Two nights ago I was watching business TV news when one of the journalists started explaining to viewers why the Obama administration shouldn’t regulate bank employee compensation. I haven’t been able to get the journalists comments out of my mind since the show. And, I keep on thinking of the moral of an Aesop fable titled The Ass In The Lion’s Skin.
With great authority the “journalist” said that the Obama administration had no business fooling with bank compensation because if a bank fails, shareholders will lose money, just like in any other businesses. And since the government doesn’t regulate compensation of other businesses it shouldn’t regulate banking compensation.
After I stopped screaming at the TV (which proved to my 18 year old son who witnessed my meltdown that I am as crazy as he thinks) I explained to him that when people watch TV news programs actual “news and facts” should be discussed and that viewers should be a little smarter and better informed because they watch. I told him that it’s wrong if viewers are dumber after watching TV news. Then I gave him a lecture about why he needs to work harder in school or he will end up like the bubble head on TV (I think that parents all around the world always take any opportunity to tell their kids that they need to work harder and this was a great opportunity for a lecture).
I couldn’t believe that the distinguished network business journalist forgot to mention to viewers that for the last 75 years since the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was formed, when banks fail taxpayers typically lose a lot more money than shareholders. A big fact that missed the keen research eye of the TV journalist was that in the 1930’s Congress passed a bunch of laws that require the FDIC and other bank regulators to stipulate bank employee compensation guidelines and make sure that compensation isn’t either excessive or inappropriate. And, these rules apply to all banks, not just TARP banks.
The statutes that mandate Federal regulation of bank employee compensation can be accessed through this link. For those who don’t want to read a long boring statute, a key short boring excerpt is below.
(1) standards prohibiting as an unsafe and unsound practice any employment contract, compensation or benefit agreement, fee arrangement, perquisite, stock option plan, postemployment benefit, or other compensatory arrangement that–
(A) would provide any executive officer, employee, director, or principal shareholder of the institution with excessive compensation, fees or benefits; or
(B) could lead to material financial loss to the institution;
(2) standards specifying when compensation, fees, or benefits referred to in paragraph (1) are excessive, which shall require the agency to determine whether the amounts are unreasonable or disproportionate to the services actually performed by the individual by considering–
(A) the combined value of all cash and noncash benefits provided to the individual;
{{10–31-05 p.1456}} (B) the compensation history of the individual and other individuals with comparable expertise at the institution;
© the financial condition of the institution;
(D) comparable compensation practices at comparable institutions, based upon such factors as asset size, geographic location, and the complexity of the loan portfolio or other assets;
(E) for postemployment benefits, the projected total cost and benefit to the institution;
(F) any connection between the individual and any fraudulent act or omission, breach of trust or fiduciary duty, or insider abuse with regard to the institution; and
(G) other factors that the agency determines to be relevant; and
(3) such other standards relating to compensation, fees, and benefits as the agency determines to be appropriate.
I am sure that by now every reader has noticed that the statute mandates that the FDIC and every other Federal Banking Agency regulate bank compensation.
I believe in the rule of law and when something is mandated by Congress I expect that the Executive Branch will try to enforce the law. Apparently, the bubble head TV journalist on Monday night either didn’t take the time to research the topic or prefered to ignore facts. Or, maybe they don’t think that the President of the United States should try to comply with laws passed by Congress.
Yesterday Secretary Geithner announced that the Administration will pursue an agenda of making sure that shareholders have a say the pay of executives of public companies and that the compensation committees of, and consultants to, public companies are independent of management. Within minutes this created a new firestorm of media criticism complete with allegations that the Obama administration is interested in social engineering and industrial policy.
I have a different view.
I can’t believe that anyone thinks it is a good idea for shareholders (who after all are the owners of public companies) not to have a say on compensation and legislation that empowers shareholders should be enacted immediately. And, I am amazed that compensation committees are allowed to have conflicts or rely upon compensation consultants that are in the pocket of management. Most companies don’t have this conflict of interest. However, it isn’t good enough that most companies try to set compensation policy in an open and honest manner. Conflicts of interest, real and apparent, shouldn’t exist at any company.
By the way, this link will take you to The Ass In the Lion’s Skin. The moral of that story is
Fine clothes may disguise, but silly words will disclose a fool.
Bank Employee Compensation: Financial Journalists Meet Aesop’s Fables | Interesting Facts for Kids | Facts: Interesting
[…] Here is the original post […]
Tom
Great article — I could not agree more! Plus I had not realised the obligation to oversee pay structures in US banks was already properly articulated. Was this even considered in 2002–7 by the SEC etc.?