate investors. In fact, one local hard money lender helped me get my start in real estate investing. The problem many people have when they are just starting out is finding a local hard money lender. This video shows you how to find a hard money lender in your area.
Video Rating: 5 / 5

Tags: Feel, frustrated, Georgia, Hard, Lenders, Money

Scholarships for High School Seniors – Feel the Sizzle!

www.scholarshipsforhighschoolseniors.org The only Scholarships for High School Seniors website to provide indepth and concise information on the best scholarships for high school seniors, and how you too, can be the recipient of one to study either from home, or on campus. scholarships…
Video Rating: 5 / 5

The College Board scholarship website was one of the first college scholarship list sites, and it remains one of the most comprehensive resources to search for scholarships. In this video we review the scholarship feature available through College Board and offer tips on how to use this scholarship search site to uncover money for college.
Video Rating: 5 / 5

Tags: Feel, High, Scholarships, School, Seniors, Sizzle

Be More Attractive Now : How to Look Good – Feel Great

Check out these look for scholarship products:

Be More Attractive Now : How to Look Good – Feel Great
Discover the essential process to looking more attractive, younger, and more seductive. Get noticed more at work – and promoted faster. Learn to master charisma, body language and social finese and get that job. Learn to dress to flatter your shape.
Be More Attractive Now : How to Look Good – Feel Great

Tags: Attractive, Feel, Good, Great, look, More

Look Good Feel Great

Look Good Feel Great
This e-book takes readers through a 10-step process so they can quickly lose all the weight they want and most importantly, keep it off long term. It offers a range of weight-loss principles and readers simply select the principles that suit them.
Look Good Feel Great

Tags: Feel, Good, Great, look

When You Feel Him Slipping Away – These Effective Tips Will Bring Your Boyfriend BacK Fast

If you are used to small spats and disagreements in your relationship, you might not feel him slipping away. Suddenly he will tell you he needs space and he is gone. If this has happened to you, these effective tips will bring your ex boyfriend back fast.

It isn’t usually a big blowup that causes a breakup, but little things that accumulate. That is why the breakup can catch you by surprise, you never see it coming. Your boyfriend spends less time with you and you think he is just more occupied with his job. He is less attentive and you think that has to do with his job too. But, these are all signs he is slipping away.

Men are more sensitive than women realize, and once they are hurt, the don’t get over it easily. You might have said something that hurt his ego and it continued to grow until he run off to sulk. You won’t realize what happened and that will make you chase him and call him to find out why. He won’t talk to you and this will lead to further frustration for you.

You want to get him back fast, so you turn to your friends for advice. They are apt to tell you he was getting close to making a commitment. They will tell how men get scared of losing their freedom and run. But, that is not usually the case. Men say they need space because they are unhappy with the relationship. Saying he needs space is just a gentle way of breaking up with you.

But by trying to breakup with you in a kind way, he is just confusing you more. If he would come right out and tell you his problem, you could work it out. But if he wants to keep it to himself and pout like a child, the best thing you can do is agree with him. Tell him you have not been too happy with things lately, and some time apart is a good idea. This will make him stunned to hear you say that.

Your ex boyfriend expected you to cry and beg and if you let him stay any longer, that is what you will do. So get him out the door before you fall apart. From that point on, you must ignore him and go on with your life. Be seen having un with friends and take up other interests. This will make your ex see that you meant what you said about taking time apart.

By showing him that you can have a life without him, your ex boyfriend will feel you are slipping away. Since he only wanted to pout and not break off the relationship completely, he will be the one confused. He had no idea you were unhappy with him and that will make him wonder what he did. Sound familiar? Your ex is in the same emotional state you were in when he said he needed space. When you feel your boyfriend slipping away, don’t beg him to stay. Let him experience his life without you and he will soon be slipping back.

Tags: away, Back, Boyfriend, bring, Effective, Fast, Feel, Slipping, These, Tips

America’s $40m Men Feel the Heat

Eight chief executives of US corporations were invited to appear before a senate hearing last week to discuss the scabrous issue of excessive executive pay. None of them showed up, perhaps wisely. How do you defend a $40m (£25m) or $50m pay packet unless with the same kind of lame excuse voiced by football managers, that it is the market rate?

Those who did turn up, including representatives of some of the biggest pension funds in the US, were less afraid to put their opinions forward. Sean Harrigan, president of the administrative board of California’s public employee pension fund, the largest in America and increasingly aggressive on the issue of spiralling executive salaries, testified that chief executives now average 400 times what a production worker earns.

The yawning gap and the continuing escalation of chief executive salaries “continues to have an impact on investor confidence” he said.

The refusal of the eight chief executives to appear at the senate hearing caused barely a ruffle in the American media – despite the sense of outrage that many investors and ordinary workers are beginning to feel.

But the issue is beginning to gain traction in a country where the average chief executive salary makes those in Britain look like pocket change. According to a recent survey published in USA Today, the average compensation package for chief executives in the top 100 American companies was $33.4m in 2002 – nearly one-third of them banked more than $50m in salaries, bonuses and shares.

Over the year, executives took a 15% pay hike, compared with the average worker’s rise of just 3.2%. As for the eight who failed to show, let them be named and shamed here: Larry Ellison of Oracle, Michael Eisner of Walt Disney, Leo Mullin of Delta Air Lines, Edward Breen of Tyco, David Cote of Honeywell International, Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems, Jeff Barbakow of Tenet healthcare and the former General Electric chief executive Jack Welch.

In the aftermath of the financial scandals that knocked corporate America sideways last year, the greed engendered by massive compensation packages was widely identified as vital, blinding good judgment and tempting executives to cross the line.

Alan Greenspan, the venerable head of the Federal Reserve, spoke of the culture of “infectious greed” during the 1990s. Disgust has been routinely expressed at the massive awards to the likes of Kenneth Lay of Enron and Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom even as their companies crashed.

Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, has called the issue of executive compensation “the acid test of reform”. At his annual meeting he told shareholders to “rise up” against greedy chief executives. And they seem to be taking note.

A little over a week ago at Hollinger International, owner of the Daily Telegraph, shareholders forced a series of concessions on to Lord Black, regularly accused of running the company like a private fiefdom. They included a cap on the “management fees” he takes from the firm and an independent review of a $73m payment he shared with his lieutenants after the sale of the company’s Canadian newspaper assets.

The shareholding company that brought the bonus payment into the public view, Tweedy Browne, is not otherwise known for its aggressive nature, suggesting that the new activism is catching on.

Richard Grasso, who runs the New York stock exchange, is coming under fire for the size of his $10m salary and the fact that he sits on the board of the retailer Home Depot, one of the companies listed on the market.

At American Airlines, the chairman and chief executive, Don Carty, was forced to stand down earlier this month after an astonishingly crass move. Just a day after wringing $1.8bn in pay cuts and job losses from the company’s workforce to keep the airline in business, Mr Carty quietly put in place some lucrative retention bonuses for himself and a handful of senior executives. It cost him his job.

His replacements have listened to the critics. Gerlad Arprey, the new chief executive, will not take a pay rise on the salary he had previously earned as chief operating officer. Edward Brennan, taking over as chairman, will continue to receive his existing director’s fee but take nothing extra for his promotion.

They are not the only ones to bend to the demands of investors. Mr Mullin at struggling Delta Air Lines pledged not to take some of the compensation his contract allows in 2003. He is giving up a $1m bonus and long-term awards that would have been worth a further $8m after his 2002 package stirred anger in congress.

Sanford Weill of Citigroup and a number of other banking chiefs are foregoing bonuses.

The highest paid executive last year, Mr Barbakow of the Tenet Healthcare hospital chain, made an eye-popping $189m, of which $111m came from exercising share options. Mr Barbakow was forced out of the company last week amid investor concerns about the its slumping share regulators investigated the business. Concerns about its quality of care also arose after the FBI raided a Tenet hospital for information about allegations of unnecessary procedures by two doctors.

Mr Welch at GE agreed to give up some of his more extravagant retirement perks including fresh flowers for his apartment, New York Knicks and Wimbledon tickets and a laundry service.

A shareholder in the company John Hancock Financial Services last week filed a civil lawsuit asking a clutch of senior executives to return some of their pay. David D’Alessandro, the company’s chief executive, took a pay rise last year from $8.2m to $21.7m despite profits falling by 15% and a share price that wilted by 32%.

But the disparity between executive pay and the rewards for shareholders is still glaringly obvious in many companies. Michael Eisner, who runs Walt Disney, was awarded a $5m bonus last year despite the company’s share price falling by 34%.

How long the issue will stay uppermost in the minds of the US public is uncertain and the long term ability of either shareholders or workers to suppress pay is doubtful.

Americans are less righteous than the British about the mere principle of excessive pay. Once investors too are doing well again then the issue is likely to die down and inflation return. That could be sooner than many had thought. The Dow Jones index on Wall Street last week completed its first three-month rise in two years raising the prospect that chief executives might be let off the hook before any lasting damage is done to their bank accounts.

Tags: $40m, America's, Feel, Heat

America’s $40m Men Feel the Heat

Eight chief executives of US corporations were invited to appear before a senate hearing last week to discuss the scabrous issue of excessive executive pay. None of them showed up, perhaps wisely. How do you defend a $40m (£25m) or $50m pay packet unless with the same kind of lame excuse voiced by football managers, that it is the market rate?

Those who did turn up, including representatives of some of the biggest pension funds in the US, were less afraid to put their opinions forward. Sean Harrigan, president of the administrative board of California’s public employee pension fund, the largest in America and increasingly aggressive on the issue of spiralling executive salaries, testified that chief executives now average 400 times what a production worker earns.

The yawning gap and the continuing escalation of chief executive salaries “continues to have an impact on investor confidence” he said.

The refusal of the eight chief executives to appear at the senate hearing caused barely a ruffle in the American media – despite the sense of outrage that many investors and ordinary workers are beginning to feel.

But the issue is beginning to gain traction in a country where the average chief executive salary makes those in Britain look like pocket change. According to a recent survey published in USA Today, the average compensation package for chief executives in the top 100 American companies was $33.4m in 2002 – nearly one-third of them banked more than $50m in salaries, bonuses and shares.

Over the year, executives took a 15% pay hike, compared with the average worker’s rise of just 3.2%. As for the eight who failed to show, let them be named and shamed here: Larry Ellison of Oracle, Michael Eisner of Walt Disney, Leo Mullin of Delta Air Lines, Edward Breen of Tyco, David Cote of Honeywell International, Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems, Jeff Barbakow of Tenet healthcare and the former General Electric chief executive Jack Welch.

In the aftermath of the financial scandals that knocked corporate America sideways last year, the greed engendered by massive compensation packages was widely identified as vital, blinding good judgment and tempting executives to cross the line.

Alan Greenspan, the venerable head of the Federal Reserve, spoke of the culture of “infectious greed” during the 1990s. Disgust has been routinely expressed at the massive awards to the likes of Kenneth Lay of Enron and Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom even as their companies crashed.

Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, has called the issue of executive compensation “the acid test of reform”. At his annual meeting he told shareholders to “rise up” against greedy chief executives. And they seem to be taking note.

A little over a week ago at Hollinger International, owner of the Daily Telegraph, shareholders forced a series of concessions on to Lord Black, regularly accused of running the company like a private fiefdom. They included a cap on the “management fees” he takes from the firm and an independent review of a $73m payment he shared with his lieutenants after the sale of the company’s Canadian newspaper assets.

The shareholding company that brought the bonus payment into the public view, Tweedy Browne, is not otherwise known for its aggressive nature, suggesting that the new activism is catching on.

Richard Grasso, who runs the New York stock exchange, is coming under fire for the size of his $10m salary and the fact that he sits on the board of the retailer Home Depot, one of the companies listed on the market.

At American Airlines, the chairman and chief executive, Don Carty, was forced to stand down earlier this month after an astonishingly crass move. Just a day after wringing $1.8bn in pay cuts and job losses from the company’s workforce to keep the airline in business, Mr Carty quietly put in place some lucrative retention bonuses for himself and a handful of senior executives. It cost him his job.

His replacements have listened to the critics. Gerlad Arprey, the new chief executive, will not take a pay rise on the salary he had previously earned as chief operating officer. Edward Brennan, taking over as chairman, will continue to receive his existing director’s fee but take nothing extra for his promotion.

They are not the only ones to bend to the demands of investors. Mr Mullin at struggling Delta Air Lines pledged not to take some of the compensation his contract allows in 2003. He is giving up a $1m bonus and long-term awards that would have been worth a further $8m after his 2002 package stirred anger in congress.

Sanford Weill of Citigroup and a number of other banking chiefs are foregoing bonuses.

The highest paid executive last year, Mr Barbakow of the Tenet Healthcare hospital chain, made an eye-popping $189m, of which $111m came from exercising share options. Mr Barbakow was forced out of the company last week amid investor concerns about the its slumping share regulators investigated the business. Concerns about its quality of care also arose after the FBI raided a Tenet hospital for information about allegations of unnecessary procedures by two doctors.

Mr Welch at GE agreed to give up some of his more extravagant retirement perks including fresh flowers for his apartment, New York Knicks and Wimbledon tickets and a laundry service.

A shareholder in the company John Hancock Financial Services last week filed a civil lawsuit asking a clutch of senior executives to return some of their pay. David D’Alessandro, the company’s chief executive, took a pay rise last year from $8.2m to $21.7m despite profits falling by 15% and a share price that wilted by 32%.

But the disparity between executive pay and the rewards for shareholders is still glaringly obvious in many companies. Michael Eisner, who runs Walt Disney, was awarded a $5m bonus last year despite the company’s share price falling by 34%.

How long the issue will stay uppermost in the minds of the US public is uncertain and the long term ability of either shareholders or workers to suppress pay is doubtful.

Americans are less righteous than the British about the mere principle of excessive pay. Once investors too are doing well again then the issue is likely to die down and inflation return. That could be sooner than many had thought. The Dow Jones index on Wall Street last week completed its first three-month rise in two years raising the prospect that chief executives might be let off the hook before any lasting damage is done to their bank accounts.

Tags: $40m, America's, Feel, Heat

America’s $40m Men Feel the Heat

Eight chief executives of US corporations were invited to appear before a senate hearing last week to discuss the scabrous issue of excessive executive pay. None of them showed up, perhaps wisely. How do you defend a $40m (£25m) or $50m pay packet unless with the same kind of lame excuse voiced by football managers, that it is the market rate?

Those who did turn up, including representatives of some of the biggest pension funds in the US, were less afraid to put their opinions forward. Sean Harrigan, president of the administrative board of California’s public employee pension fund, the largest in America and increasingly aggressive on the issue of spiralling executive salaries, testified that chief executives now average 400 times what a production worker earns.

The yawning gap and the continuing escalation of chief executive salaries “continues to have an impact on investor confidence” he said.

The refusal of the eight chief executives to appear at the senate hearing caused barely a ruffle in the American media – despite the sense of outrage that many investors and ordinary workers are beginning to feel.

But the issue is beginning to gain traction in a country where the average chief executive salary makes those in Britain look like pocket change. According to a recent survey published in USA Today, the average compensation package for chief executives in the top 100 American companies was $33.4m in 2002 – nearly one-third of them banked more than $50m in salaries, bonuses and shares.

Over the year, executives took a 15% pay hike, compared with the average worker’s rise of just 3.2%. As for the eight who failed to show, let them be named and shamed here: Larry Ellison of Oracle, Michael Eisner of Walt Disney, Leo Mullin of Delta Air Lines, Edward Breen of Tyco, David Cote of Honeywell International, Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems, Jeff Barbakow of Tenet healthcare and the former General Electric chief executive Jack Welch.

In the aftermath of the financial scandals that knocked corporate America sideways last year, the greed engendered by massive compensation packages was widely identified as vital, blinding good judgment and tempting executives to cross the line.

Alan Greenspan, the venerable head of the Federal Reserve, spoke of the culture of “infectious greed” during the 1990s. Disgust has been routinely expressed at the massive awards to the likes of Kenneth Lay of Enron and Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom even as their companies crashed.

Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, has called the issue of executive compensation “the acid test of reform”. At his annual meeting he told shareholders to “rise up” against greedy chief executives. And they seem to be taking note.

A little over a week ago at Hollinger International, owner of the Daily Telegraph, shareholders forced a series of concessions on to Lord Black, regularly accused of running the company like a private fiefdom. They included a cap on the “management fees” he takes from the firm and an independent review of a $73m payment he shared with his lieutenants after the sale of the company’s Canadian newspaper assets.

The shareholding company that brought the bonus payment into the public view, Tweedy Browne, is not otherwise known for its aggressive nature, suggesting that the new activism is catching on.

Richard Grasso, who runs the New York stock exchange, is coming under fire for the size of his $10m salary and the fact that he sits on the board of the retailer Home Depot, one of the companies listed on the market.

At American Airlines, the chairman and chief executive, Don Carty, was forced to stand down earlier this month after an astonishingly crass move. Just a day after wringing $1.8bn in pay cuts and job losses from the company’s workforce to keep the airline in business, Mr Carty quietly put in place some lucrative retention bonuses for himself and a handful of senior executives. It cost him his job.

His replacements have listened to the critics. Gerlad Arprey, the new chief executive, will not take a pay rise on the salary he had previously earned as chief operating officer. Edward Brennan, taking over as chairman, will continue to receive his existing director’s fee but take nothing extra for his promotion.

They are not the only ones to bend to the demands of investors. Mr Mullin at struggling Delta Air Lines pledged not to take some of the compensation his contract allows in 2003. He is giving up a $1m bonus and long-term awards that would have been worth a further $8m after his 2002 package stirred anger in congress.

Sanford Weill of Citigroup and a number of other banking chiefs are foregoing bonuses.

The highest paid executive last year, Mr Barbakow of the Tenet Healthcare hospital chain, made an eye-popping $189m, of which $111m came from exercising share options. Mr Barbakow was forced out of the company last week amid investor concerns about the its slumping share regulators investigated the business. Concerns about its quality of care also arose after the FBI raided a Tenet hospital for information about allegations of unnecessary procedures by two doctors.

Mr Welch at GE agreed to give up some of his more extravagant retirement perks including fresh flowers for his apartment, New York Knicks and Wimbledon tickets and a laundry service.

A shareholder in the company John Hancock Financial Services last week filed a civil lawsuit asking a clutch of senior executives to return some of their pay. David D’Alessandro, the company’s chief executive, took a pay rise last year from $8.2m to $21.7m despite profits falling by 15% and a share price that wilted by 32%.

But the disparity between executive pay and the rewards for shareholders is still glaringly obvious in many companies. Michael Eisner, who runs Walt Disney, was awarded a $5m bonus last year despite the company’s share price falling by 34%.

How long the issue will stay uppermost in the minds of the US public is uncertain and the long term ability of either shareholders or workers to suppress pay is doubtful.

Americans are less righteous than the British about the mere principle of excessive pay. Once investors too are doing well again then the issue is likely to die down and inflation return. That could be sooner than many had thought. The Dow Jones index on Wall Street last week completed its first three-month rise in two years raising the prospect that chief executives might be let off the hook before any lasting damage is done to their bank accounts.

Tags: $40m, America's, Feel, Heat

America’s $40m Men Feel the Heat

Eight chief executives of US corporations were invited to appear before a senate hearing last week to discuss the scabrous issue of excessive executive pay. None of them showed up, perhaps wisely. How do you defend a $40m (£25m) or $50m pay packet unless with the same kind of lame excuse voiced by football managers, that it is the market rate?

Those who did turn up, including representatives of some of the biggest pension funds in the US, were less afraid to put their opinions forward. Sean Harrigan, president of the administrative board of California’s public employee pension fund, the largest in America and increasingly aggressive on the issue of spiralling executive salaries, testified that chief executives now average 400 times what a production worker earns.

The yawning gap and the continuing escalation of chief executive salaries “continues to have an impact on investor confidence” he said.

The refusal of the eight chief executives to appear at the senate hearing caused barely a ruffle in the American media – despite the sense of outrage that many investors and ordinary workers are beginning to feel.

But the issue is beginning to gain traction in a country where the average chief executive salary makes those in Britain look like pocket change. According to a recent survey published in USA Today, the average compensation package for chief executives in the top 100 American companies was $33.4m in 2002 – nearly one-third of them banked more than $50m in salaries, bonuses and shares.

Over the year, executives took a 15% pay hike, compared with the average worker’s rise of just 3.2%. As for the eight who failed to show, let them be named and shamed here: Larry Ellison of Oracle, Michael Eisner of Walt Disney, Leo Mullin of Delta Air Lines, Edward Breen of Tyco, David Cote of Honeywell International, Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems, Jeff Barbakow of Tenet healthcare and the former General Electric chief executive Jack Welch.

In the aftermath of the financial scandals that knocked corporate America sideways last year, the greed engendered by massive compensation packages was widely identified as vital, blinding good judgment and tempting executives to cross the line.

Alan Greenspan, the venerable head of the Federal Reserve, spoke of the culture of “infectious greed” during the 1990s. Disgust has been routinely expressed at the massive awards to the likes of Kenneth Lay of Enron and Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom even as their companies crashed.

Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, has called the issue of executive compensation “the acid test of reform”. At his annual meeting he told shareholders to “rise up” against greedy chief executives. And they seem to be taking note.

A little over a week ago at Hollinger International, owner of the Daily Telegraph, shareholders forced a series of concessions on to Lord Black, regularly accused of running the company like a private fiefdom. They included a cap on the “management fees” he takes from the firm and an independent review of a $73m payment he shared with his lieutenants after the sale of the company’s Canadian newspaper assets.

The shareholding company that brought the bonus payment into the public view, Tweedy Browne, is not otherwise known for its aggressive nature, suggesting that the new activism is catching on.

Richard Grasso, who runs the New York stock exchange, is coming under fire for the size of his $10m salary and the fact that he sits on the board of the retailer Home Depot, one of the companies listed on the market.

At American Airlines, the chairman and chief executive, Don Carty, was forced to stand down earlier this month after an astonishingly crass move. Just a day after wringing $1.8bn in pay cuts and job losses from the company’s workforce to keep the airline in business, Mr Carty quietly put in place some lucrative retention bonuses for himself and a handful of senior executives. It cost him his job.

His replacements have listened to the critics. Gerlad Arprey, the new chief executive, will not take a pay rise on the salary he had previously earned as chief operating officer. Edward Brennan, taking over as chairman, will continue to receive his existing director’s fee but take nothing extra for his promotion.

They are not the only ones to bend to the demands of investors. Mr Mullin at struggling Delta Air Lines pledged not to take some of the compensation his contract allows in 2003. He is giving up a $1m bonus and long-term awards that would have been worth a further $8m after his 2002 package stirred anger in congress.

Sanford Weill of Citigroup and a number of other banking chiefs are foregoing bonuses.

The highest paid executive last year, Mr Barbakow of the Tenet Healthcare hospital chain, made an eye-popping $189m, of which $111m came from exercising share options. Mr Barbakow was forced out of the company last week amid investor concerns about the its slumping share regulators investigated the business. Concerns about its quality of care also arose after the FBI raided a Tenet hospital for information about allegations of unnecessary procedures by two doctors.

Mr Welch at GE agreed to give up some of his more extravagant retirement perks including fresh flowers for his apartment, New York Knicks and Wimbledon tickets and a laundry service.

A shareholder in the company John Hancock Financial Services last week filed a civil lawsuit asking a clutch of senior executives to return some of their pay. David D’Alessandro, the company’s chief executive, took a pay rise last year from $8.2m to $21.7m despite profits falling by 15% and a share price that wilted by 32%.

But the disparity between executive pay and the rewards for shareholders is still glaringly obvious in many companies. Michael Eisner, who runs Walt Disney, was awarded a $5m bonus last year despite the company’s share price falling by 34%.

How long the issue will stay uppermost in the minds of the US public is uncertain and the long term ability of either shareholders or workers to suppress pay is doubtful.

Americans are less righteous than the British about the mere principle of excessive pay. Once investors too are doing well again then the issue is likely to die down and inflation return. That could be sooner than many had thought. The Dow Jones index on Wall Street last week completed its first three-month rise in two years raising the prospect that chief executives might be let off the hook before any lasting damage is done to their bank accounts.

Tags: $40m, America's, Feel, Heat

America’s $40m Men Feel the Heat

Eight chief executives of US corporations were invited to appear before a senate hearing last week to discuss the scabrous issue of excessive executive pay. None of them showed up, perhaps wisely. How do you defend a $40m (£25m) or $50m pay packet unless with the same kind of lame excuse voiced by football managers, that it is the market rate?

Those who did turn up, including representatives of some of the biggest pension funds in the US, were less afraid to put their opinions forward. Sean Harrigan, president of the administrative board of California’s public employee pension fund, the largest in America and increasingly aggressive on the issue of spiralling executive salaries, testified that chief executives now average 400 times what a production worker earns.

The yawning gap and the continuing escalation of chief executive salaries “continues to have an impact on investor confidence” he said.

The refusal of the eight chief executives to appear at the senate hearing caused barely a ruffle in the American media – despite the sense of outrage that many investors and ordinary workers are beginning to feel.

But the issue is beginning to gain traction in a country where the average chief executive salary makes those in Britain look like pocket change. According to a recent survey published in USA Today, the average compensation package for chief executives in the top 100 American companies was $33.4m in 2002 – nearly one-third of them banked more than $50m in salaries, bonuses and shares.

Over the year, executives took a 15% pay hike, compared with the average worker’s rise of just 3.2%. As for the eight who failed to show, let them be named and shamed here: Larry Ellison of Oracle, Michael Eisner of Walt Disney, Leo Mullin of Delta Air Lines, Edward Breen of Tyco, David Cote of Honeywell International, Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems, Jeff Barbakow of Tenet healthcare and the former General Electric chief executive Jack Welch.

In the aftermath of the financial scandals that knocked corporate America sideways last year, the greed engendered by massive compensation packages was widely identified as vital, blinding good judgment and tempting executives to cross the line.

Alan Greenspan, the venerable head of the Federal Reserve, spoke of the culture of “infectious greed” during the 1990s. Disgust has been routinely expressed at the massive awards to the likes of Kenneth Lay of Enron and Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom even as their companies crashed.

Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor, has called the issue of executive compensation “the acid test of reform”. At his annual meeting he told shareholders to “rise up” against greedy chief executives. And they seem to be taking note.

A little over a week ago at Hollinger International, owner of the Daily Telegraph, shareholders forced a series of concessions on to Lord Black, regularly accused of running the company like a private fiefdom. They included a cap on the “management fees” he takes from the firm and an independent review of a $73m payment he shared with his lieutenants after the sale of the company’s Canadian newspaper assets.

The shareholding company that brought the bonus payment into the public view, Tweedy Browne, is not otherwise known for its aggressive nature, suggesting that the new activism is catching on.

Richard Grasso, who runs the New York stock exchange, is coming under fire for the size of his $10m salary and the fact that he sits on the board of the retailer Home Depot, one of the companies listed on the market.

At American Airlines, the chairman and chief executive, Don Carty, was forced to stand down earlier this month after an astonishingly crass move. Just a day after wringing $1.8bn in pay cuts and job losses from the company’s workforce to keep the airline in business, Mr Carty quietly put in place some lucrative retention bonuses for himself and a handful of senior executives. It cost him his job.

His replacements have listened to the critics. Gerlad Arprey, the new chief executive, will not take a pay rise on the salary he had previously earned as chief operating officer. Edward Brennan, taking over as chairman, will continue to receive his existing director’s fee but take nothing extra for his promotion.

They are not the only ones to bend to the demands of investors. Mr Mullin at struggling Delta Air Lines pledged not to take some of the compensation his contract allows in 2003. He is giving up a $1m bonus and long-term awards that would have been worth a further $8m after his 2002 package stirred anger in congress.

Sanford Weill of Citigroup and a number of other banking chiefs are foregoing bonuses.

The highest paid executive last year, Mr Barbakow of the Tenet Healthcare hospital chain, made an eye-popping $189m, of which $111m came from exercising share options. Mr Barbakow was forced out of the company last week amid investor concerns about the its slumping share regulators investigated the business. Concerns about its quality of care also arose after the FBI raided a Tenet hospital for information about allegations of unnecessary procedures by two doctors.

Mr Welch at GE agreed to give up some of his more extravagant retirement perks including fresh flowers for his apartment, New York Knicks and Wimbledon tickets and a laundry service.

A shareholder in the company John Hancock Financial Services last week filed a civil lawsuit asking a clutch of senior executives to return some of their pay. David D’Alessandro, the company’s chief executive, took a pay rise last year from $8.2m to $21.7m despite profits falling by 15% and a share price that wilted by 32%.

But the disparity between executive pay and the rewards for shareholders is still glaringly obvious in many companies. Michael Eisner, who runs Walt Disney, was awarded a $5m bonus last year despite the company’s share price falling by 34%.

How long the issue will stay uppermost in the minds of the US public is uncertain and the long term ability of either shareholders or workers to suppress pay is doubtful.

Americans are less righteous than the British about the mere principle of excessive pay. Once investors too are doing well again then the issue is likely to die down and inflation return. That could be sooner than many had thought. The Dow Jones index on Wall Street last week completed its first three-month rise in two years raising the prospect that chief executives might be let off the hook before any lasting damage is done to their bank accounts.

Tags: $40m, America's, Feel, Heat