« Retrenchment, Not Recovery | David Mason's Blog | Measuring Up America »

Limit Bailout CEOs to U.S. President's Salary



Cross-Posted FromThe End of the American Century

President Obama called Wall Street bankers "shameful" after reports that they had given themselves some $20 billion in bonuses this year, just as the economy was deteriorating and the government spending billions to bail them out.

Here's a modest proposal: for companies receiving federal bailouts, let's limit the pay of those CEOs to what the President of the United States earns--$400,000.
Once those bailout companies have repaid our tax-paid bailout money, they can return to paying themselves tens of millions of dollars yearly, as they do now.

To give you some context, here are the top ten recipients of federal bailout money under the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program).


1. Bank of America, $45 billion
2. Citigroup, $45 billion
3. AIG, $40 billion
4. JPMorgan Chase, $25 billion
5. Wells Fargo, $25 billion
6. General Motors, $10.2 billion
7. Goldman Sachs, $10 billion
8. Morgan Stanley, $10 billion
9. PNC Financial, $7.6 billion
10. U.S. Bankcorp, $6.6 billion

And here are the 2007 total compensations for the CEOs of those same firms:

1. Kenneth Lewis, $20.4 million
2. Vikram Pandit, $3.2 million
3. Martin Sullivan, $13.9 million
4. James Dimon, $28.9 million
5. John Stumpf, $11.4 million
6. G. R. Wagoner, $15.7 million
7. Lloyd Blankfein, $54 million
8. John Mack, $41.4 million
9. James Rohr, $14.5 million
10. Richard Davis, $5.9 million

These men are all multimillionaires, even if you only count their take from last year. They can afford to slum it for a while on the salary of the President of the United States. And if these CEOs are genuinely committed to help their companies, and the United States, recover, then they should be willing to forego a little extravagance for a few years. If they are unwilling to do so, then the federal government should appoint a caretaker CEO until the bailouts have been repaid.

The rules of the game have changed. These companies and their CEOs have brought this country to the brink of economic disaster. The government has stepped in to save these companies, as a means of rescuing the economy. There can no longer be any argument that multimillion dollar compensation packages are necessary to attract "talent." It was not true in the past (when CEO salaries were far lower); it is not true in other countries (where CEO salaries are a small fraction of American ones--see chart below); and it is not true now--when this "talent" drove their companies, and the economy, into the ground.

Congress has talked about limiting the pay of bailout CEOs, but they have done nothing about it. It is time. And this idea--of limiting these CEO salaries to the level of the highest paid government executive--was even profferred by Republican John McCain during the campaign:

"no C.E.O. of any corporation or business that is bailed out by us, that is rescued by American tax dollars, should receive any more than the highest paid person in the federal government."


CEO Pay as a Multiple of Average Worker Pay, in US and Other Countries
(From The End of the American Century, p. 40)


11 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

This little highlights the outrageous nature of executive compensation in the US that has been out of control for over 25 years.

Sen. McCaskill (in one of the only ballsy moves she's ever made in politics) has proposed limiting their pay to 400K annually as long as they're on the public dole. I think it could go much further but it's a good start.

user-pic

Real nice documentation Dave. Ditto with Oleeb.

I just bookmarked this because it is so handy.
A lot of sins on one page!!!

user-pic

Good blog that sums up a lot of discussion on this space lately. The real nugget is McCain's $400K statement. Thanks.

user-pic

I'm all for limiting compensation for people receiving TARP funds. But I have two issues:

1) Some firms were forced to take TARP funds even if they didn't need it (JPM, GS, Northern Trust, Wells Fargo et al). Some of these firms actually made money last year and should be able to pay their rank & file bonuses. So saying that TARP banks can't pay bonuses is not so easy when the Treasury is forcing all the big banks to take money

2) Yes I agree the CEOs are multi-millionaires, but does that mean that the rank&file at banks receiving TARP money should get zero bonuses?
Some of these firms are very big and it was really a very small subset of the employees that caused the firm to implode. How do you compensate the rest of the people? Merrill Lynch for example - they have about 50,000 employees. Thain and all top brass should get zero bonuses. But what about the lower level employees, especially those that did not work in the CMBS or structured products groups? I would estimate at least half of Merrill's 50,000 employees didn't play a role in the firms dumb mortgage strategy.

user-pic

Not a bad idea, but for reasons you failed to cite. If CEO pay is limited to that of the president, just think of how much highly educated executive talent would be made available for the job of president!!!

Chances are good we'd wind up with something better than this affirmative action educated, nascent Marxist who uses terrorists to ghose write his books and thinks there are 57 states in this union!!!!!

user-pic

Yeah, well, I think for you anyone one to the economic left of free market absolutists, who think all wealth should be redistributed upwards, like Friedman and Hayek, are Marxists.

Canada and the UK are Marxist too aren't they? They have implemented universal health care. A well known Marxist program. OMG where is Joe McCarthy when we really need him?

user-pic

My sentiments exactly.

user-pic

I know it is. But it's not mine...I am guessing you were perceptive enough to realize that, lol.

I think implementing the economic policies of Friedman and Hayek will only and invariably lead to fascist and plutocratic form of government and lessen our collective freedoms.

user-pic

Just one more thing - Dave - your post is too focused on compensation of the CEO. Even if we cap CEO compensation that won't solve the problem. Lots of other senior bankers are overpaid as well. If the markets recover and banks start making money again, these senior investment bankers will continue to get $2-10mm bonuses even if CEO comp is capped.

The bigger problem is the compensation is very short term. The average senior investment banker gets the majority of their bonuses in cash and the rest in stock (usually 65% cash and 35% stock). It should be reversed. If people received the vast majority of their comp in stock that couldn't be sold for many years, that would help align incentives. You are now seeing UBS, BofA and others go this direction and that's going to help alot more than capping CEO pay at $400,000 or whatever crazy ideas Sen Macaskill from MO has.

People's outrage is a bit misguided because in general people on Wall Street took home very little in January 2009 for the 2008 performance year. Yes they took home boatloads in 2007 and 2006, but last year's average bonus was around $100,000. Not so eye-popping. When you take that 18bn bonus pool and spread it over the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers that work in the industry, it's about $100,000 per person.

user-pic

Limit them to the President's compensation?

A couple of 747s, a few helicopters, some expensive limos, a nice retreat in the Catoctin mountains, and a fairly plush house on Pennsylvania Avenue complete with staff... The $400,000 is just the President's pocket money.

The guys you list are generally not the scoundrels. For example, Ken Lewis's judgement in acquiring Countrywide and Merrill Lynch is a little in question, but he may have been pushed a bit by the Fed, Treasury, and FDIC.

The real scoundrels are Angelo Mozillo, former head of Countrywide, and Stan O'Neal, former head of Merrill Lynch.

Others on the list, like Pandit, are fairly new to their firms and brought in to clean up the messes left by the former CEO, Chuck Prince.

user-pic

Bill, I focus on CEO pay mainly as a symbolic measure. It is simply bad form for these guys to be taking home millions when taxpayers are bailing them out. But I also think that symbolism is important, and that such limits might send a message about the excesses, greed and extravagance of top executives in corporate America. One of the points of my post is that these levels of compensation are far out of line with past levels, and with those in other countries.

Merrill--I think it is irrelevant whether or not these particular CEOs are scoundrels (though I think some of them are!). It is just that the chiefs of the firms receiving the most bailout money should not be using taxpayer money, in essence, to feather their own nests.

Leave a comment

David Mason

user-pic

Following: 1
Followers: 8

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

Bio

Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Butler University. Most recent book is "The End of the American Century" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008).

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address