Fed proposes to police bank pay for 1st time
Published: October 22, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve for the first time would police banks’ pay policies to ensure they don’t encourage employees to take reckless gambles like those that contributed to the financial crisis, according to a proposal unveiled Thursday.
Unlike a Treasury plan to slash pay at certain companies that were bailed out with large sums of taxpayer money, the Fed proposal would cover thousands of banks, including many that never received a bailout.
The Fed would not actually set compensation. Instead, the central bank would review — and could veto — pay policies that could cause too much risk-taking by executives, traders or loan officers.
Its the Fed’s latest response to criticism that it failed to crack down on lax lending, irresponsible risk taking and other practices that many blame for contributing to the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
The Fed’s goal is to make sure banks’ pay policies don’t encourage top managers or other employees to take gambles that could endanger the company, the broader financial system or the economy.
“Compensation practices at some banking organizations have led to misaligned incentives and excessive risk-taking, contributing to bank losses and financial instability,“ said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. “The Federal Reserve is working to ensure that compensation packages appropriately tie rewards to longer-term performance and do no create undue risk for the firm or the financial system.“
Under the proposal, the 28 biggest banks would develop their own plans to make sure compensation doesn’t spur undue risk taking. If the Fed approves, the plan would be adopted and bank supervisors would monitor compliance.
To get a broad picture of industry pay, the Fed also will internally compare and contrast results across the big banks. It is not anticipated that the central bank will make public the results of this so-called “horizontal review,“ Fed officials said.
The Fed refused to identify the 28 banks that will have to submit plans. But Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. are usually included among the largest banks.
At smaller banks — where compensation is typically less — Fed supervisors will conduct reviews. Those banks don’t have to submit plans.
All told, nearly 6,000 banks regulated by the Fed would be covered.
Because of differences between large and small banks and the various ways compensation can be structured, the Fed said it decided against a one-size fits all approach.
The public, industry and other interested parties will have an opportunity to weigh in on the Fed’s proposal.
After a 30-day comment period, the proposal could be revised before a final plan is adopted. Fed officials said they want to move quickly but wouldn’t commit to a final plan being adopted this year.
Still, the Fed said it expects banks to immediately review their compensation arrangements and implement “corrective programs where needed.“
The Fed also may ban certain practices if “further experience” reveals a problem. The central bank said it will ask the public, industry and others to provide feedback on this point.
The findings from the Fed’s compensation reviews will be included when supervisors rate a bank for financial soundness. Bank ratings are usually kept confidential.
The Fed also will put together a report — sometime after next year — on trends and developments in compensation practices at banks.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
I can’t imagine a majority of executives staying put. These guys were earning “fair value” in a global market; to suggest that the government’s action changes “fair market value” is being naive.
But I suspect the government knows this too well; as those banks’ financial condition worsen owing to the talent drain, the socialists will have a better excuse to seize them.
Isn’t that how it works ... create the problem and then politicize a “solution”? That’s how the financial crisis started in the first place.
I bet the head hunters at Nomura Securities are having a field day right now.
I must be like having the first five picks of the NFL draft… EVERY ROUND for them.
Basic greedy pig argument: We have to pay each other a gazillion of dollars because if we don’t get our gazillion we’ll leave and go over to another firm and the profits will be 27¢ a share instead of 28¢ a share. Nobody any good would actually sit in this corner office for a mere .9 gazillion!!!
But hey, if you just paid them 50 times what the average American earned instead of 500 times. . . . profits would be $1 a share. Overpaid executives are thieves. They give a dishonest day’s work for a dishonest day’s pay.
These children running our govmint hold playground grudges because Johnny has a nicer scooter then they do.
This guy and his juvenile staff keep digging themselves deeper and deeper in a whole with the American People, his boss.
Keep it up Lil Obammy, 2010 is right around the corner.
I read a piece in the Wall Street Journal today that talked about a NY senator (forgot the name) that wanted to take this a step further. Put a cap on ALL publicly traded companies executive compensation. So that basically no matter how well your company does, your compensation has a ceiling. What else is next? If someone does good for their company and they can only make X number of dollars, what incentive do they have to do better things or be more innovative? I agree that if a company is given billions in bailout dollars, they shouldn’t be rewarded for screwing up but to limit the good guys is obscene. Hopefully this proposal never sees the light of day.
What is especially troubling about this action is that our national financial supervisory agencies of which the Federal Reserve and Department of the Treasury are major participants have not shown any inclination or willingness to be accountable for the major roles THEY PLAYED in the financial meltdown.
Until the “bottom fell out”, no financial supervisory agency acted to discourage, prevent, mitigate, or otherwise deal with unwise, dishonest, and misleading lending practices and the creation, marketing, and investing in the excessively risky securities that were the primary, root causes of the fiasco. After the fact, they used taxpayer dollars for the “bail out” of failing institutions THEY failed to properly supervise and whose failure is at least equally attributable to their own malfeasance.
About six months ago, former Fed Chairman Greenspan admitted on CBS during an interview that he and the large number of FRB economists to which he had daily access DID NOT UNDERSTAND AND YET DID NOT ATTEMPT TO STOP THE MARKETING AND INVESTMENT IN MORTGAGED BACKED SECURITIES.
The Fed, Treasury, SEC, FDIC, Congress and others are hardly in a position to place blame on others - most of it falls squarely on their shoulders. Have any of you heard Bernanke, Geithner, the head of any other supervisory agency, or any member of Congress offer to accept a reduction in their pay? Of course not.
Their arrogance is astounding, but, unfortunately, not surprising.
I’m sure that I am only one among many who find it impossible to have any respect for or confidence that any of the government bureaucrats will do they right thing.
Also, I beg to differ on your comment:
“no one willing to take the risk stepping up when they can make more money elsewhere and not be micromanaged.“
bulldinky. They’ll be a line outside the door around the corner and down the block of fully qualified people ready for the challenge. Unless you havent noticed there’s a high unemployment rate.
They needed to be bailed out , so YES, they can limit their rediculous pay. They dont want to be “police’d” on their pay, then work for a better run company, do a better job, or quit. Seems very fair!
Athletes and Oprah didnt need to get bailed out, so thats a bad comparison. They earn their pay based upon performance. You do good at your job you get paid alot. If Oprah was not good at what she does, then she wouldnt be worth alot.
If they resign, so what? They helped with the problem to begin with. I’d like to see how the next potential employer will look at their working for a “Bailed Out” company and then bail out themselves when their already HUGE paychecks are reduced to a still HUGE paycheck. Shows character.
Booohoooo…... they should be happy they still have a job.
Isn’t this ex post facto? you can’t loan them money THEN start to dictate their pay. Do I like what their earning? No. But I don’t like what athletes are Oprah make either, but it is a free market economy. If they said at first, “you can take the bailout money under these conditions” then I am fine with it. You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game because you didn’t forsee a problem. Symbolism over substance here. Overseeing the pay will only make those in charge resign (or get fired) and no one willing to take the risk stepping up when they can make more money elsewhere and not be micromanaged. Poor planning on the part of the Fed should not result in rewriting the rules after the money has been handed out. This is a dangerous precedent.
The Fed wants to have even MORE control over all the banks, yet they run like the wind anytime Congress wants to audit them. Not one employee of the Fed is elected by the public. Why do we allow them to have so much power without any regulation? They’re obviously hiding something or they wouldn’t have a problem opening up the books for the public to take a look at.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.


Advertisement