PDA

View Full Version : AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs



dfk
12-21-2008, 03:16 PM
AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs

By FRANK BASS and RITA BEAMISH, Associated Press Writers

Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals.

The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government rescue. Some trimmed their executive compensation due to lagging bank performance, but still forked over multimillion-dollar executive pay packages.

Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal securities documents found.

The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines.

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services committee and a long-standing critic of executive largesse, said the bonuses tallied by the AP review amount to a bribe "to get them to do the jobs for which they are well paid in the first place.
"Most of us sign on to do jobs and we do them best we can," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. "We're told that some of the most highly paid people in executive positions are different. They need extra money to be motivated!"

The AP compiled total compensation based on annual reports that the banks file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 116 banks have so far received $188 billion in taxpayer help. Among the findings:
_The average paid to each of the banks' top executives was $2.6 million in salary, bonuses and benefits.
_Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company's top five executives received a total of $242 million.

This year, Goldman will forgo cash and stock bonuses for its seven top-paid executives. They will work for their base salaries of $600,000, the company said. Facing increasing concern by its own shareholders on executive payments, the company described its pay plan last spring as essential to retain and motivate executives "whose efforts and judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their compensation at appropriate and competitive levels." Goldman spokesman Ed Canaday declined to comment beyond that written report.

The New York-based company on Dec. 16 reported its first quarterly loss since it went public in 1999. It received $10 billion in taxpayer money on Oct. 28.

_Even where banks cut back on pay, some executives were left with seven- or eight-figure compensation that most people can only dream about. Richard D. Fairbank, the chairman of Capital One Financial Corp., took a $1 million hit in compensation after his company had a disappointing year, but still got $17 million in stock options. The McLean, Va.-based company received $3.56 billion in bailout money on Nov. 14.

_John A. Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $83 million in earnings last year. Thain, a former chief operating officer for Goldman Sachs, took the reins of the company in December 2007, avoiding the blame for a year in which Merrill lost $7.8 billion. Since he began work late in the year, he earned $57,692 in salary, a $15 million signing bonus and an additional $68 million in stock options.

Like Goldman, Merrill got $10 billion from taxpayers on Oct. 28.

The AP review comes amid sharp questions about the banks' commitment to the goals of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a law designed to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets. Last month, the Bush administration changed the program's goals, instructing the Treasury Department to pump tax dollars directly into banks in a bid to prevent wholesale economic collapse.
The program set restrictions on some executive compensation for participating banks, but did not limit salaries and bonuses unless they had the effect of encouraging excessive risk to the institution. Banks were barred from giving golden parachutes to departing executives and deducting some executive pay for tax purposes.

Banks that got bailout funds also paid out millions for home security systems, private chauffeured cars, and club dues. Some banks even paid for financial advisers. Wells Fargo of San Francisco, which took $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, gave its top executives up to $20,000 each to pay personal financial planners.

At Bank of New York Mellon Corp., chief executive Robert P. Kelly's stipend for financial planning services came to $66,748, on top of his $975,000 salary and $7.5 million bonus. His car and driver cost $178,879. Kelly also received $846,000 in relocation expenses, including help selling his home in Pittsburgh and purchasing one in Manhattan, the company said.

Goldman Sachs' tab for leased cars and drivers ran as high as $233,000 per executive. The firm told its shareholders this year that financial counseling and chauffeurs are important in giving executives more time to focus on their jobs.

JPMorgan Chase chairman James Dimon ran up a $211,182 private jet travel tab last year when his family lived in Chicago and he was commuting to New York. The company got $25 billion in bailout funds.

Banks cite security to justify personal use of company aircraft for some executives. But Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., questioned that rationale, saying executives visit many locations more vulnerable than the nation's security-conscious commercial air terminals.
Sherman, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said pay excesses undermine development of good bank economic policies and promote an escalating pay spiral among competing financial institutions — something particularly hard to take when banks then ask for rescue money.

He wants them to come before Congress, like the automakers did, and spell out their spending plans for bailout funds.
"The tougher we are on the executives that come to Washington, the fewer will come for a bailout," he said.

chefjavier
12-21-2008, 04:03 PM
AP IMPACT: Wall Street still flying corporate jets
Dec 21, 2008 2:37 PM EST
NEW YORK - Crisscrossing the country in corporate jets may no longer fly in Detroit after car executives got a dressing down from Congress. But on Wall Street, the coveted executive perk has hardly been grounded.

Six financial firms that received billions in bailout dollars still own and operate fleets of jets to carry executives to company events and sometimes personal trips, according to an Associated Press review.

The jets serve as airborne offices, time-savers for executives for whom time is money - lots of money. And some firms are cutting back, either by selling the planes or leasing them.

Still, Wall Street's reliance of the rarified mode of travel has largely escaped the scorn poured on the Big Three automakers.

Insurance giant American International Group Inc., which has received about $150 billion in bailout money, has one of the largest fleets among bailout recipients, with seven planes, according to a review of Federal Aviation Administration records.

"Our aircraft are being used very sparingly right now," AIG spokesman Nicholas J. Ashooh said. "I'm not saying there's no use, but there's very minimal use."

To cut costs, AIG sold two jets earlier this year and is selling or canceling orders for four others.

Five other financial companies that got a combined $120 billion in government cash injections - Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley - all own aircraft for executive travel, according to regulatory filings earlier this year and interviews.

A cross-country trip in a mid-sized jet costs about $20,000 for fuel. Maintenance, storage and pilot fees put the cost far higher.

Many U.S. companies are giving up the perk. The inventory of used private jets was up 52 percent as of September, according to recent JPMorgan data on the health of the private aircraft industry.

A few big U.S. companies have shunned jet ownership. Chip maker Intel Corp., for example, requires executives and employees to fly commercial. Intel occasionally charters jets for executives on overseas trips for security reasons, though.

For automakers, the public relations nightmare exploded last month when the chief executives of Ford, GM and Chrysler were criticized for flying on corporate jets to Washington to ask Congress for federal bailout money.

"Couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled, or something, to get here?" Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., asked the CEOs.

When the executives went back to Capitol Hill two weeks later for a second round of hearings, they traveled by car.

So why were Wall Street executives spared from the corporate-jet backlash? One reason is that they didn't have to go before Congress to request bailout money, so no one asked how they traveled to Washington.

But an AP review of Securities and Exchange Commission filings and FAA records offers a glimpse of Wall Street firms' ownership and use of private aircraft. Among the findings:

- CITIGROUP: Has a wholly owned subsidiary, Citiflight Inc., that handles air travel for executives. Citi spokeswoman Shannon Bell refused to comment on the size of the firm's fleet but said it has been reduced by two-thirds over the past eight years. FAA records show four jets and a helicopter registered to the company.

In 2007, then-CEO Charles Prince used company aircraft for personal trips for security reasons. Those trips cost the company $170,972 for that year. Current CEO Vikram Pandit began reimbursing the company for all personal travel on company planes since being appointed in November 2007.

Use of Citigroup's aircraft currently is confined to a "limited number of executives," Bell said. "Executives are encouraged to fly commercial whenever possible to reduce expenses."

- MORGAN STANLEY: Has reduced its executive jet fleet size from three planes to two since 2005, company spokesman Mark Lake said. FAA records show two Gulfstream G-Vs as registered to the company.

In 2007, CEO John Mack's personal use of company aircraft totaled $355,882, according to a February proxy filing. Mack is required to use company aircraft for personal trips for security reasons.

- JPMORGAN: Registered as the owner of four Gulfstream jets, including a 2007 ultra-long range flagship G550 model, FAA records show. A G550 ordered for delivery that year would have cost roughly $47.5 million.

CEO Jamie Dimon is required to use company aircraft for personal trips; In 2007, his personal use of company jets totaled $211,182, according to a May filing with the SEC. Company spokesman Joe Evangelisti refused to comment on whether the bank has changed its policy on corporate aircraft use since accepting $25 billion in TARP money.

- BANK OF AMERICA: Registered as the owner of nine planes, including four Gulfstreams, FAA records show. Company spokesman Scott Silvestri refused to say whether the company has changed its policy on corporate aircraft use since taking $15 billion in bailout money.

CEO Kenneth Lewis, also required to use company aircraft for personal trips, racked up $127,643 in such travel last year, according to a March filing with the SEC.

- WELLS FARGO: Owns a single jet that "is strictly for business purposes under appropriate circumstances," spokeswoman Julia Tunis Bernard said. "No (government) funds will be used for corporate jet travel," she added.

SEC rules require publicly held companies to disclose executives' personal use of corporate aircraft. But there's "a lot of gray area" in how they do it, said David Yermack, a finance professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University who has studied the matter.

"If you use the plane for a personal trip but make one business call, should you report it?" he said. "Or if you're playing golf with potential business partners, does a company report that as business or personal?"

As mounting losses force companies to cut costs, some are becoming stingier about personal use of the company plane. Merrill Lynch & Co., for example, has banned such trips, according to company filings.

Experts say other companies that took bailout money will probably follow suit.

"The personal use of these planes is virtually indefensible at this point," said Patrick McGurn, special counsel at shareholder advisory firm RiskMetrics Group. "Once you're on the federal dole, the pressure is going to become immense on these firms to cut these costs."

Private jet manufacturers say the debate over executive travel has been overblown.

"What people don't understand is that business jets are mobile offices," said Robert N. Baugniet, Gulfstream's director of corporate communications. "If time has any value to you, then you'll understand why people use business jets."

He said the dustup hasn't hurt orders for new planes.

Still, some firms have avoided corporate jet ownership. Goldman Sachs Group, whose executives in past years have been among the highest-paid in the industry, has never owned its own aircraft since going public in 1999, spokesman Michael DuVally said.

The company does make private planes available to some executives through a fractional jet agreement, a timeshare-style arrangement, according to filings. Duvally refused to say how much the company spends on its fractional agreement.

Wary of being perceived as opulent, most companies fly in unmarked jets. Aviation buffs can usually track planes over the Internet using aircraft tail numbers. But many companies, including AIG and Citigroup, have blocked the public's ability to do so for security reasons.

Some corporate chieftains make no excuses for flying the private skies.

After years of railing against such costs, billionaire investor and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. CEO Warren Buffet broke down in 1989 and bought a Gulfstream IV-SP using $9.7 million in company funds. He named the aircraft "The Indefensible."

Romulus
12-21-2008, 04:29 PM
I have to stop reading these articles. I get so pissed off every time I do. It's amazing that everyone just accepts this **** as the "norm". We should be holding all our Reps accountable for every f**king penny that is being spent by these bailed out companies. I've emailed my Congresswoman and Senators numerous times and I would hope everyone does the same. Otherwise this **** will continue until we bailout every f**king irresponsible business in this country.

deagle
12-21-2008, 04:37 PM
so this is why are taxes are increasing and we have to pay them every year. meanwhile, private purchases made by sleazebag CEO's are tax-deductibled. capitalism and govt at its best. ..... the corruption in our country knows no bounds....

SBL
12-21-2008, 05:28 PM
Links, please.

-edit-
thanks.

dfk
12-21-2008, 05:47 PM
link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_bi_ge/executive_bailouts


AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs

By FRANK BASS and RITA BEAMISH, Associated Press Writers

dfk
12-21-2008, 05:59 PM
Links, please.

-edit-
thanks.

Check the link, please report back if there is a difference.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_bi_ge/executive_bailouts

Gat0r
12-21-2008, 06:59 PM
I doubt contacting your representatives will do any good, they don't serve us anymore, they answer to the special interests, corporations, and the counterfeiter known as the Federal Reserve, its pretty obvious.

America needs to realize that to understand why this country has implemented (years ago) and continuely expands fascist collectivsm we need to take a look at our monetary system that is the root cause.

Gat0r
12-21-2008, 07:13 PM
so this is why are taxes are increasing and we have to pay them every year. meanwhile, private purchases made by sleazebag CEO's are tax-deductibled. capitalism and govt at its best. ..... the corruption in our country knows no bounds....

Deagle blaming capitalism for this is not correct. Free market capitalism died back in the early 1900's with the implementation of the Federal Reserve system. Goverment has through the Fed taken over this nations banking system and its issuance of money. Don't forget that the centralization of a nations credit is one of the pillars of the communist platform.

In a true free market capitalistic society money is chosen by society in the form of a commodity and is left to the device of the market. The market is the natural regulator and decides which business's are profitable and which ones arent this leads to that company going under. What we are seeing is the disasterous consequences of goverment intervention, they are rejecting the process of the market and deciding who the winners and losers are. This is corporate socialism.

chefjavier
12-21-2008, 08:29 PM
Deagle blaming capitalism for this is not correct. Free market capitalism died back in the early 1900's with the implementation of the Federal Reserve system. Goverment has through the Fed taken over this nations banking system and its issuance of money. Don't forget that the centralization of a nations credit is one of the pillars of the communist platform.

In a true free market capitalistic society money is chosen by society in the form of a commodity and is left to the device of the market. The market is the natural regulator and decides which business's are profitable and which ones arent this leads to that company going under. What we are seeing is the disasterous consequences of goverment intervention, they are rejecting the process of the market and deciding who the winners and losers are. This is corporate socialism.
You are right with that statement. But the Goverment made changes in banking system in the great depression in 40"s but somehow it was change in the Clinton year's and now,the banking system when down hill.

notherhen40
12-22-2008, 03:47 AM
so this is why are taxes are increasing and we have to pay them every year. meanwhile, private purchases made by sleazebag CEO's are tax-deductibled. capitalism and govt at its best. ..... the corruption in our country knows no bounds....

Its time the people rose against the government. Civil war.

walford
12-23-2008, 01:48 AM
Deagle blaming capitalism for this is not correct. Free market capitalism died back in the early 1900's with the implementation of the Federal Reserve system. Goverment has through the Fed taken over this nations banking system and its issuance of money. Don't forget that the centralization of a nations credit is one of the pillars of the communist platform.

In a true free market capitalistic society money is chosen by society in the form of a commodity and is left to the device of the market. The market is the natural regulator and decides which business's are profitable and which ones arent this leads to that company going under. What we are seeing is the disasterous consequences of goverment intervention, they are rejecting the process of the market and deciding who the winners and losers are. This is corporate socialism.Yes, that's true, since the Progressive Era policies such as the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax, we have been living under National Socialism, which is basically private property under government control. Now it is nearly impossible to attain economic success w/o political pull, nor is it possible to gain political influence w/o significant financial backing.

This is an aristocracy of pressure groups; it certainly isn't an excess of economic freedom.

That being said, I would think that these banker's bonus packages would be contingent upon the company's performance. How is it that they can justify paying bonuses to executives who preside over losses? If they claim to want to attract competent people, why are they paying the demonstrably incompetent ones so much? Oh, yes, political pull.

Telmar
12-23-2008, 02:01 AM
...

In a true free market capitalistic society money is chosen by society in the form of a commodity and is left to the device of the market. The market is the natural regulator and decides which business's are profitable and which ones arent this leads to that company going under. What we are seeing is the disasterous consequences of goverment intervention, they are rejecting the process of the market and deciding who the winners and losers are. This is corporate socialism.

The market is not a law of physics. It is composed of people, who mess up, who compete against each other, who can get greedy, who can be corrupted.

Frankly, this on the contrary shows a total collapse of the financial and banking sector's ability to control itself in a set of very loose rules.

Saying that does not say you blame capitalism, it just says that some rules have to be in place because people are not machines or electronic particles.

walford
12-23-2008, 07:16 AM
The market is not a law of physics. It is composed of people, who mess up, who compete against each other, who can get greedy, who can be corrupted.

Frankly, this on the contrary shows a total collapse of the financial and banking sector's ability to control itself in a set of very loose rules.

Saying that does not say you blame capitalism, it just says that some rules have to be in place because people are not machines or electronic particles.The problem is, the people who make up the cadre of politicians and bureaucrats are no different from businessmen.

All you're doing is injecting political pull into business decisions and creating crony capitalism. Mixing economic power with political power is retrograde, not 'progressive'. That is how things worked under the medieval system.

Free markets are not pretty, but the fact of the matter is, when people are left to determine their own wants and needs it is far less likely that the poor decisions of a few can infect the entire system. Only government can cause that to happen.

Let us not forget that the real estate crisis was created by a number of government-run institutions that was spurred on by National Socialists who decided that people who could not otherwise get mortgages had a 'right' to home ownership. Warnings that this bubble would burst were sneeringly dismissed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo

And the auto crisis was certainly created in part by laws that made it nearly impossible for workers to opt out of being in the labor unions, which priced themselves out of the market.

They have accepted lowered wages, but if I am not mistaken, the number of workers who are supporting pensioners is currently 1:10.

Blue_0
12-23-2008, 11:16 AM
I do believe that it is time to bring the guillotine back into vogue.

PeterG
12-23-2008, 12:55 PM
When a nation like the US now only cares about the interests of the rich and the corporations, ignoring even the basic needs of the people, i don't call it 'socialism' - i call it capitalism gone wild. The US is corrupt to the core, to the extent that only the rich, or those who the rich support, can be elected for office. This help insure that the policy of only doing what is in the interest of the rich and the corporations, continue.

It was a stroke of genius to plant the idea in many ordinary americans, that anyone who questions this system must be a dangerous commie..

walford
12-23-2008, 01:40 PM
When a nation like the US now only cares about the interests of the rich and the corporations, ignoring even the basic needs of the people, i don't call it 'socialism' - i call it capitalism gone wild. The US is corrupt to the core, to the extent that only the rich, or those who the rich support, can be elected for office. This help insure that the policy of only doing what is in the interest of the rich and the corporations, continue.

It was a stroke of genius to plant the idea in many ordinary americans, that anyone who questions this system must be a dangerous commie..What is going on in the US is far from an excess of economic freedom. Kindly review my previous posts.

CPLHUNTER
12-23-2008, 01:45 PM
There's nothing surprising about how the bailout $ has been wasted or not even spend in terms of providing new loans.

We talk about this until we are blue in the face, but there has to be a tipping point where Americans as a collective whole stand up against this corrupt system. It's time for a political revolution, I'm just afraid of how many of us are just too comfortable in our own lives to actually act against this corruption.