Andrew Torgan
CNN Financial News Producer
Officials in Washington today launched their biggest offensive yet in the war on runaway pay practices in the financial industry, targeting everyone from corporate executives to high-flying traders of complex securities.
The Federal Reserve proposed a sweeping review of pay policies at 28 of the nation's largest banks as part of an effort to make sure employees are not tempted to make the kinds of bets that could put their company at risk of going under.
The central bank said it also planned to review compensation practices at the thousands of regional lenders that make up the bulk of the nation’s banking industry as part of its standard review process.
Separately, the Obama Administration's so-called “pay czar,” Kenneth Feinberg, unveiled sweeping pay cuts for 136 top executives at the seven biggest companies that received a bailout.
Feinberg is demanding that AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, Chrysler, General Motors, GMAC and Chrysler Financial slash compensation packages for their top 25 most highly-compensated employees by about 50%.
The bulk of those cuts will come from annual salaries, which are expected to fall 90% on average.
Today’s developments represent what is perhaps the most sweeping push yet by Washington to rein in Wall Street’s pay practices. But some compensation experts warn that the actions could have a disastrous series of unintended consequences, including the loss of top employees to companies that are not subject to government restrictions.
What about Goldman?
But the moves by Feinberg, appointed the Treasury's “Special Master for Compensation” in June, will not impact other financial giants like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley - firms that are on track to pay out record bonuses this year.
Revenue projections for those firms keep rising, and analysts say bonuses will be back on track for another record year following a one-year nosedive in 2008. Goldman Sachs said just last week that it set aside $16.7 billion for salaries, employee stock options and bonuses. That works out to about $526,814 for each and every one of Goldman’s more than 30,000 employees.
How is this possible? Or for that matter even legal?
The more than 600 companies that have received capital investments from the $700 billion bailout are subject to executive compensation curbs, including limits on perks and golden parachutes.
Companies like Goldman and JPMorgan, however, have paid the government back the billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money they received, so they’re no longer under the Treasury’s thumb.
Jobless claims jump
The number of first-time filers for unemployment insurance rose last week, snapping two weeks of significant declines.
There were 531,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended Oct. 17, up 11,000 from an upwardly revised 520,000 the previous week, the Labor Department said in a weekly report. The week included the Columbus Day holiday.
In addition, the number of people who continue to collect benefits for one week or more fell by 98,000 to 5,923,000.
So why are continuing claims falling while initial claims are rising?
That’s because about 7,000 people a day exhaust their unemployment benefits. In fact, more than 200,000 people will fall off the rolls in October alone - and 1.3 million will lose their benefits before year's end - if Congress doesn't take action.
And one month after the House passed a bill extending unemployment benefits, the issue is still being debated in the Senate.
Democratic leaders in the Senate introduced a bill two weeks ago to lengthen benefits in all states by 14 weeks. Those that live in states with unemployment greater than 8.5% would receive an additional six weeks.
Senate Republicans want to add several amendments, including one that would pay for the extra benefits with stimulus funds rather than by extending a federal unemployment tax.
Leaders in both parties are now trying to negotiate a compromise.
Follow the money… on Twitter: @AndrewTorganCNN
| alex lyrics |
October 22nd, 2009 4:26 pm ET These CEO's should be paying us back |
|
| Keith |
October 22nd, 2009 4:29 pm ET What ever happen to caring about the people. What ever happen to being responsible for your actions. What ever happen to that? I don't for ONE second believe these companies will lose "top talent" by limiting pay. If anything it will clean away the crooks. Why won't the "top talent" stand up for something other than a paycheck? In a time of need, you they should come to serve your country. After all, how many of these "top talent" individuals are enlisted in the military? P.S. I've ridden on Sumner's Jet and its great. But a little unnecessary. |
|
| Philoan M. Tran - Houston |
October 22nd, 2009 4:50 pm ET It's about time for tougher regulations in the financial industry! But there needs to be more regulations to deter high-risk taking by these executives. Unfortunately Goldman Sachs and JP Chase are exempted even though they help to contribute to the financial meltdown and received the benefits of taxpayers' bailout. Something is definitely wrong to reward that kind of bad behavior! |
|
| revolution |
October 22nd, 2009 6:20 pm ET Since the pay czar is making policies for the President what use do we have for Congress. He has no legal grounds for this. The president doesn't have the authority to cut, limit, or collect any money, taxes or duty from anyone. Since when does a private citizen have the authority to speak for President or the FED GOV. He not an elected official of anything. |
|
| Cindy L'heureux |
October 22nd, 2009 6:25 pm ET Yes; the CEO's should be paying us back. The government helps these banks and or financial institutions out with tax payers money. How and why is this happening? CEO's robbing the american public, while people are losing their homes, jobs, living out in the streets, wondering where their next meal is coming from. It's not right. And the employment situation in this country is getting worse not better. So these stimulus packages how are they helping? Not helping the blue collar worker. |
|
| Diane Williams |
October 22nd, 2009 6:45 pm ET If those companies are so worried about offerring competitve salaries as a result of the mandated reductions, maybe they should consider that, in lieu of a single exec's $38 million salary package, they could hire 76 employees at an average salary of $500K. Now, what are they complaining about – they would add jobs, and probably have better quality employees who may actually perform! |
|
|
Comments have been closed for this article |
||
A behind the scenes look at “Anderson Cooper 360°” and the stories it covers, written by Anderson Cooper, the AC360° staff and a network of contributors. Insight you can’t find anywhere else.
We search the news each day to show you what’s on our radar and what we’re planning for the show each night.
For more details, read our tips on how to win 360° approval for comments.
Send your instant feedback to Anderson Cooper 360°.
- The global sea-level rise: How melting glaciers and ice sheets matter
- Beat 360° 12/8/09
- Can the Federal Government really create jobs?
- Video: Self-help gone wrong
- The future of journalism in the world's most dangerous place for journalists
- Dear President Obama #323: The growing heat over climategate
- Millions in U.S. drink dirty water, records show
- CNN Poll: Optimism on economy fading
- A place haunted by Lennon's murder
- Rape and murder, funded by cell phones
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2005

