The Wall Street bailout legislation, formally known as the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, includes limits on compensation for executives of companies receiving taxpayer support. So what does this mean for taxpayers who are footing the bill?
Not much.
Unfortunately, as drafted the provisions are practically meaningless and will do little to limit the gross payouts already available for these executives. Section 111 of the Act only restricts compensation paid to the top five executives at these companies. In addition, it provides for the recovery, or “claw back,” of ill gotten compensation, that is, performance pay received based upon materially inaccurate financial information.
The “big” provision that has both Republicans and Democrats squealing to their constituents is the provision in the Act that bans payments of “golden parachutes.” These are executive severance agreements that usually pay executives when there is some sort of change in control in the company or, as is often the case, when the executive is fired. This later provision only applies as long as the federal government holds an equity or debt position in the company.
As noted in last week’s Wall Street Journal, the stakes are significant. The paper reported that executives of financial institutions receiving federal assistance are owed more than $40 billion for past years’ pay and pensions. Deferred compensation coming due includes $11.8 billion at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., $8.5 billion at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and $10 billion at Morgan Stanley.
Since most of these firms haven’t set aside the cash required, they are a drag on current earnings and will be paid out of the corporate coffers.
The liabilities are an essentially a hidden obligation. Even when the debts to their executives total in the billions, most companies lump them into “other liabilities” and only a few of the companies identify amounts attributable to deferred pay.
In today’s Financial Times, it was noted that these Wall Street firms have promised not to use public support to pay these executives’ bonuses. Bank of America, Bank of New York, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, State Street and Wells Fargo all promised to pay salaries and bonuses from existing cash resources.
So lets walk through this scenario and look at the situation at Morgan Stanley.
The company received a capital infusion of $10 billion from the federal government. They stick their newfound money in their corporate pocket (this is a really big pocket by the way) along with their other cash reserves. Let’s say that tomorrow is “bonus day” at the company. Colm Kelleher, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Financial Officer reaches deep into the company “pocket” and pulls out $21,015,689, which he intends to use to pay himself (this is the total compensation that Mr. Kelleher received in 2007 according to company filings).
“Ooops! That looks like “government” money. Back in it goes,” he muses. Digging around for “loose change,” he eventually finds some “corporate” money and marches off to his bank in the Hamptons where he can console himself over the terrible financial crisis facing America. This shell game would be laughable if it weren’t our money!
Meanwhile, our leaders in Congress are calling on the government to tighten restrictions on executive pay for these institutions receiving our money. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid are wringing their hands with concern. If their last attempt at reining in executive compensation is any measure, we shouldn’t expect real reform anytime soon.
The task of holding corporations responsible for grossly excessive executive pay falls squarely on shareholders. The only problem is that, in years past, the Securities and Exchange Commission has prevented shareholders from raising compensation issues in the form of shareholder resolutions, arguing that such matters constitute “ordinary business” that is exempt from proper shareholder consideration. Let’s hope that, given the massive public policy issues raised by using public funds for executive compensation, the SEC will reconsider its policy in regard to this important matter.
Stay tuned.
Popularity: 6% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
U.S. unemployment rates are closing in on 10%. U.S. banks have received billions in bailout funds. Jobs at these banks are still being sent overseas…huh? Is it just me, or does it seem like keeping jobs in the U.S. should be a requirement for getting bailed out? The following piece by John Aidan Byrne appeared in yesterday’s New York Post.
