Information about finance, the economy and business. Entertaining and informative. Seeking Alpha Certified Mark Sunshine Chairman & CEO

Bank Employee Compensation: Financial Journalists Meet Aesop’s Fables

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.

 ©  COMPENSATION STANDARDS.–Each appro­pri­ate Fed­eral bank­ing agency shall, for all insured depos­i­tory insti­tu­tions, pre­scribe–
    (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.

Posted in: Bank Compensation, BANKS, Finance, Public Policy, REGULATION, Regulatory Reform

2 Comments

  1. 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.?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>