Leonhardt rebuts Sorkin on AIG Pay

As an addendum to my previous post, the day after Andrew Sorkin's New York Times column defending executive bonuses ("The Case for Bonuses"), the much more astute and sensible NYT economics columnist, David Leonhardt, published a piece entitled "Paying Workers More To Fix Their Own Mess." While Leonhardt did not specifically mention Sorkin's column, he did quote from it, and it is clearly a response and counterpoint to Sorkin's nonsensical defense of big bonuses for incompetent executives. As I have suggested before, Leonhardt is one of the few economics writers who seems to understand the depth and breadth of the current economic crisis.

The "Brainiacs" and "Talent" at AIG

Washington is finally catching on to why people are so upset with these million dollar bonuses for executives who drove their companies into the ground and swindled American taxpayers. But Wall Street apparently still doesn't quite understand the fuss, and the folks there continue to make the argument that these bonuses are necessary to "attract and retain talent." This "talent" are the greedy, immoral,short-sighted scoundrels who bankrupt their own companies, stole the retirement funds of million of Americans and drove the global economy to the brink of depression. Some talent.

The most stupefying assertion of this ridiculous argument about talent comes in the form of a New York Times column by Andrew Ross Sorkin, entitled "The Case for Bonuses at A.I.G."

Sorkin writes that "as unpalatable as it seems, taxpayers need to keep some of these braniacs in their seats" so they can help fix the mess they made and "to prevent them from turning against the company."

Braniacs at A.I.G.?????? These "braniacs" are colossal blunderers and incompetents, just like most of the CEOs at the other companies that went bankrupt based on hugely risky and irresponsibly stupid investment decisions.

Edward M. Liddy, the new (supposedly improved) CEO of A.I.G., perpetuates this shibboleth:

"We cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff" the company "if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury."

This argument about attracting and retaining talent has two major problems. First, it is clear by now that such a strategy did not work. Big money didn't attract talent, but greed. And selfish greed doesn't benefit much of anybody except those few who practice it.

Second, if multimillion dollar payouts are necessary to attract "talent," then how do you explain the influx of very talented, dedicated, public-spirited people into the federal government, especially with the new Obama administration? Washington is inundated by people, young and not-so-young, wanting to hitch their stars to a noble vision and public service. How many of them are being offered million dollar salaries? None.

So let THEM take over administration of these discredited and disgraced financial institutions.

Obama Imposes CEO Pay Limits

Limiting CEO pay must be in the air! I posted a blog with such a proposal on Saturday, before learning that Senator McCaskill had introduced a bill with similar provisions on Friday. Then yesterday President Obama himself announced executive pay limits, along very similar lines as my own "modest proposal." (Do you think the Prez reads my blog?!!).

According to the New York Times story, these executive pay limits "seek to alter corporate culture" which in my view is long overdue and would be a major accomplishment. According to the Times, "the new rules would set a $500,000 cap on cash compensation forthe most senior exeutives, curtail severance pay when top executives left a company,[and] restrict cashing in on stock incentives until government assistance was repaid."

President Obama observed that "This is America" and "We don't disparage wealth" or people achieving success. But "what gets people upset--and rightfully so--are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."

"For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages," the President said, "in the midst of this economic crisis is not only in bad taste, it's a bad strategy, and I will not tolerate it as president." He pointed to this kind of CEO extravagance reflecting "a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else."

Bravo, Mr. President. This may be mostly a symbolic gesture, but symbols are important. What this country needs now, even more than an economic stimulus package, is a change of heart, and a change in the way we think, believe and behave. Just as when the President said "The United States does not torture," he is sending a message to Americans and to the rest of the world that the United States is changing.

(See my previous entries on CEO pay by clicking on the "CEO pay" label in the right sidebar).

Limit Bailout CEO pay to U.S. President's Salary

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.

Indeed, just this week Senator Claire McCaskill (Dem, Missouri) introduced a bill that would cap compensation at $400K for all employees of bailout recipients.

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.

Merrill Lynch's John Thain: Poster Boy for Greed and Incompetence

Last week, John Thain, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch was sacked by the CEO of Bank of America, which recently absorbed the bankrupt brokerage firm. Thain is a prime example of the mind-boggling greed, incompetence and cluelessness of the captains of the U.S. financial services sector. I called attention to Thain in my September blog on CEO pay, where I noted that Thain was the highest paid CEO in 2007, with compensation exceeding $83 million. This was a year in which Merrill Lynch lost $7.8 billion, mind you. Granted, Thain didn’t take over Merrill until November of 2007. But 2008 was even worse. Merrill’s losses of $27 billion last year was what led to its absorption by Bank of America.

But Thain’s greed and arrogance gets even worse. He apparently demanded a bonus of $30-40 million for 2008, the year he presided over the company’s bankruptcy and collapse. This was after Merrill had already received some $10 billion from U.S. taxpayers as part of the federal government’s financial bailout. Furthermore, according to a story in the Financial Times, Merrill granted some $4 billion in bonuses to other executives in the company, just before the Bank of America takeover was finalized. As the Financial Times observers, “this was money that appeared to come directly from US government funds.”

A New York Times story says that Thain spent $1.2 million to redecorate his Merrill Lynch office last year, including an $87,000 rug and a $68,000 credenza.

John Thain stands out as the worst abuser of corporate and government funds. But the problem is much wider than John Thain or Merrill Lynch, and extends across the entire corporate landscape. In my earlier post on CEO pay (and in my book), I point out that these huge CEO compensations in the U.S. are horribly inflated, both by historical standards and in comparison to other capitalist countries. In the 1980s, average CEO pay in the U.S. was about 50 times that of average worker pay. In Germany, Canada, and Japan, the ratio is less than 25 to 1. In the United States in recent years, on the other hand, that ratio has approached 500 to 1.

Thain is out, thank goodness. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating the bonus payments in Merrill Lynch. There is some accountability there, at least. U.S. representatives and taxpayers should make sure, though, that U.S. citizens do not subsidize the lavish lifestyles and obscene salaries of executives in companies that are receiving taxpayer money. Most of them are multimillionaires already. If they truly want to help the economy and the country (as most of them say they do), let them live on an average worker’s salary for a few years.

U.S. Economic Future Looks Bleak, Even With Bailout

A slightly revised version of my previous blog ("This sucker could go down") has been published in The Indianapolis Star (9/30/08), the day after the biggest stock market decline in U.S. history.

This Sucker Could Go Down

"This sucker could go down,” declared President Bush, after the White House leadership summit failed to reach agreement on a bailout plan for the financial services sector. The President is one of the last to recognize how bad the economic situation really is. But the U.S. economy has been tiptoeing on quicksand for years, and the current problems will not be solved quickly, even with an infusion of $700 billion, as the President proposes.

The root of the problem is this: the U.S. has been living on borrowed money for an entire generation; this debt has been serviced internally by a mushrooming but shaky financial services sector, and externally by foreign governments (especially the Chinese); and now both of these sources are evaporating. Whether or not the bailout package is approved, the U.S. economy and American consumers are going to take a bit hit.

First--the borrowed money. Both government and consumers have been spending beyond their means, almost continuously, for two decades. The federal government has had huge budget deficits every year since 1980, except for a few years during the Clinton presidency. The deficits have built the federal debt up to some $10 trillion, accounting for two-thirds of GDP, compared to only one-third in the 1970s. Next year’s budget deficit will add almost $500 billion to that debt. The bailout package will probably add another trillion dollars. Just the interest on the federal debt is one of the largest items in the federal budget, draining over $400 billion annually.

Government profligacy is matched by consumers: the household savings rate in the U.S. has been declining for two decades, is the lowest among all developed countries, and in 2005 fell below zero for the first time ever. Credit card and mortgage debt are both at record levels, as are bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures. Most Americans, even those near retirement age, have almost no retirement savings. The Social Security and Medicare “trust funds” are actually unfunded, to the tune of some $41 trillion. The government is unlikely to find resources to meet these liabilities, which will put further strains on seniors.

Consumer spending now accounts for two-thirds of all economic activity in the U.S. This growth in spending has been possible only by borrowing. The consumer spending and borrowing binge has been fueled by the growth of the financial services industry, which has increasingly replaced manufacturing as the mainstay of the U.S. economy. Banks, mortgage companies, loan agencies and credit card companies make their money by making loans, and they are constantly seeking new customers and encouraging existing ones to borrow more. It is this symbiotic relationship between binging consumers and profit seeking financial companies that has created the piles of consumer debt and subprime mortgages.

All of this is starting to unravel now. People borrowed more than they could afford; the mortgage crisis undercut their ability to repay loans and mortgages; the banks and loan agencies faced mounting defaults and declining profits and stock prices. Banks are increasingly unable or unwilling to extend loans to businesses or individuals, which will crimp both consumer spending and economic growth, accelerating the economic downturn.

The U.S. government is not really in a position to rescue bankrupt companies, because it is itself bankrupt. And just as the financial industry has been an enabler of consumer deficit spending, foreign governments have enabled the U.S. government to spend more than it brings in, by buying up U.S. debt. Over half of U.S. debt is now owned by foreigners—compared to just 5 percent that was owned by foreigners twenty years ago. The biggest outside holder of U.S. debt is the government of China. Holding such debt only makes sense if you are sure you can redeem the funds when you need to. As you can imagine, foreign governments and banks are increasingly worried about this, and have already started shifting such investments to other countries, and other currencies, especially the euro. This is one of the reasons for the sharp drop in the value of the dollar, to record low levels against the euro and other currencies.

So this $700 billion bailout, as large as it is, will only scratch the surface of these multiple dimensions of debt and economic weakness. We cannot continue to grow, based on borrowing against the future. The domestic financial pot is empty, and our foreign enablers are wising up. The economy will contract, our standard of living will decline, and more people will join the ranks of the poor and unemployed. This sucker could go down. The U.S. is in for tough times.

CEO Pay and the Bailout

Even in Congress, a lot of people are concerned that President Bush’s proposed $700 billion bailout for the financial sector will unduly benefit the superrich CEOs who contributed so much to this mess in the first place. Most Americans are appalled by the bloated CEO compensations that we occasionally hear about.

But maybe you didn’t hear about the CEO pay for the very firms that are most in the news these days.Last year, for example, AIG’s Martin Sullivan received compensation of $13.9 million, including a performance based bonus of $5.6 million. And this was after a 50% cut in his compensation from 2006! Who topped the list of CEO compensation in 2007? John Thain of Merrill Lynch, another failed enterprise. His compensation in 2007 was $83.1 million.

These amounts are breathtaking, but most people don’t realize, I think, how much this has changed over the last twenty years, and how out of line US CEO salaries are with those in other countries. I raise this in my book, in Chapter 2 on “The End of Affluence and Equality,” which I excerpt here:

In the 1950s, big-company CEOs in the U.S. earned about fifty times the pay of an average worker. Even then, that ratio was very high compared to other countries. But since then, CEO pay in the U.S. has skyrocketed in comparison to average salaries. By 1990, average CEO pay was about 100 times the average worker’s salary, and by 2000, it was more than 500 times that of the average worker.

These benefit packages are far out of line with those in other wealthy countries.

In 2004, the New York Times reported comparative ratios of CEO pay to employee averages. In Japan, CEOs earned about ten times that of the average employee. In Germany, the ratio was 11 to 1, in the UK 25 to 1, and in the United States, 531 to 1! It is difficult to see how American companies can justify these huge executive compensations when these other countries, which much smaller CEO pay, have generally managed faster economic growth, greater productivity increases, and greater gains in their stock markets.

CEO pay is another glaring example of how far out of kilter the U.S. economy is, how eroded is the sense of fairness in this country, and how out of sync the U.S. is with the rest of the world. It is yet another example of The End of the American Century.