I disagree, that sounds dumb. It would set precedent for failing companies with moderately good financials to just throw in the towel early and get away with not paying employees for their last month of service. The closer we get to employment contracts that are "here's your paycheck, but if someone on social media doesn't like us we'll need that back in 30 days" the closer we get to becoming a mafia that ends up hurting the weakest first and extending the moats of large businesses infinitely.

What are bonuses paid for?

"The closer we get to employment contracts that are "here's your paycheck, but if someone on social media doesn't like us we'll need that back in 30 days" the closer we get to becoming a mafia that ends up hurting the weakest first and extending the moats of large businesses infinitely."

Alternate theory: there is not a uniquely slippery slope between limiting the compensation for banking professionals at a failed institution and fascism.

We are talking executives here not just EMPLOYEES.

Executives are the ones that know it is a sinking ship. If actions they approved are sinking the ship and FDIC needs to step in to make people whole, then they should not be getting money the day before.

An example how individuals are treated when applying for medicaid long-term care. There is 5 year claw back period. They will look if you got rid of your house, gifted money etc., before using tax payer money for your care.

I see no problem on having a claw back period for executives. I would argue an agency should try to claw back more than just bonuses from executives if their actions result in costing tax payers money.