WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department on Thursday is expected to order seven companies that have not paid back last year's government bailouts to halve their top executives' average compensation.
The cuts apply to the 25 highest-paid executives at banks and other companies that received the most assistance, with salaries being slashed by as much as 90 percent, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Kenneth Feinberg, the special master at Treasury appointed to handle compensation issues as part of the government's $700 billion financial bailout package, is making the pay decisions. He is scheduled to release the details Thursday afternoon.
The seven companies are Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.
Elizabeth Warren, who heads the Troubled Asset Relief Program's oversight committee, said Thursday on CBS's "The Early Show" that reports of pending slashes in executive salaries are "real."
Smaller companies and those that have repaid the bailout money, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., are not affected.
Tom Wilkinson, a GM spokesman, said Wednesday that the auto company was "currently in discussions with Mr. Feinberg's office regarding executive compensation. We will have further information once those discussions have concluded."
GMAC has "been working on a proposal that aims at embodying the principles set forth for compensation along with balancing the need to retain critical talent necessary to execute our turnaround. Until we receive notification about that plan, we have no further comment," said Gina Proia, a spokeswoman.
Chrysler Group issued a similar statement. Representatives for Chrysler Financial, Bank of America, Citigroup and AIG declined to comment.
But company officials and lobbyists earlier this month said Bank of America, Citigroup, GMAC Financial Services and others were reworking their pay plans to ensure compensation reflects executive performance. They're giving executives more of their compensation in stock and stock options, and spreading pay over a longer period. They are also adopting plans to recapture some pay when bets go bad.
The changes are not limited to those on Feinberg's list. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. also are compensating senior employees with more stock and less cash.
In the AIG trading division, the arm of the company whose risky trades caused its downfall, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, the person familiar with Feinberg's plan said. The giant insurance company has received taxpayer assistance valued at more than $180 billion.
In an August filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, AIG disclosed that new CEO Robert Benmosche would be paid $7 million a year, with the potential to make millions more in performance-based incentives. According to reports from the time, the package included $3 million initially with $4 million in stock to be held for five years as well as performance bonuses.
As CEO, Benmosche's pay would be considered outside of the $200,000 average compensation for AIG's trading unit. But, according to reports at the time, Feinberg saw splitting the salary and future stock bonuses as a model because it tied compensation to the company's long-range performance.
The administration will warn AIG that it must significantly reduce the $198 million in bonuses promised to employees in its financial services division, the person familiar with Feinberg's decisions said.
The pay restrictions for all seven companies will require any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special benefits — things such as country club memberships, private planes and company cars — to get permission for those perks from the government.
Until now, these companies were only required to provide guidelines for the use of such luxuries. The inspector general at Treasury who oversees the bailout program found a range of standards. GM, for instance, generally prohibits employees from flying in private jets for business travel. Bank of America, on the other hand, encourages senior management to use corporate aircraft "for safety and efficiency purposes."
Feinberg's decisions come days after administration officials voiced sharp criticism of plans by some firms, particularly those on Wall Street, to pay huge bonuses even as the country continues to struggle with rising unemployment and the effects of the recession.
Goldman Sachs, which has paid back its bailout money, has said it earmarked $16.7 billion for compensation so far this year, more than $500,000 per employee. Citigroup is paying $5.3 billion in bonuses to its employees and Bank of America $3.3 billion.
Elsewhere, Freddie Mac is giving its chief financial officer compensation worth as much as $5.5 million, including a $2 million signing bonus. The government-controlled mortgage finance company doesn't have to follow the executive compensation rules because it is being paid outside the TARP.
Congress passed legislation in February requiring Treasury to oversee pay at companies that took bailout money. Treasury created the pay czar's office in June as one means of implementing that law.
Treasury's rules require the special master to review pay for the 25 top earners at companies that received "exceptional assistance," examining overall pay structures and recapturing payouts that go against taxpayers' interests.
Feinberg on Tuesday told a Washington audience that negotiating with the companies was a study in contradictions.
"Perfect metrics, competitive pay, no excessive risk, loyalty to the company," he said. "What I have to do under the law — and everyone's waiting" is to create compensation packages "reflecting those often conflicting principals."
Feinberg has until Oct. 30 to design pay packages for top earners.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091022/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_executive_pay
Puma
I wonder if there will be any talk about restricting the union's pay as well.
1Unions have been making concessions for years.
2I'm not sure why executives who helped make such an unholy mess of everything deserve bonuses or perks.
Did the unions receive bailout funds?
3The companies that pay their payrolls got the bailouts, so yeah, they got bailout funds.
4Ah, the Republican two-step. Avoid the issue, change the subject to one of your targets to fetishistically bully.
This is great news. If you're going to ask for my tax money to bail out your private company, don't expect me to pay for your excess.
5
6Dave should they not limit executive salaries and perks?
7Yeah, Dave. Whatever happened to the party that ran things like a business? It's the conservative in me that doesn't want to pay tax money for failure.
8Not just execs pay. The union pay and benefits have driven the auto industry off the cliff that the government had to save them.
9The unions never made concessions? The unions never saw their benefits cutback? The unions were running the companies?
10The Unions would not make concessions until they finally realized that if the automakers go down so do they.... they made the scale so unbalance there really was no chance of getting it back into balance with their little "concessions"
11And yeah, the unions did run the companies with bullying. Unions served there purpose, now they are just greedy and the fact that they can used forced membership dues to donate to politics is just plain absurd. If their people are really having that hard of a time surviving then maybe they should cut back on their dues... that would never happen
12It just doesn't make any sense to blame this on the unions. They've made massive concessions. This is a failure of leadership.
I know when I listen to Rush Limbaugh, he LOVES to go after unions. Same thing with Fox News. To me, it's a clear sign that the Republican party's real interest is in ensuring that the rich stay rich and the middle class is eliminated. It's sad that so many poor people are propagandized into caring about wedge issues above their own financial best interest.
13What concessions did unions make?
They seem to have it pretty good making 80 bucks an hour on the line at GM and having benefits I could only dream of. The only time they finally actually made a concessions was when they had crippled the company to the point of bankruptcy. So yeah, I don't think I'll be kissing anyone's butt who chokes me but then stops short of killing me. Gee thanks.
Anyways, some of the banks have paid back the money and they should be left to their own devices. But if you take money for the govt, if you let the devil in the door, then expect him to tell you what to do.
14"It's sad that so many poor people are propagandized into caring about wedge issues above their own financial best interest."
I think the DNC has done more to propagandize poor people than the GOP ever could. After all, if their sole intention is keeping the rich rich, then who cares about poor people enough to exploit them? Now the DNC that's their bread and butter, if those people get successful they may not want govt bothering them as much.
15A google search shows many, many examples. Here's a recent one.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/29/news/economy/auto_rescue/index.htm
16What about all the white, poor racists in Mississippi that are your electoral bread and butter? Ever hear of the Southern Strategy?
17"The union will have to reduce retiree health care coverage. But the union did not agree to any wage or benefit cuts for the 61,000 UAW members working at GM."
How many other companies get health care benefits at retirement? Only the elected officials. Why should a company be forced to spend 10's of millions on employees who are no longer productive?
18Please, go back over negotiations in the last two decades - the unions made well documented concessions, when executives running the companies into the groups were bringing home outrageous bonuses, and enjoying all kinds of perks like planes and vacations.
Haus, please find an employee who actually took home $80 an hour working on the line. My friend's dad, a GM retiree, really wants to know who that was and what their fancy benefits are. His healthcare's been cut back three times since he retired ten years ago.
19these aren't actual concessions... first off, the first paragraph says its not enough to make a difference. so it completely ignores the large part the unions played in getting to that point. again, not interested in them choking but not killing.
secondly, "eliminate the wage and benefit gap" with competitors" why would there be such a gap if it weren't for the unions outrageous demands? shouldn't pay always be fairly close to compeitors? and even the competitors are having a hard time making ends meet because of these benefits.
This part is my favorite - "I think it's a disgrace we had to do anything," said UAW president Ron Gettelfinger during a press conference.
That's the union attitude, sums it up 100%. It's all ME ME ME ME ME, what do you do for ME? Who cares about the company, the product, the consumer, the quality... when is my time off and when am I going to get paid overtime? It's sickening.
And I've been in a union before, I've seen it first hand and I can honestly say it was worse than what I imagined.
20If the unions were running the companies, what were the executives doing to earn their huge salaries, bonuses and perks? Apparently, they've been paid for doing little or nothing all along.
21Please Haus, never criticize anyone for not caring about consumers.
Lots of us have been in unions, some still are, and the notion that it's horrible and they're filled with greedy monsters is simply not true.
And the whole blame the unions thing ignores the fact that not all the companies in question have unions and ignores the question of what do executives of failed companies deserve?
22read it in businessweek last summer, actual figure was i think 74-76 bucks per hour. article was about toyota having to cater to unions soon and how that will cut 2-3k out of profit on every car they sell.
you're welcome to search for it.
23Oy.
Dave, please answer a question. Do you know the reason WHY GM employees got retirement for life? Here's a hint - it has to do with World War II.
Secondly, you're changing the subject. This is really OT. This is about executive bonuses, not unions.
24The unions run the companies into the group. Its the exec's job to stiff every other worker at the company and try to salvage some kind of profit.
I'm not ignoring that all companies don't have unions, that's a separate matter which I've already stated my opinion on.
But sorry, you'll never get me on board with modern day unions. Unions were a great concept and made great strides for the worker... in history. Today they are only out for themselves and they don't care how outrageous the demand.
25And that to me makes them no better than the exec who is only out for himself.
Same problem, different side of the coin.
26haha group = ground.
27sorry!
This topic has nothing to do with unions. The seven companies involved with this are Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial. The majority of those companies do not have a unionized workforce.
28But yes, back on topic, i think its crazy that the govt is reaching into companies and telling them how to do business, not by laws or regulations, but literally peeking over the shoulder and saying "you can't do that!".
But then again, if these companies accepted the money and haven't paid it back, then they should expect that kind of intervention.... wait, wasn't that part of the bailout when it first came out? didn't we talk about this then? so what do they expect?
29How the freak did unions ever come up in this thread? Its about executive compensation at banks, talk about a bait and switch.
I agree with Haus that if you took taxpayer money and still haven't paid it back the govt. should definitely be restricting pay and benefits. Give them more stock options, less cash. I'm also happy with what Bernanke is doing to curb bonuses for Wall Street traders that encourage them to take on extreme risks for their companies.
30Here's something I haven't read enough about so I still don't get...
If Chrysler is now owned by Fiat, then didn't we just give a whole bunch of money to Fiat? Why didn't we take that back? Why are our taxpayers giving money to an overseas company? And if we did give money to them and are now trying to limit their pay, then how does that work with Fiat? Cuz if I were Fiat I'd be pissed and basically be like, Sorry we're Italian, you're not the boss of us!
31That figure was debunked months ago:
"What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos.
Do you see that there's a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don't get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.)
Simply put, GM's labor costs are not synonymous with hourly wages earned by UAW employees. Many in the press have casually used the two interchangeably. But they're not.
Felix Salmon at Portfolio did perhaps the best job explaining the misinformation at play:
The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers. [emphasis in original]
Indeed, according to this Associated Press report, a chunk of GM's $70-an-hour labor costs goes toward paying current retirees' pensions and health-care coverage. In other words, that's money that's not going to end up in the pocket of any autoworker when he cashes his paycheck this week. That's money GM has to set aside in order to pay off costs associated with workers already in retirement. That money has absolutely nothing to do with calculating the hourly wage of a full-time UAW employee today. None.
So, no, UAW workers don't make $70 an hour even if you factor in benefits, because a portion of those benefits are going to people who retired years ago."
And as Kat noted again, you're ignoring the executive issue. They surely have a role in the mess.
32Oh I think the executives dropped the ball for sure. They could have, SHOULD have been more compeitive. They got complacent and subsequently lost out. That's how it works. (in regards to companies like GM/Chrysler). The banks were trying to be competitve by being shady. So yes, their executives bare a lot of the blame as well.
Re: Union pay - Costs are costs. The worker is costing an astronomical amount that cripples the company. Does it matter if they take that amount home every 1st and 15th? No. It's still crippling. And actually, Ford for instance pays close to 40 dollar per hour on every UAW member when it comes to benefits. The "concession" that the UAW made was for a few dollars less per hour on those benefits to bring it more in line with Toyota which has a grace period before having to succumb to these outrageous demands.
As for the union pay,
33I really don't understand how people can think it's totally acceptable to get hired for a job on the line at 29 bucks an hour plus benefits, be insulated from firings, get extra pay for just about anything, get paid if you don't actually work (ie the line is down) and then retire will benefits that 95% of people don't get.
Why is that ok? What makes these workers so much more special than every other worker out there?
34"If the unions were running the companies, what were the executives doing to earn their huge salaries, bonuses and perks? Apparently, they've been paid for doing little or nothing all along."
Amen. It amazes me that people are quick to defend individuals making millions in pay and bonuses (even if they run companies in the ground). But these same people attack middle class workers for trying to make a livable wage.
35If the unions are greedy monsters, what are the Ceo's? Simple businessmen? They get to make billions, but auto workers make a good salary and get decent benefits and that's a crime.
36Oh I see UAW and Chrysler were on those lists, hence it talk about unions. Sorry didn't get that before.
I'm with you on union Haus for the most part, as a taxpayer however I'm much more concerned with the ridiculous pay and benefits that local and state officials still get. Really grinds my gears.
37Not to pick on you Blu but you just kinda proved my point.
Unions don't try to make a livable wage, they try to get everything they can out of a company even if they don't deserve or work for it. There's plenty of people in this country who make a "livable wage" without being in a union and have FAR less than what a union gurantees.
So why is it ok that those people nonunionized get shafted but the union people don't and they're heralded? Aren't they just the same as the individuals making millions in pay and bonus? There's plenty of CEOs who don't make millions in pay and bonuses, who make far less, where's their union?
The unionized worker is the CEO of the middle class. Their pay is out of line with everyone elses, their entitlements are out of line with everyone elses. But again, we're supposed to celebrate them and protect them but not the CEO who's pay is also out of line with everyone else at that level, whose entitlements are also out of line with everyone elses at their level? That CEO should be stoned?
It doesn't make any sense.
38Roar - No not at all, the CEOs are definately greedy in these instances. I'm just saying if we're going to look down on CEO's for being greedy, then let's not forget that there are a WHOLE BUNCH of other people called a union who are just as greedy.
39mydia - i agree, govt officials get paid way too much.
40How many executives do crap jobs and walk away with golden parachutes? How many walk away with millions of dollars in bonuses after just a couple of years with a company, whether the company performed to expectations under them or not?
41"but auto workers make a good salary and get decent benefits and that's a crime."
Roar, I guess they should just be grateful they have a job. Making enough on a full time job to support yourself and your family is simply asking for too much.
42"How many executives do crap jobs and walk away with golden parachutes?"
Probably almost all of them. How else did they become the boss? Having been to b school, I can guarantee you you don't just walk out and into the C suite. If you did, I'd be on my private jet right now.
The problem is that Steph you tend to assume that CEOs did nothing to deserve their position. I don't know where this comes from, but I've never met a C level employee who didn't work their ass off for years to get to that level.
43"Not to pick on you Blu but you just kinda proved my point."
What point? That when workers organize they are more effective than when they go it alone?
44'Roar, I guess they should just be grateful they have a job. Making enough on a full time job to support yourself and your family is simply asking for too much'
Of course it is! If you want to support your family you need to give way to the all mighty dollar and do everything you can to get it. Forget work life balance, forget a single paycheck, those times are long gone. Workers are lucky to be employed, they shouldn't be asking for more than a crust of bread.
45The point that it's hypocritical beleive that greed at a lower level is ok and greed at the higher level is wrong.
46I think that's the basic difference of opinion here, haus. To you, asking for a living wage is greed. To me, it's not. It's something I want everyone to have.
47Haus I know plenty of people that work their tails off day after day. Many of them know that they'll never advance on their jobs in any significant way. Hard work doesn't always equal great reward.
48space - that would be true if that's all they were asking for. but that's not what they are asking for. they ask for benefits that practically NO workers get today. pensions? lifetime health care? double time, overtime... etc etc... that's not about making ends meat, that's about milking everything you can from the company. and that's greed. and greed is greed whether it be from the C suite or the guy who got hired today.
i got better benefits and pay at my union job on DAY ONE than i did on my first job in year 3 WITH a college degree. how is that not greed on the part of the unions?
49blu - you're right, not always. but i would argue most of the time.
50Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.