. . . as the executives running the banks and major corporations.

Shareholders should be, and in here lies the rub. The Government at this point may effectively be the largest shareholder. The compensation has broken for long time for many of these banks, and the blame firmly lies at the feet of shareholders.

Unless you were able to put together a coalition of thousands if not millions of shareholders, most of whom own just a relative handfuls of shares, you'll never fix the system from the ground up. The very "shareholders" that you say are to blame for the obscene executive compensation are either so rich that they don't actually work themselves (and therefore are unable to relate to people who do) or they are executives themselves at the firm or in other large firms. Same is typical for the boards of directors. There is no way they will rein in compensation since the same could happen to them. It is an old boys and old girls club in the very worst sense. After years in this environment, the egos and sense of entitlement have banished even good economic sense.

The spread of ownership has been a great boom to the market but a great detraction to actual responsibility.

You confuse being a shareholder with being an owner. Unless you hold thousands or, in many cases, millions of shares, you have no claims to ownership whatsoever. You are merely an investor. Big difference.

The real fallout will be amongst the traders if they fall under this wage cape umbrella at these banks many of who will easily jump ship. . . . -- AskDong

Jump ship to where? Where are they going? Name a single significant investment house or commercial bank that isn't broke and is likely to be paying traders the same ridiculous salaries and bonuses they received in the 1980s, the late 1990s or the early years of this century. It is a buyers market for this sort of "talent" right now.

I know these people well. Very few are all that talented. Most traders have no special economic training or financial acumen (remember, even Bush has an MBA from Harvard). If they aren't clever enough (not the same thing as being intelligent) to make partner in ten years or so, they often burn out. Walk around the trading room of any major investment bank and you'll see people mostly in their 30s, some in their 40s, and only floor/department managers in their 50s. The major firms (Goldman, Lehman, Merrill) are/were so warped that if you didn't get a seven figure bonus in many years, maybe high six-figures, you had to worry about your job.

The world would be a much better place if the government were to step in for the short term and put a cap on compensation for firms taking government money. This, along with a much better staffed and more powerful SEC, would do a lot to fix at least the financial excesses in the U.S.

My guess is that the bankers will work around this issue somehow (probably with sign-on bonus as executives start to jump ship), . . . -- acenrockland

The financial industry is in ruins. Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers are no more. Merrill will shed thousands of jobs before the year is out. Washington Mutual has layed off thousands and will be laying off more before it is officially rebranded as JP Chase. Same is true with Citi Group. There is a surplus of people in the financial industry right now. Again, I ask, where are all these financial ships without holes in the hull and broken masts that these financial type disappointed with pay options will be jumping into?

I've been told that the boutique investment banks are still hiring and paying relatively well. I've also heard that some of these firms are receiving so many resumes, they are being extremely selective and have their pick of the best candidates available because of the recent financial crisis.-- Assezmalicieuse

But the smaller shops can't begin to absorb the tens of thousands of people, many from the back offices, that have already lost their jobs or will be shed. Nor can they afford to pay the same sort of salaries (and this includes hedge funds, many of which are bust as well) precisely because they are much smaller firms doing much smaller deals.

I know a number of people in banking and financial services that make many millions per year. There clients are loyal to them, not to what institute they work for. These people leave their bank, most of their clients, and their clients assets, go with them.-- Xanthro

This is true. But you,re using the example of individual investment managers, not CEOs responsible for overall corporate strategy. It is the latter, for the most part, who are responsible for ruining the banks and investment "houses." These people not only deserve to lose their jobs, but they probably should be prosecuted. I don't even care if what they did wasn't entirely illegal. Send them to jail for being dishonest and egotistical.