Talk:Clawback

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Don Holbrook 16:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)text from There are numerous resources that can denote the utilization of clawbacks in community based incentive negotiations for new business development.[reply]

Don Holbrook

reoriented the article[edit]

as per a recent New Yorker piece. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording makes it sound as though it's the Wikipedia article making the case, rather than the New Yorker article. 99.46.137.58 (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise - I've reverted the article to my original wording and format while also cut-and-pasting your own text from the latest edit directly in to that reversion. If you find a way to have a problem with that, 99.46.137.58, you're going to want to make it a very well-supported objection. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what New Yorker Article?[edit]

I'm not sure that you have the right New Yorker reference - I read the referenced article and there is no mention of "clawbacks." A clawback is not deferred compensation. It is when pay IS given up front, but with the right to take it back later. I'm not going to get into an edit war, but the article is now inaccurate. Bobcharli (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcharli (talk • contribs) 02:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article in The New Yorker indeed makes extensive reference to the term and concept of "clawbacks" and does indeed say, based on interviews with economists, that it is probably a way for many firms to basically fake their way out of increased regulation by going hey, look, we're taming our practices by instituting these clawback provisions. The article in The New Yorker makes clear that while it would be better for these companies to simply not pay any bonuses at all, and to slash executive salaries, instead they are doing an on-the-cheap method of saying hey, we'll claw back these bonuses if the products fail, see, we're being humanitarian in our own way! It's a sick game, and the New Yorker article makes that clear, but it's still something the finance firms love to pull, because it makes them look like they're doing something when in reality they aren't doing jack. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy application[edit]

Frankly, surprised no mention. This arena offers a tremendous avenue to raid or loot a company's assets by insiders. The Anthony Foxx, US transportation Secretay, is named as defendant, August 2015, with DesignLine.--Wikipietime (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background Section[edit]

"Typical measures are:

1.number of created jobs over 5 or 10 years
2.annual payroll
3.amount of capital investment over a similar time frame, and
4.amount of depreciated value in a given time."

This makes almost no sense. Hard to tell if these are generic clawback measurements, general financial analysis measurement, measurements germane to Sarbannes-Oxley or Dodd-Frank, etc. Please comment to describe what this is supposed to mean. Otherwise I'm going to do a complete re-write. 10stone5 (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]