EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Pay Czar Announces Compensation Limits At Banks, Automakers: SEE The Details

DANIEL WAGNER   12/11/09 09:40 PM ET   AP

Feinberg

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department has told four bailed-out companies that they can't pay some top earners more than $500,000 cash per year. But it's told the official who made that decision that the rule shouldn't always apply.

Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration's pay czar, said Friday that lobbying by Treasury and Federal Reserve officials helped persuade him to exempt about 12 executives from the salary cap. The pay cap will affect about 300 employees at Citigroup Inc., GMAC, American International Group Inc. and General Motors.

The move highlights tension between the government's competing priorities: Appeasing public fury over outsized pay, while making sure the firms retain the talent they need to stay competitive and repay their taxpayer billions.

"It's a little like you have the left half of your brain and the right half of your brain arguing," said Douglas Elliott, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and former investment banker.

"As an owner, you can see why the government wouldn't want to make these rules too onerous. But as a regulator, following the will of Congress, there's an intention to hold these firms accountable and to hold down what they pay their top executives," Elliott said.

Outrage over banker salaries exploded this year after it was revealed that AIG would pay millions in bonuses to employees of the division that had toppled the company. The government provided up to $182 billion to stabilize AIG. Congress held hearings and grilled Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner about the bonuses.

The Obama administration responded by appointing Feinberg. He oversees pay packages for the top 100 earners at the companies that received the largest bailouts.

As they negotiated their pay packages, the companies warned that pay restrictions could keep them from attracting and retaining top talent. Without competitive pay, they said, it would be hard to regain their footing and repay their bailout money.

Pay restrictions led AIG general counsel Anastasia Kelly to indicate she would leave by year's end, The New York Times reported this week. Four other senior employees whose pay is restricted by Feinberg also indicated they could leave, according to the paper.

AIG spokesman Mark Herr declined to comment on the new pay restrictions. Regarding the report about Kelly's departure, he would say only that she hasn't resigned.

Officials from the Fed and Treasury asked Feinberg to relax pay rules for workers they deemed essential to its success, concerned that too many departures could cripple the company. Treasury owns nearly 80 percent of AIG. Feinberg said out of several dozen requests, he allowed about 12 employees to earn up to $1.5 million in cash for 2009.

A Treasury spokeswoman declined to comment. Fed officials didn't immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

Officials remain sensitive to the political cost of allowing the companies to keep paying lavish salaries. Geithner and the administration have been criticized for rescuing banks while doing comparatively little for homeowners facing foreclosure.

"I appreciate Mr. Feinberg's continued efforts to rein in outrageous compensation so that folks running companies that continue to be propped up by hard-earned tax dollars are forced to tighten their belts as well," Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said in a statement Friday.

President Barack Obama will meet Monday with top executives from banks that mostly have repaid their bailout money. Among other things, he will ask them to adjust their executive compensation policies to reflect the same goals Feinberg pursued with his rulings: Discouraging excessive risk-taking and tying pay to long-term performance.

In October, Feinberg announced pay packages for the top 25 earners at seven companies. Friday's rules affect the next 75 top earners at four of those companies.

Bank of America was exempt because it repaid its $45 billion bailout this month. Chrysler and Chrysler Financial employees earned too little to fall under Feinberg's oversight.

The departures isolate the companies that remain under his control. The concern is particularly acute at Citigroup, whose best investment bankers easily could defect, and at AIG, whose reputation is so sullied that it struggles to retain talent.

"I'm very leery of imposing particularly tough pay restrictions on these companies in which the taxpayer has a big stake," Elliott said. "But other people feel it's important to underline a moral lesson here."

AIG's CEO Robert Benmosche received an exception from the pay cap when he took over earlier this year. Benmosche will receive an annual salary of $3 million in cash and $4 million in AIG common stock.

Last month, Benmosche threatened to quit over the restrictions in pay for top executives, according to The Wall Street Journal. He then backpedaled. Benmosche told employees that while he was frustrated with by the regulatory oversight, he plans to remain at AIG.

Under the rules announced Friday, the 25th through the 100th highest earners at Citigroup, GMAC, American International Group and General Motors also must take more than half their compensation in stock. And at least half must be delayed for three or more years.

The new rules apply only to the second half of December. They will not affect money the employees already have been paid this year. But Feinberg said the rules are important because they will affect many workers' year-end bonuses and stock grants. They also will serve as a starting point for negotiations next year over pay packages for 2010.

Under the new rules, cash can make up only 45 percent of the employee's pay. At least half of total compensation must be "long-term" and can't be redeemed for at least three years. And all incentive pay must come from a pool whose size hinges on earnings or another performance measure.

___

AP Business Writer Stephen Bernard in New York contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department has told four bailed-out companies that they can't pay some top earners more than $500,000 cash per year. But it's told the official who made that decision t...
WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department has told four bailed-out companies that they can't pay some top earners more than $500,000 cash per year. But it's told the official who made that decision t...
Filed by Grace Kiser  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 41
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipTaylor
Legalized Bribery is an Oxymoron - must END
12:58 AM on 12/15/2009
G0LDMAN 2009 BONUSES = 279 Years of PAY for 535 Members of Congress!

G0LDMAN 2009 BONUSES = 6,500 Years of Pay for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipTaylor
Legalized Bribery is an Oxymoron - must END
12:59 AM on 12/15/2009
MERRY CHRISTMAS G0LDMAN!

279 YEARS OF PAY FOR ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS = 2009 G0LDMAN CHRISTMAS BONUSES

The current salary (2009) for rank-and-f­ile members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year for 535 members of Congress = $93,090,00­0 / Year!

Ten Years of PAY FOR CONGRESS = $930,900,0­00

G0LDMAN CHRISTMAS BONUSES = $26 BILLION = 279 Years of PAY FOR ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!
__________­_______

Effective January 1, 2001, the annual salary of the president of the United States was increased to $400,000 per year, including a $50,000 expense allowance.

6,500 Years of Pay for the President! $26 Billion / $400,000 = 6,500 Years of Pay!
01:52 PM on 12/14/2009
Great country we live in... the only ones who benefit from economic % stock market growth are the top 1-3% of earners. Middle & lower class are stuck with stagnant wages, surging gas & food prices, no retirement­, and no job security (if they are lucky enough to have jobs).

hat tip to http://fia­nceopinion­ss.blogspo­t.com
How long can this trend of inequality continue? Sadly, forever. Even with Obama nothing can be done.
11:23 AM on 12/13/2009
The whole system is corrupt
Lets be real. Today's society is all about about less jobs. Less employees means more profit. Its all about productivi­ty. Employers dont want to have more employees when they can have less. They will be high unemployme­nt for a while. In capitalism it's all about profit not job creation. When a company lays off employees the stock price goes up! Unfortunat­ely the way things are the economy can prosper with 10% unemployme­nt and the little guy gets shafted.

good articles: http://fin­anceopinio­nss.blogsp­ot.com/
Solution: suspend free trade. A 2nd jobs stimulus
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
masher
software engineer
11:57 PM on 12/12/2009
We shouldn't have the federal government setting people's pay, we shouldn't have the federal government owning companies either.

What Obama is trying to do is have it both ways. He doesn't want to really fix the problems (break up the banks investment and banking parts and bring back Glass Steagall) and yet he needs to act like he is doing something.

The real kicker in the teeth is that Obama is fine regulating my pay. See H-1B. Obama is fine with that!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
World Citizen
04:02 AM on 12/13/2009
We're in the same world.

No one cares about the H1B because there's such a cover-up. The yearly limit is way exceeded. I downloaded all the H1B/LCA files and counted over 1,200,000 CERTIFIED (means approved and not withdrawn) LCAs for the 3 years : 2006, 2007 and 2008. And each of these are good for 3 years.

I (an american citizen), would like to compete against these H1B workers. I would like the H1B abuse exposed.
07:56 AM on 12/12/2009
Don't forget that trillions have been made by corporatio­ns that have fouled the air, water and land of our country and the world for decades.

How are they going to repay for the resources they took from everyone to make their profits.
07:41 AM on 12/12/2009
Fascism should rightly be called Corporatis­m, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
Benito Mussolini

Forget about pay limits,let corporatio­ns pay their CEO's and other executives as much as there investots will allow.

Tax anything over $500,000 at 75%, all perks and stock options should be included as income.

No loop holes.

Let's bring down the debt Reagan and Bushes drove to obscene levels with their tax cuts for the wealthy and dragging us into senseless wars.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
masher
software engineer
11:59 PM on 12/12/2009
The simple fact that Democrats won't tax billionair­es tells you everything you need to know about them. They just talk. Talk talk talk.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
World Citizen
03:57 AM on 12/12/2009
If these banks were not bailed out and 'allowed' to dissolve like any other business, we would not need a Pay Czar. Ridiculous­.

Let these too big to fail, FAIL.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Seán O'Nilbud
Drunken Master
05:24 AM on 12/12/2009
You don't understand the consequenc­es.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
World Citizen
05:59 AM on 12/12/2009
Of course I understand the consequenc­es. Do you ?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
masher
software engineer
12:01 AM on 12/13/2009
The appeal to fear argument lost its usefulness over the 8 years of the Bush years.
Oh be afraid of ___.

America needs to grow a pair and stop letting fear of everything force us to do stupid things like bailout billionair­es.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CamBrown99
12:54 AM on 12/12/2009
Howabout this: If the bonuses are so important to retaining talent, then put those bonuses in escrow, payable out only AFTER the bailout funds have been repaid. Or a percentage of the bonus is paid that matches the percentage of the bailout that has been repaid. I bet that would speed up the repayment.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
masher
software engineer
12:02 AM on 12/13/2009
Sure, just throw in a few loopholes and you have a deal.
12:27 AM on 12/12/2009
A Pay czar? This is not the USSR. It is the USA. USA. USA.

This is so unconstitu­tional it is ridiculous­.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
World Citizen
03:58 AM on 12/12/2009
Yes, in the same line, I do wonder if the entire corporate bailout is unconstitu­tional as well...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
masher
software engineer
12:05 AM on 12/13/2009
Look up H-1B. Its command economics for working folks. If wages go up then the federal government interferes by issuing work visas to import labor into the US to drive down wages.

The irony is that Obama is totally fine with H-1B. The difference is H-1B impacts working families and this pay czar would impact Wall Street bailout recipients­. Obama is only concerned about Wall Street.
09:26 PM on 12/11/2009
So sorry, but anytime someone or some corporatio­ns accept welfare they subject themselves to regulation­s regarding the government breast. If they don't like it they should either get a job or restructur­e their corporatio­n so that it can withstand competitio­n and not need government hand outs...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
World Citizen
04:00 AM on 12/12/2009
The jobs of these people complainin­g should be posted in the WEB and other qualified people should be allowed to claim / apply for these jobs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dnegri
08:46 PM on 12/11/2009
Since banks compete with each other, I don't see the problem of people leaving EXCEPT perhaps if
it would really mean that banks that got TARP would be less productive and therefore would be repaying less of the TARP money.

Maybe there's a logic....b­ut on principle I don't care if management leaves these banks. No more so than
if the Yankees hire away all the best players from other teams....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
World Citizen
04:04 AM on 12/12/2009
If it were not for the bailout, these managers would not have jobs! So let them leave. No one is indispensa­ble. Others willing to take reasonable salaries should be able to apply and replace these people. Get rid of the rotten apples in the cart.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
masher
software engineer
12:07 AM on 12/13/2009
It might have a logic except these are not rocket scientist and Obama already interferes in labor markets. Obama uses H-1B regulation­s to import labor into the US to drive down wages. He doesn't seem to be concerned about retaining good programmer­s or engineers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
World Citizen
04:11 AM on 12/13/2009
He did say that he wants the young people to think that Math and Science (as opposed to FINANCE) are good.

LOL. Mr. Pres is out of touch with reality. Considerin­g the low wages that americans can expect, there is simply no ROI in getting an education in the area of math and sciences.
07:05 PM on 12/11/2009
The guy is a clown. Heard him on KPBS explaining slowly to a BBC correspond­ent that his job is make the bankers as happy as possible otherwise they will "work" only reluctantl­y. While giving 10M bonus to the AIG Benmosche and the 12 of Fed's favorites, he talked about his 0.5M/y (!!!) cap for smaller bureaucrat­s (compare with the salaries of military officers or best engineers)­. His activity is one out of a virtually endless list of shameful and embarrassi­ng acts of the Government­. We need a third Party to restore the Democracy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
World Citizen
04:06 AM on 12/12/2009
LOL. These reluctant rotten executives should be fired if they are not doing their jobs properly. That's what happens to everyone else, why should it not apply to them?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jacki Zehner
03:40 PM on 12/11/2009
Regulating pay in the private sector is just not realistic. Yes of course people who are working for companies that have received billions of dollars of government money should be paid less, a lot less but these rules are crazy. What if your the 26th person, or the one that came in the day before all heck broke loose with a three year contract, or or or. These publically traded companies need to be managed by CEOS and accountabl­e boards who can make responsibl­e decisions about pay in the context of their understand­ing of the business and the people. This is just a big mess and will do more damage then good. It is a continuati­on of very short term, reactive thinking instead of long term solutions and it all makes be very sad.
05:05 PM on 12/11/2009
when these companies were bailed out with tax payer money, they have effectivel­y lost their status as private companies. We now "own" them. Let's put this another way, if no bailout, then bankrupt companies, where are there bonuses and high pay coming from now?
12:29 AM on 12/12/2009
Did you get a student loan? If you did, does the government have the right to tell you what you major would be? Or where you live? Or should you have to work for them when you graduate? At point does it stop?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
masher
software engineer
12:11 AM on 12/13/2009
They never were private companies. They were public corporatio­ns. There is a difference­. Most people I guess don't really pay attention to the difference­.

Basically a public corporatio­n gets special treatment. For instance you can't sue the owners of a public corporatio­n. The shareholde­rs are immune from liability. The federal government protects and shields them from responsibi­lity for the actions of the corporate "person".
Vinkaye
None of the Above 2012
08:41 AM on 12/12/2009
Actually "regulatin­g" pay is quite easy, it's called taxes! Seems us working people have been having our pay "regulated­" for decades!
If these thieves do not understand that they aren't entitled to compensati­on, that equals 3,000 times the average employee's salary, after their job performanc­e led to a complete meltdown of the economic system of the country, than it is the government­'s job to tax them into that understand­ing.
03:03 PM on 12/11/2009
oh thats right there down to 4 big ones so lets start Compensati­on ___ hold on wait wait ----ok NOW!!!!!!!­!
01:43 PM on 12/11/2009
Remember when they used to regulate banks?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
masher
software engineer
12:13 AM on 12/13/2009
I do. That was back before Clinton deregulate­d them. See: gramm leach bliley act of 1999