Question about "obscene bonuses"

[amy g.]

I'm not trying to stir the pot, or cause problems, but sometimes my thinking can be a bit simplistic, so I'd like to hear from people who believe big bonuses to be wrong, so I can understand both sides of the argument.

 

First off, is a bonus range of 50%-80% of yearly salary plus additional stock options obscene?

 

From my point of view, I see how large bonuses could be in the best interest of the company. The ones I'm aware of are tied to both company and individual proformance.

 

I've seen memos where employees are told that to receive their bonus each department must cut operating expenses by 30% and individual travel budgets by 20%. Isn't that an effective way to trim waste?

 

Since bonuses are tied to company proformance, sometimes one department will have a big overrun, but other departments have a big investment in helping them find a solution instead of just saying ,"Ha! It serves them right."

 

I have also seen times when the company is facing a large multimillion dollar fine, and the employee who comes up with a plan and presents it to the regulators, and convinces them that the fines are not appropriate will get a "spot bonus" of $20,000 to $30,000.

 

When people complain about bonuses, are they only speaking of millions for executives of failing companies, or are they also against the above examples of bonuses for incentive to save the company even more money that the bonuses cost?

[iquilt]

My first thought is that a large amount, all at once, seems obscene to many people because they don't have that much all at once, ever. Our culture is very used to pricing things only by monthly payments or how much it costs that day so a large amount at once seems so out of place.

[Ottakee]

I am all for bonuses, etc. but would like to see more of them actually get to the people lower down in the company that are doing the work. In our manufacturing area, many higher ups get HUGE bonuses while those doing the actual work on the lines, etc. get very small bonuses.

I'm not trying to stir the pot, or cause problems, but sometimes my thinking can be a bit simplistic, so I'd like to hear from people who believe big bonuses to be wrong, so I can understand both sides of the argument.

 

Boy, this is a potentially kerfluffle-worthy post, but when I think of obscene bonuses, I think of Leo Apotheker. No one begrudges Steve Jobs for making millions in stock, by turning around Apple, but "obscene" is when you get paid a ton despite screwing up.

 

Leo Apotheker was the CEO of HP for 11 months. During those eleven months he made a number of very bad decisions, some of which had to be un-decided in public. The stock price of HP dropped 40% in those 11 months. He managed so poorly that the board fired him after less than a year.

 

As a results of this poor performance, after he was fired, he was awarded a $2.4 million "performance bonus", $7.2 million worth of severance pay, and $3 million worth of stock, in addition to his salary.

[momma2three]

Boy, this is a potentially kerfluffle-worthy post, but when I think of obscene bonuses, I think of Leo Apotheker. No one begrudges Steve Jobs for making millions in stock, by turning around Apple, but "obscene" is when you get paid a ton despite screwing up.

 

Leo Apotheker was the CEO of HP for 11 months. During those eleven months he made a number of very bad decisions, some of which had to be un-decided in public. The stock price of HP dropped 40% in those 11 months. He managed so poorly that the board fired him after less than a year.

 

As a results of this poor performance, after he was fired, he was awarded a $2.4 million "performance bonus", $7.2 million worth of severance pay, and $3 million worth of stock, in addition to his salary.

 

:iagree:

 

Or the investment bankers who wrecked havoc on the US economy and got 7 or 8 figure bonuses anyway... as "retention" because they might leave. What a pity that would be. Those bonuses are more like 10x their salary, and what exactly do these people do except shuffle imaginary money around and bet against the US middle class?

[Lara in Colo]

Or the ones that get their bonus for cutting costs by doing things that will later harm the company, but show a quick result now.

 

Sometimes bonus motivation and having the investors only looking at the current bottom line will cause the company great harm in the future.

 

I think a bonus should be for progress over time and only if the company does well and never be guaranteed even in the wake of poor performance.

[pdalley]

"obscene" is when you get paid a ton despite screwing up.

 

 

:iagree: This sums it up for me.

[LisaKinVA]

Or the ones that get their bonus for cutting costs by doing things that will later harm the company, but show a quick result now.

 

Sometimes bonus motivation and having the investors only looking at the current bottom line will cause the company great harm in the future.

 

I think a bonus should be for progress over time and only if the company does well and never be guaranteed even in the wake of poor performance.

 

Circuit City comes to mind here... they put the bean-counters in control, and lost sight of why people shopped there instead of Best Buy. They then implemented policies which made them like Best Buy. There were short-term gains (through reduced employee costs)...which resulted in fewer customers and spiraling sales numbers in the long run. Couple that with the bad credit they were carrying from operating their own credit dept., and the company "saved" itself into bankruptcy.

[Carrie12345]

My husband's bonus structure (single digit percentages, lol) is based on profit. Sounds reasonable. But his company is pushing everyone to underbid and hand out discounts like candy, nearly eliminating the overall profit margin. Plus they've raised the threshold. No bonus last year! :glare:

[Spy Car]

I think most people would in principle agree that bonuses awarded to an individual (or groups of individuals) who bring wealth and profit to an enterprise through their talents and innovations deserve compensation.

 

Getting a bonus while running a company into the ground? Not so much. Same with making very short-sighted moves that produce long-term harm.

 

Lastly I think people have a real problem with bonuses being paid to those whose only real contribution to a company's bottom-line is the fact that they laid-off workers, rather than by expanding and hiring a business and keeping people employed.

 

Bill

[Amy in NH]

Yes, I think those bonuses are obscene. Perhaps society would be better of if that money were spent in paying the working-poor a living wage so that they and their families can afford basic living necessities without having to resort to government assistance. Bonuses like those only serve to concentrate wealth and create huge divides between haves (with the bonuses) and have-nots (who work hard for next-to-nothing).

[dirty ethel rackham]

I think most people would in principle agree that bonuses awarded to an individual (or groups of individuals) who bring wealth and profit to an enterprise through their talents and innovations deserve compensation.

 

Getting a bonus while running a company into the ground? Not so much. Same with making very short-sighted moves that produce long-term harm.

 

Lastly I think people have a real problem with bonuses being paid to those whose only real contribution to a company's bottom-line is the fact that they laid-off workers, rather than by expanding and hiring a business and keeping people employed.

 

Bill

:iagree:

[Wheres Toto]

I think most people would in principle agree that bonuses awarded to an individual (or groups of individuals) who bring wealth and profit to an enterprise through their talents and innovations deserve compensation.

 

Getting a bonus while running a company into the ground? Not so much. Same with making very short-sighted moves that produce long-term harm.

 

Lastly I think people have a real problem with bonuses being paid to those whose only real contribution to a company's bottom-line is the fact that they laid-off workers, rather than by expanding and hiring a business and keeping people employed.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

 

Plus, some of the changes that are tied to bonuses aren't that simple for your average employees. Sure, if there's a lot of waste changes can be made but if things are already running efficiently, there's a limit to what can be cut while still maintaining productivity. Example would be travel expenses. The company usually sets when people have to travel, the only changes that can be made are cheaper flights (lay-overs, fly certain days, stay over a weekend) or cheaper hotels. If those steps have already been taken, then what?

[SKL]

Personally I believe that a private sector business should be free to make all compensation decisions of that nature. If they are privately held, it affects nobody who doesn't have some level of say in the matter. If they are publicly held, they are required to report large compensation payments publicly, and if you (generic "you") don't like it, you need not own stock in those companies (or work for them). It is the responsibility of the investors / prospective employees to investigate these things, and if they choose not to, that is their problem.

 

I am very opposed to people trying to tell other people (including private sector corporations) what they can or should do with their money.

 

Now if it's an entity with government support or under government control, my answer will be different, because now we're talking about tax money.

[Photo Ninja]

I am very opposed to people trying to tell other people (including private sector corporations) what they can or should do with their money.

 

Now if it's an entity with government support or under government control, my answer will be different, because now we're talking about tax money.

 

:iagree:

 

A private company should be able to spend its money the way it wants. If it makes wise choices, it will be profitable. If it makes foolish choices, it will lose customers and go out of business. That is how it should be working. I can choose to shop there or not, and that's how I will express my opinion on its business model. If a company wants to spend its money on bonuses, then that is its choice. It is their money. If the shareholders disagree with how a business budgets, then they can pull their monetary support. I don't think the government or other groups should be telling private businesses how to spend their own money, including how much should be given as bonuses. I also don't think the government should be bailing out any private businesses because that is wrong use of taxpayer money.

 

I may not agree with the way an individual or a business spends money, but it is their right to spend it the way they choose.

[Crimson Wife]

What most people don't understand is that in the finance industry, a bonus is actually more like a sales commission. The base salary is relatively low and the end-of-year bonus makes up for that. It varies depending on performance and ever since the government bailout (which the Feds actually pressured certain Wall St. firms to take even though they did not need them) the bonuses are spread out over several years with a "claw-back" provision if the individual does something that pumps up profit in the short term but hurts the firm in the long term.

 

People think "bonus" as if it's something extra but really it's not. Without it, total compensation would not be competitive with industries paying a much higher base salary.

[MrsBear]

:iagree:

 

A private company should be able to spend its money the way it wants. If it makes wise choices, it will be profitable. If it makes foolish choices, it will lose customers and go out of business. That is how it should be working. I can choose to shop there or not, and that's how I will express my opinion on its business model. If a company wants to spend its money on bonuses, then that is its choice. It is their money. If the shareholders disagree with how a business budgets, then they can pull their monetary support. I don't think the government or other groups should be telling private businesses how to spend their own money, including how much should be given as bonuses. I also don't think the government should be bailing out any private businesses because that is wrong use of taxpayer money.

 

I may not agree with the way an individual or a business spends money, but it is their right to spend it the way they choose.

 

:iagree:

[JumpyTheFrog]

I don't need $100 million to run a company into the ground. I'll do it for only $60,000!

[Caitilin]

Yes, I think those bonuses are obscene. Perhaps society would be better of if that money were spent in paying the working-poor a living wage so that they and their families can afford basic living necessities without having to resort to government assistance. Bonuses like those only serve to concentrate wealth and create huge divides between haves (with the bonuses) and have-nots (who work hard for next-to-nothing).

 

:iagree:Yes, this!

[momma2three]

I don't need $100 million to run a company into the ground. I'll do it for only $60,000!

 

:lol:

[edelweiss]

Personally I believe that a private sector business should be free to make all compensation decisions of that nature. If they are privately held, it affects nobody who doesn't have some level of say in the matter. If they are publicly held, they are required to report large compensation payments publicly, and if you (generic "you") don't like it, you need not own stock in those companies (or work for them). It is the responsibility of the investors / prospective employees to investigate these things, and if they choose not to, that is their problem.

 

I am very opposed to people trying to tell other people (including private sector corporations) what they can or should do with their money.

 

Now if it's an entity with government support or under government control, my answer will be different, because now we're talking about tax money.

 

 

:iagree:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Personally I believe that a private sector business should be free to make all compensation decisions of that nature. If they are privately held, it affects nobody who doesn't have some level of say in the matter. If they are publicly held, they are required to report large compensation payments publicly, and if you (generic "you") don't like it, you need not own stock in those companies (or work for them). It is the responsibility of the investors / prospective employees to investigate these things, and if they choose not to, that is their problem.

 

I am very opposed to people trying to tell other people (including private sector corporations) what they can or should do with their money.

 

Now if it's an entity with government support or under government control, my answer will be different, because now we're talking about tax money.

 

I agree we should not tell private companies what they should pay beyond minimum wage standards. However, I think excessive salaries and compensation should be taxed appropriately IMO which currently they are not:D

 

I also think stockholders should be given more rights in regards to compensation. I think this sort of excessive pay and compensation hurts stockholders:glare:

[Plucky]

I agree we should not tell private companies what they should pay beyond minimum wage standards. However, I think excessive salaries and compensation should be taxed appropriately IMO which currently they are not:D

 

I also think stockholders should be given more rights in regards to compensation. I think this sort of excessive pay and compensation hurts stockholders:glare:

 

Aren't bonuses taxed at a higher rate? We could use a bonus around now. :001_smile:

[SKL]

Don't worry, the people receiving these bonuses are paying plenty of tax dollars.

 

I would note that the main purpose of bringing these "obscene bonuses" to light to the general public is to incite envy and hate against those who carry the majority of the tax burden, create a large % of the jobs, and make the majority of charitable donations in this country. Seems irrational to me, but what do I know?

[8circles]

I am all for bonuses, etc. but would like to see more of them actually get to the people lower down in the company that are doing the work. In our manufacturing area, many higher ups get HUGE bonuses while those doing the actual work on the lines, etc. get very small bonuses.

 

This sounds a bit classist to me. "Higher-ups" do "actual work" also.

 

I think my personal opinion is that bonuses are oftentimes excessive but in most cases it isn't my business. Nor do I have all the information for my opinion to be worth anything anyway.

[Spy Car]

A problem with executive compensation (including bonuses) at publicly held companies is that it that the interests of stockholders are often (usually) not well-represented. I don't think it is controversial to say that in the real-world those named Boards of Directors by CEOs are disinclined to get tough on executive compensation. Being on a Board is a cushy and well-paid position, and people don't win friends by going hard on the pay of top executives. So there really isn't a check on salaries and bonuses when Boards don't put the interests of stockholders first (as they ought). Instead they feed at the same trough.

 

Organizing individual stockholders to check "over-compensation" has always been practically difficult, and now that the Internet is threatening to make that easier the trend of corporations is to issue "non-voting" stock (see Google).

 

Yes, sometimes CEOs are fired when they spectaculary fail. But how often do they leave with extraordinary "Golden Parachutes?" The rules of capitalism are all topsey-turvy when there is no mechanism to ensure a relationship between success and reward. The Boards largely fail to act in the "shareholders" interest and CEOs (and others) have sweet-heart severance packages prearranged. I think this offends people who believe in "market capitalism" as opposed to "crony capitalism."

 

Bill

Edited April 23, 2012 by Spy Car
Oops

[My3Boys]

Personally I believe that a private sector business should be free to make all compensation decisions of that nature. If they are privately held, it affects nobody who doesn't have some level of say in the matter. If they are publicly held, they are required to report large compensation payments publicly, and if you (generic "you") don't like it, you need not own stock in those companies (or work for them). It is the responsibility of the investors / prospective employees to investigate these things, and if they choose not to, that is their problem.

 

I am very opposed to people trying to tell other people (including private sector corporations) what they can or should do with their money.

 

Now if it's an entity with government support or under government control, my answer will be different, because now we're talking about tax money.

 

:iagree:

[My3Boys]

I agree we should not tell private companies what they should pay beyond minimum wage standards. However, I think excessive salaries and compensation should be taxed appropriately IMO which currently they are not:D

 

I also think stockholders should be given more rights in regards to compensation. I think this sort of excessive pay and compensation hurts stockholders:glare:

 

The top 1% pay about 40%, while the top 10% pay 70%. That seems like more than fair to me. :confused:

[My3Boys]

Don't worry, the people receiving these bonuses are paying plenty of tax dollars.

 

I would note that the main purpose of bringing these "obscene bonuses" to light to the general public is to incite envy and hate against those who carry the majority of the tax burden, create a large % of the jobs, and make the majority of charitable donations in this country. Seems irrational to me, but what do I know?

 

:iagree: Unfortunately, inciting envy and hate seems to work very well.

[MrsBear]

The top 1% pay about 40%, while the top 10% pay 70%. That seems like more than fair to me. :confused:

 

I'm usually left scratching my head :001_huh: when I hear someone complain the high earners do not pay their "fair share"...how much more is "fair"?

[goldberry]

I've seen memos where employees are told that to receive their bonus each department must cut operating expenses by 30%

 

 

So someone can ensure their own bonus by forcing lower down employees to take salary or benefit cuts? I don't think that's fair. I don't think it's fair that employees at the top get bonuses that equal the salaries of ALL the employees lower down the ladder, who are doing their part to make the company successful, but they can get it by denying anyone lower down raises that year.

 

If the company is profitable, then bonuses should be shared by all those contributing (not in equal percentage necessarily, but shared in some form that doesn't screw everyone lower down the ladder).

 

That's my problem with "obscene bonuses", is that they always seem to favor those at the top, with little concern how it affects those at the bottom.

 

It goes without saying that bonuses - ANY bonuses - for a company not profitable is absolutely the height of greed and stupidity.

 

(I worked for 20 years at a company with a bonus system. Bonuses were given only when sufficient profitablity was reached, and were shared throughout the company.)

[amy g.]

I appreciate everyone's thoughtful and respectful input. It has helped me to better understand the other perspective.

[chiguirre]

I thoroughly approve of institutional investors (even public pension funds) policing bonuses and using their large voting blocs to veto them when possible and censure them if they're non-binding resolutions. Realistically, it's the only way to shame some boards and executives into curbing excessive non-performance based bonuses.

[goldberry]

After thinking longer on this issue, I think in many cases the way bonuses are distributed sends a message about the priorities and attitude of those running the company.

 

HUGE bonuses for those at the top and minimum wage for those at the bottom, sends a very clear message that those at the top don't value the contribution of those at the bottom.

 

Another example, those at the top get huge bonuses, but those at the bottom are made to pay higher and higher portions of their health insurance costs. Again, a message devaluing those at the bottom.

 

Yes, private industry has the "right" to do whatever with its own money. But those choices not only reflect the values of that industry, but also the general values of the society as a whole that allows those systems to flourish.

[Sarah CB]

This sounds a bit classist to me. "Higher-ups" do "actual work" also.

 

.

 

Not to mention, the "higher-ups" can be held personally liable when things go wrong. There's got to be some compensation for the risk they undertake.

[SKL]

I once refused an interesting job because too much of the compensation was in the form of discretionary bonus. I needed a base that would cover all my student loan payments for sure. Those who aren't on the bonus system may not share in all the upside, but they also don't share in the downside (unless, of course, there is a layoff).

 

If you're in a system where base pay is below what the market pays all-inclusive, then it can still make sense to pay a bonus if there has been a loss. Besides, a loss per the books isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes people make a decision to recognize a past mistake, take a hit on the books, and start fresh. Taking a loss can free up the means to create growth and profits. Again, outsiders don't have enough information to second-guess the insiders' compensation decisions.

[Sarah CB]

The top 1% pay about 40%, while the top 10% pay 70%. That seems like more than fair to me. :confused:

 

No kidding.

[Lisbeth]

Personally I believe that a private sector business should be free to make all compensation decisions of that nature. If they are privately held, it affects nobody who doesn't have some level of say in the matter. If they are publicly held, they are required to report large compensation payments publicly, and if you (generic "you") don't like it, you need not own stock in those companies (or work for them). It is the responsibility of the investors / prospective employees to investigate these things, and if they choose not to, that is their problem.

 

I am very opposed to people trying to tell other people (including private sector corporations) what they can or should do with their money.

 

Now if it's an entity with government support or under government control, my answer will be different, because now we're talking about tax money.

 

This! I agree 100%.

[Lisbeth]

Don't worry, the people receiving these bonuses are paying plenty of tax dollars.

 

I would note that the main purpose of bringing these "obscene bonuses" to light to the general public is to incite envy and hate against those who carry the majority of the tax burden, create a large % of the jobs, and make the majority of charitable donations in this country. Seems irrational to me, but what do I know?

 

I love that you wrote this!

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

A problem with executive compensation (including bonuses) at publicly held companies is that it that the interests of stockholders are often (usually) not well-represented. I don't think it is controversial to say that in the real-world those named Boards of Directors by CEOs are disinclined to get tough on executive compensation. Being on a Board is a cushy and well-paid position, and people don't win friends by going hard on the pay of top executives. So there really isn't a check on salaries and bonuses when Boards don't put the interests of stockholders first (as they ought). Instead they feed at the same trough.

 

Organizing individual stockholders to check "over-compensation" has always been practically difficult, and now that the Internet is threatening to make that easier the trend of corporations is to issue "non-voting" stock (see Google).

 

Yes, sometimes CEOs are fired when they spectaculary fail. But how often do they leave with extraordinary "Golden Parachutes?" The rules of capitalism are all topsey-turvy when their is no mechanism to ensure a relationship between success and reward. The Boards largely fail to act in the "shareholders" interest and CEOs (and others) have sweet-heart severance packages prearranged. I think this offends people who believe in "market capitalism" as opposed to "crony capitalism."

 

Bill

:iagree::iagree:

 

I find it utterly amazing that CEOs are now worth 300 to 400, and even up to 700, times the average worker in comparison to CEOs in the 1960s who made about 42 times the average worker:glare:

 

No one can tell me that today's CEOs are superstars and worth that much more in comparison to the 1960s CEOs.

 

I say tax them appropriately especially in light of our current historically low federal income tax and capital gains tax rates.

[KidsHappen]

:iagree:

 

A private company should be able to spend its money the way it wants. If it makes wise choices, it will be profitable. If it makes foolish choices, it will lose customers and go out of business. That is how it should be working. I can choose to shop there or not, and that's how I will express my opinion on its business model. If a company wants to spend its money on bonuses, then that is its choice. It is their money. If the shareholders disagree with how a business budgets, then they can pull their monetary support. I don't think the government or other groups should be telling private businesses how to spend their own money, including how much should be given as bonuses. I also don't think the government should be bailing out any private businesses because that is wrong use of taxpayer money.

 

I may not agree with the way an individual or a business spends money, but it is their right to spend it the way they choose.

 

:iagree: This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

[goldberry]

The question wasn't about the "right" to award the bonuses, but why some of us view it as the wrong thing to do.

 

Having the "right" to do something doesn't negate the message it sends about the company's priorities, or about how the company views employees down the ladder.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:iagree: Unfortunately, inciting envy and hate seems to work very well.

 

Voicing concern over excessive compensation of CEOs has nothing to do with envy and hate. It has to do with fairness. Currently, the excessive compensation of many CEOs is unfair to stockholders let alone employees.

 

Again look at how much CEOs made in the 1960s in comparison to average workers to today. Then look at the tax rates back then to today. There is a problem IMO. Then look up "robber barons."

[Lisbeth]

I'm usually left scratching my head :001_huh: when I hear someone complain the high earners do not pay their "fair share"...how much more is "fair"?

 

Agree and on the flip side everyone should pay something, not get back all they put in or more than they put in.

[Mergath]

I think the idea that a CEO can make hundreds of millions of dollars while someone else in the same company can't afford to feed his or her kids without food stamps is ridiculous. If the company has enough laying around to pay millions and millions in bonuses, they should pay their lower level employess a living wage, not make the already weathy that much wealthier. I don't care if the CEO sh*ts gold nuggets. No way is he worth THAT much more.

[Meriwether]

This sounds a bit classist to me. "Higher-ups" do "actual work" also.

:iagree:

 

Dh currently gets a bonus. The rate is based on company profits. Only office workers (and only some of them) get bonuses. Dh is the one who answers to corporate office for the profit/loss each month. That doesn't mean his company doesn't value the plant workers. They pay the highest hourly wage in town. Two years ago there was a big shortage in product and the plant had to shut down periodically because there was no work to be done. The company carried those workers through a number of very slow months. They didn't want to lay off workers in a slow economy. Paying bonuses to management is not a slam against plant workers.

[Crimson Wife]

I don't need $100 million to run a company into the ground. I'll do it for only $60,000!

 

Most bonuses are FAR closer to $60k than $100M. There may be a handful of senior executives who make that kind of bonus, but the overwhelming majority of those in the finance industry are receiving nowhere even remotely close to a seven-figure bonus.

[Abigail4476]

I don't think you can set a dollar amount and call it "obscene." Bonuses, raises and incentives only become obscene when they are out of proportion between ranks of employees. A company that is doing well should share the wealth all the way to the bottom of the corporate ladder in a reasonable way.

 

While I don't believe a CEO should split his bonuses with the janitor, I do think that if the company is making good profits, the janitor should perhaps receive a 10% raise instead of the usual 3% minimum. When a company is failing, minimums should apply across the board, and this is where people will get really upset--when layoffs are happening and upper management is still getting their bonuses, raises and incentives. If you can't afford to give a janitor his minimum wage, you can't afford to give the CEO a ??K bonus. That kind of unfairness is obscene.

[Free]

The top 1% pay about 40%, while the top 10% pay 70%. That seems like more than fair to me. :confused:

 

I'm usually left scratching my head :001_huh: when I hear someone complain the high earners do not pay their "fair share"...how much more is "fair"?

 

These are very interesting figures indeed. These figures however do not illustrate to me the fairness or unfairness of the taxation system. They only show the MASSIVE disparity in the income levels of the top 10% and the bottom 50%.

[ktgrok]

My father works for a company that gives millions in bonuses to the top elite, but has frozen raises for everyone else for years. Not even COL raises sometimes. In a GOOD year he can hand out a maximum of 2 percent or 3 percent in raise to his workers...so if someone does a GREAT job they still get no more than cost of living increase, while the CEOs get an extra million. Not fair, not how business used to be run in this country.