POWIP Piece of Work In Progress

22Oct/095

First they came…for executive compensation.

The Obama administration has announced that the U.S. Pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, will be ordering compensation cuts for the largest recipients of TARP funds.  Details of the plan will be released in the next few days by Treasury, but some of the details have entered the zeitgeist.  There will be seven firms effected by this measure: Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.  And on average the compensation packages will be cut by 50%, although in some cases the cuts will be much deeper.  Funny, but I don’t see Goldman Sachs on that list.
 

According to sources, the salaries of the top 25 highest paid executives of the firms named will be cut an average of 90%, but factoring in bonuses, benefits, and retirement contributions brings that number closer to the overall figure cited.  According to one executive who chose to remain anonymous, the compensation restrictions were much worse than anticipated.  Still, the executives will still take home salaries that are large by the measure of most Americans.  And while the largest package, which will go to a Bank of America employee and come to a little over 9 million dollars, overall the pay czar’s ruling is sure to provide fodder to the administrations critics; not only for the restrictions themselves, but for the disproportionate way they are being applied.

The Obama administration gave Mr. Feinberg the job of more closely tying compensation to long-term performance, something the White House believes will help prevent employees from taking unnecessary risks for short-term gains. The administration believes skewed compensation incentives were one cause of the financial crisis.

Some of the toughest pay restrictions will come at the financial-products unit of American International Group Inc., which has been blamed for the firm's near-collapse. No employee within that unit will receive compensation of more than $200,000, people familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Feinberg will also demand a series of corporate governance changes at the firms, including splitting the chairman and CEO positions, requiring boards of directors to create "risk" committees and eliminate staggered board elections, which critics charge inhibit change.

Companies under the pay czar's purview gave sharply differing reactions to the latest news. At Bank of America, executives worried about how the changes will be received by the global banking and markets group, run by Thomas Montag and home to a number of highly paid investment bankers, executives say.

I expect that there will be mixed reactions to this policy.  While some may applaud, and readily accede to these invasive policies, owing to the back-stopping of the effected businesses with public funds, the move in itself is unprecedented.  Even more disturbing is the fact that these are being applied unevenly to the different companies and divisions within those companies, based on how the administration feels the blame for the financial crisis should be assessed.  It’s very much like what many on the left are often decrying about the justice system, that unequal treatment under the law based on status or identity is the norm; that we are, in fact, a nation of men and not laws-instead of the opposite, as was intended by the authors of the Constitution.

Plus, these government dictated compensation restrictions may have the adverse and unintended consequence of encouraging the experienced executives that are currently employed at these firms to leave, as well as discourage other talented individuals from joining these companies.  This could have a disastrous domino effect, not only hurting the firm in question, but also ultimately increasing unemployment, and perhaps even jeopardizing the government’s ability to ever recoup the funds that they were lent; as well as the fact that the shares the government has taken as collateral may greatly decline in value. And while I’m personally on record as wishing that the bailed-out firms would have exercised more constraint and discretion when awarding salaries and bonuses while owing the government money, this selective application of penalty increasingly seems politicized to me.

The government control of business executive compensation is part of the class warfare agenda that the left has been advocating for some time.  Indeed, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) intends to press for legislation that would give the government control over salaries and governing executive practices of all publicly traded companies.  But these controls wouldn’t necessarily have stopped the fall 2008 market collapse, and when coupled with the fact that the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate on Earth would most certainly result in corporations choosing other countries to do business in instead of America; yet another factor that may result in even greater unemployment.
 

I believe that, just as with the Fox news vendetta, the dithering on Afghanistan, and the recent reiteration of the Presidents promise to repeal, “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”, this is another political bone being thrown to his far-left base to keep them energized and engaged for the struggles ahead.  Obamacare is facing increasing opposition by the public in spite of the full court press by the White House.  And cap-n-trade, the next issue to come into the public square will be a hard sell indeed; especially when the public is experiencing the coldest winter in 10 years.  During the campaign the President would have called this a “distraction”, but it’s really like a group of huddled up football players “pumping up” before a game.  He needs the fighting nutroots completely on board for the political battles to come lest his agenda, and administration, crash on the rocks of his diminishing approval ratings.
 

This is a disturbing detour born of classic Marxist style class envy that could lead to a slippery slope of wage regulation and de-facto fascism; but, you know, the trains will probably run on time.  In fact, the real danger is that we may be witnessing the first lines being written of the American version of the famous poem, “First they came…”

“Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Share
21Oct/096

Hudson on the Moskva?

Andrew Ross Sorkin’s new book, “Too Big to Fail”, was released yesterday, and among the many episodes it recounts is a surprising meeting between then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and the directors of Goldman Sachs.  This meeting took place “off the record” at the end of June 2008 when both Paulson and GS directors were in Moscow at the same time.

When Paulson learned that Goldman’s board would be in Moscow at the same time as him, he had [Treasury chief of staff] Jim Wilkinson organize a meeting with them. Nothing formal, purely social — for old times’ sake.
[snip]
For the nearly two years that Paulson had been Treasury secretary he had not met privately with the board of any company, except for briefly dropping by a cocktail party that Larry Fink’s BlackRock was holding for its directors at the Emirates Palace Hotel in Abu Dhabi in June.
[snip]
For the next hour, Paulson regaled his old friends with stories about his time in Treasury and his prognostications about the economy. They questioned him about the possibility of another bank blowing up, like Lehman, and he talked about the need for the government to have the power to wind down troubled firms, offering a preview of his upcoming speech.

All this went on just a little more than two months before the collapse of Lehman and the market meltdown that possibly contributed positively to Mr. Obama’s election.  And after assiduously avoiding any apparent improper contact for two years, what in the world was Mr. Paulson thinking when he not only took this meeting, but did so “off the record”.  It really begs the question of what precisely was discussed at the get together, although at this point that would probably be difficult to nail down; unless one of the directors had a CYA tape recorder on his person or anyone who successfully conducted any eavesdropping of the event came forward with a recording.  Also, one wonders, did any similar "unofficial" meetings take place during Paulson’s time at Treasury?

To be clear, I’m not accusing Paulson of any intentional wrongdoing, and I believe him to be an honorable man.  But that said, this meeting at best gives an impression of recklessness at a sensitive time.  And at worst?  Well at worst it could be a terrible example of “insider info” upon which profits were gleaned at the expense of an unwitting public.  This is something that federal investigators should probably look into, discreetly of course, lest Paulson's honor be unfairly sacrificed on the altar of public opinion.

Tangentially related, being an act originally formulated by Secretary Paulson, and done at  the expense of a largely unwitting public, TARP IG Neil Barofsky characterized the probability that all of the public finds would be repaid as “extremely unlikely”.

His 256-page report, out Wednesday, said TARP played a significant role in bringing the financial system back from the "brink of collapse" but questioned its effectiveness in increasing lending to small businesses or reducing the risk of foreclosures. Initially designed by the Treasury to buy toxic assets that threatened the financial system, TARP funds ended up invested in 685 banks, bailing out auto companies and funding a program on home mortgage modifications.
[snip]
The report criticized Treasury's implementation of the program and its lack of transparency, making 41 recommendations, 18 of which were implemented. Barofsky says it's "extremely unlikely" that taxpayers will recover the $77 billion committed to the ailing auto industry or the $60 billion in TARP assistance to American International Group as part of a pledge of up to $180 billion in aid. An additional $50 billion to modify unaffordable home mortgages "will yield no direct return."

Recall that TARP was the program implemented hurriedly at the behest of Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke.  It has been implemented poorly, treated as a slush fund, and is due to expire at the end of the year.  One of the IG’s chief complaint is the program’s transparency; a theme that seems to be reoccurring in the most ethical and transparent administration and Congress-EVAH!  I’m of a shared mind with Representative Lipinski (D-Ill) who believes that the program should not be extended through next year but be allowed to lapse in December.

And I'll remind all who wonder why I’m criticizing Paulson, and siding with Lipinski, that patriots who consider issues with classical disinterest will always choose their nation and what’s best for her, over partisan politics or ideology.

Share
   

Switch to our mobile site