iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Wall Street Executives Thrive Under Obama But Still Won't Support Him

Barack Obama Jamie Dimon

First Posted: 01/30/2012 4:43 pm Updated: 02/ 2/2012 4:15 pm

WASHINGTON -- They bristled when he called them "fat cats." They fought every step of the way, unsuccessfully, to prevent his financial reform bill from becoming law. And some who supported him in 2008 are now throwing their money at Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

But for all their grumbling, Wall Street executives have fared exceptionally well under President Barack Obama. In fact, some of Wall Street's highest earners are making as much now, if not more, than they did under President George W. Bush.

Take Wells Fargo president and CEO John Stumpf. He made $18.9 million in 2010, compared to $21.3 million in 2009, $13.8 million in 2008 and $12.6 million in 2007. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has also watched his paychecks fatten over the past three years: He took home $20.8 million in 2010, compared to $1.3 million in 2009 (when some bank executives took a pay cut because of the financial crisis), $19.7 million in 2008 and $27.8 million in 2007.

The list goes on. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein made $14.1 million in 2010, compared to $862,657 in 2009, $1.1 million in 2008 and $70.3 million in 2007. Bank of America president and CEO Brian Moynihan earned $10 million in 2010, compared to his predecessor Ken Lewis, who made $4.2 million in 2009, $9.9 million in 2008 and $24.8 million in 2007.

Even Vikram Pandit, the CEO of Citigroup who worked for two years for just $1 a year as a symbolic gesture after the financial crisis, was awarded a $23.2 million retention package in May 2011.

Banking elites have thrived under Obama for a number of reasons. For starters, Justice Department prosecutions for financial fraud are at a 20-year low, despite what many claim is a strong pattern of financial-sector misconduct in recent years. The Securities and Exchange Commission has brought few civil fraud cases against big banks, and even those cases were settled so cheaply that federal Judge Jed Rakoff has held up or rejected the deals.

Obama has also kept tax rates low. He extended the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which means Wall Street executives' salaries are taxed at 35 percent and their capital gains income -- where the bulk of their take-home pay comes from -- is only taxed at 15 percent. And of course, many big banks are still standing because the president forked over tens of billions in taxpayer dollars to bail them out during the financial crisis that their industry fueled. Amid all of that, Obama didn't touch executive bonuses; in fact, he defended their right to keep them.

"I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free market system," Obama said, during a Feb. 2010 interview with Bloomberg, of the $17 million bonus awarded to Dimon and the $9 million to Blankfein that year.

Despite thriving under his polices, none of these executives is rallying behind Obama. Even those who identify as Democrats are signaling they'll support Romney in 2012.

Many are angry about Obama's populist rhetoric about the wealthy, since they translate it as code for Wall Street, where many of the richest Americans work. Some bank executives who were previously on good terms with Obama fumed when he said in Dec. 2009, in a moment of frustration over banks not freeing up enough credit to businesses to create jobs, that he didn't become president to help out "a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street."

"They're still puzzled why is it that people are mad at the banks. Well, let's see," Obama said at the time. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in -- in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got 10 percent unemployment."

Dimon, a lifelong Democrat once rumored to be on Obama's short list for Treasury Secretary, blasted Obama's "fat cat" remark, saying he didn't think "the president of the United States should paint everyone with the same brush." He also complained last month that the public is giving Wall Street too hard of a time. "Acting like everyone who's been successful is bad and that everyone who is rich is bad -- I just don't get it," he said at a conference.

In a sign that their frustrations may be turning into retaliation, Dimon was spotted last fall meeting privately with Romney. A JPMorgan insider told The New York Post at the time that Dimon hadn't made any contributions to Obama in that election cycle but had been meeting privately with Republican presidential candidates.

Dimon isn't the president's only detractor. Blankfein, who donated $4,600 to Hillary Clinton's presidential run in 2007 and whose company contributed more than $1 million to Obama's 2008 campaign, has said he will support Romney in 2012, according to a Fox Business News report. Goldman Sachs is now the top donor to Romney's 2012 campaign, too.

Moynihan stopped short of a direct challenge to Obama. In an Oct. 3 interview, the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that banks don't have an "inherent right" to a "certain amount of profit." Two days later, Moynihan replied in a CNBC interview that he has "an inherent duty as a CEO of a publicly owned company to get a return for my shareholders" and that his customers "understand we have a right to make a profit."

Moynihan's comments came at a time when Bank of America was defending its decision to impose a new $5-per-month debit card fee on its customers. They scrapped the fee a month later, however, in the face of widespread criticism.

Big banks aren't the only Wall Street entities that have prospered under Obama's policies. The government bailouts resulted in shielding hedge funds and private equity firms from losses if they owned stocks or bonds issued by big banks. Low tax rates on capital gains and carried interest also mean these executives are taking home a greater share of their paychecks than their workers who are paid traditional salaries. And while Obama's proposed millionaire surtax has rankled many of these high-earners, the reality is that he passed up the chance to let their tax rates increase in late 2010 when he cut a deal with Congressional Republicans to preserve the low rates.

Zach Carter contributed to this report.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- They bristled when he called them "fat cats." They fought every step of the way, unsuccessfully, to prevent his financial reform bill from becoming law. And some who supported him in 200...
WASHINGTON -- They bristled when he called them "fat cats." They fought every step of the way, unsuccessfully, to prevent his financial reform bill from becoming law. And some who supported him in 200...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7,701
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (150 total)
  1 of 13  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
VirginiaJeff 11:57 AM on 02/02/2012
Obama always seeks love from the wrong people.

When Lieberman lost the Democratic nomination to Ned Lamont in 1996, Sen. Obama broke ranks and campaigned for Lieberman. How did Lieberman show his gratitude? By supporting Mc_Cain for president and viciously attacking Obama. After winning the presidency, Obama let bygones be bygones and pushed for Lieberman to retain his committee chairmanship. Only he  Read More...
10:13 AM on 02/08/2012
I, for one, DO BEGRUDGE WEALTHY FAT CATS. In fact, one of my favorite fantasies is to see them dangling from the end of a rope. They trashed the American economy and American homeowners with full knowledge. They are, in fact, the real enemies of most Americans, much more then middle Eastern terrorists ever were. No one loves someone who is standing on their neck.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JacksonAndy78
Usury Interest is Welfare to BANKSTERS
02:52 AM on 02/05/2012
HOW CAN MITT (OR NEWT) BEAT THIS RECORD FOR THE 1%!

2 Years EXTENS10N of the BUSH TAX CUTS for the RICH
3 Years of US $TREASURY/­$FED FUNDED REC0RD WALL STREET B0NUSES!
3 Years of REC0RD CORP0RATE PR0FITS!
PUSHED THREE FREE-TRADE AGREEMENTS -ship 0ut J0BS & to HIDE INCOME
3 Years of USELESS WARS L00TING the US $TREASURY
3 years of RECORD FRAUDCLOSURES!
3 Years of REC0RD 0IL PR0FITS!
3 Years of REC0RD Health Care L00TING!
3 Years of RECORD Stock Price Growth
3 Years of REC0RD M1C PR0FITS! 
Best January in Stocks in 15 Years
05:53 AM on 01/17/2013
Hey dont look at the man behind the curtain. Thats not fair. Your only suppose to look at the wizard.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Carolab
Just another hostage of the poopy heads
01:19 AM on 02/05/2012
They aren't happy unless/until they have it ALL.
02:14 PM on 02/04/2012
After 3 years these CEOs realize that although Obama may be a phenominal speaker and engaging person, he's nevertheless far less knowledgable or qualified to lead the country's economy than any CEO he has met with.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Carolab
Just another hostage of the poopy heads
01:27 AM on 02/05/2012
LBOs end up turning to bankruptcy protection to shed themselves of their pensions (which are often taken over by the taxpayer funded Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation) so they can re-emerge under the guise of becoming streamlined companies, and to claim that layering mountains of debt on the shoulders of companies (companies are people too, you know) to pay private equity companies fat fees so they can generate generous returns for themselves and their investors (many of whom are public sector pension plans) seems inordinately lopsided and more destructive than creative.
05:55 AM on 01/17/2013
What can you expect from someone who sees interest saved as money in the bank.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Carolab
Just another hostage of the poopy heads
01:28 AM on 02/05/2012
Mitt ran the LBO shop at Bain 1984-1999. Wow, that's some background to get an ailing country on its feet, right?
glorifacus55
Stand for something, or fall for anything!
10:21 AM on 02/04/2012
Is it possible that they view the president as caring too much for the poor and middle class? His desire to improve our educational system is as threatening to them as it was in the days of slavery and the slave owners made it against the law to teach the slaves to read. A better educated public is a threat to the powers that be.
05:57 AM on 01/17/2013
No they see him as push over and laugh at him like all these countries that he is trying to buy thier friendship do. Narcisists always thinks everyone loves them.
12:24 AM on 02/04/2012
This election will not be about Obama vs. Romney, it will be about the have's and have not's! Why would these rich folks not want to back President Obama again although he's made them richer? He wants then to pay their fair share of taxes, that's why!!! Romney on the other had pays less than 14%
12:18 AM on 02/04/2012
When you lay with dogs, you may come up with fleas!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
06:15 PM on 02/03/2012
Wall Street believes that regulation is sin and complicity is good.

They don't believe that the rest of America understands that they will profit no matter who's president. They just prefer an environment where they are the only ones to profit.

It doesn't matter if they contribute to Romney. They have overplayed that hand.
julieacp1
The Bigger the Government the Smaller the Citizen
03:59 PM on 02/03/2012
Obama has bigger problems than the so called wall street executives "fat cats". Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers.Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.
03:49 PM on 02/03/2012
They won't support him as he promised them things too... and - SURPRISE - failed to deliver... The Hope and Change we all Hoped for has turned into a Circus of blame and divisiveness.. He really has to go...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBiggs
04:15 PM on 02/03/2012
haha yes because we should be upset that wall street didn't get their way. Their greed has never affected us adversely. . .silly republicans. . .
05:00 PM on 02/03/2012
WOW.. great thought went into this comment.. you better get some rest...
photo
jcolvin325
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
03:33 PM on 02/03/2012
They thrive under every president...with very few exceptions
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBiggs
04:16 PM on 02/03/2012
So why would they support one over another if they are all homogenous?
photo
Sabrae
Talk to the paws.
03:32 PM on 02/03/2012
Notice how this comes after Obama said no more bail-outs in his SOTU?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
treadway123
treadway123
03:35 PM on 02/03/2012
Obama should allow Wall St. to grow, as it is a leg of our society an economy! But they don't want FAIR rules/laws to apply to them/corp. of America! U try to make it FAIR/this is what ya get is their HATE of Selfishness/Greed an lust for Power. They should give back happily to help America, as with out America they would NOT exist.
03:44 PM on 02/03/2012
NOBAMA has said the same thing for the past 3 years... What is your point??
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBiggs
04:17 PM on 02/03/2012
I'm still trying to find the purpose of this comment?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Artamentous
Workplace Democracy!
03:29 PM on 02/03/2012
Until a candidate comes out in favor of changing the organization of the workplace nothing will change. DEMOCRATIZE the workplace! It seems insane to me that we demand democracy for decisions that effect civil life, but never our economic life.

Which becomes stranger still as that lack of participation leads to some real strange things. Like Capital Accumulation, that doesn't even go to invest in actual production of value, but into speculation on money, which in reality is just fianced on OUR BACKS! It also allows companies to move production else where at the expense of entire communities! It allows upper management to reap unheard of benefits that make no sense at all. No person on this planet deserves 150k a DAY(that's "only" 54 million), yet that is what happens.

This country would change in ways that are pretty unimaginable if the workplace was democratized, certainly we'd all be more active in civic life, since we'd see real democracy everyday and realize it's absolute power to harmonize common interest, however democracy only REALLY happens when that condition is meant. We have a severe lack of democracy in this country, the idea that voting every 2-4 years(most every 4) makes a impact is fantasy. How long until we see this?
photo
BBackSoon
Hello, I must be going.
02:56 PM on 02/03/2012
They don't like him because he Might. . .

That is it, he just might do something, someday.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
treadway123
treadway123
03:44 PM on 02/03/2012
For some reason a lot of Republicans want to forget the Bail out was from Bush/not Obama! I wonder why that is? Why would any one trust a Science Monitor Christian reporting for anything.
photo
stingjim
Conservative
02:38 PM on 02/03/2012
Tell me what a great job obama is doing>>>

Mr. Obama will have shattered all the records when it comes to the deficit and the debt. For example, under Obama the budget deficit and federal debt have reached their highest percentage since World War II. The same is true when it comes to federal spending as a percentage of GDP. During the post-recession period from June 2009 to June 2011, the median annual household income fell by 6.7 percent – a more substantial decline than occurred during the Great Recession. The Christian Science Monitor points out, “The standard of living for Americans has fallen longer and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the U.S. government began recording it five decades ago.” The housing crisis is worse than the Great Depression. Home values worth one-third less than they were five years ago. The home ownership rate is the lowest since 1965. The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty has seen a record increase on President Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty. And government dependency, defined as the percentage of persons receiving one or more federal benefit payments, is the highest in American history.
photo
Sabrae
Talk to the paws.
03:30 PM on 02/03/2012
The nerve of him. From now on we'll know better than to think the president can wave a magic wand and the previous administration's mess will just go away.

I'm shocked, I tell ya.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
treadway123
treadway123
03:38 PM on 02/03/2012
The economy is getting better! U weren't around for the Great Depression an we got NO WHERE as near as bad as it was! U should read your History, NOT the Christian Science Monitor!