Am I the only one amused that the SEC still has this much power? Still has any power? Still has offices? Still is being supplied with electricity?
A little-noticed ruling by the Securities and Exchange Commission is setting the stage for shareholders to further question the compensation packages doled out to executives at banks that received rescue cash from Uncle Sam.
On Friday the agency gave the OK to a group of investors that wants to put to a shareholder vote a proposal to impose stricter pay caps than those the feds have outlined for executives at Birmingham, Ala.-based Regions Financial, which got $3.5 billion from the Trouble Asset Relief Program.
The SEC’s move may spell trouble for banks that have received TARP funds and have been targeted by shareholders for change, including Bank of America, American Express and Fifth-Third Bancorp.
Didn’t someone take away their remote control already and shut down the phones?
SEC OKs Stockholder Input At Firms Getting Tarp Funds [The New York Post]
ep – nice. I smell the ghost of chris cox’s “don’t short me bro!” mug…
Ironic is it not?
Why are we so worried about how we pay corporate America, when we are still paying the SEC to fail at their job everyday….
How do I know if I am the new killing it?
I think at this point if you’ve still got a work email address, you’re pretty much killing it.
Then I am killing it, Old Skool!
So, if it hasn’t happened already, when do we start seeing all the old bank execs start new banks to skirt all the TARP-related regulation and whatnot? It seems this is indeed the Government’s plan, and they are providing every incentive possible to ensure it happens, sooner rather than later.
But do they still have boats?
Gaspadingding’s back door is always open. Who want’s a whiff?
CG
Shouldn’t all execs that receive welfare money be subject to the caps, like AIG, GM, Fannie, Freddie, ect…? Why just the banks.
@9, only banks are evil. Therefore they must suffer.
Isn’t this more a case of the SEC deciding NOT to overextend its authority? It’s the bank’s owners imposing the pay caps, not the government.
@6
We need creative destruction. That’s a start.
And $3.5 Billion is not small change. Makes you wonder how healthy Regions Financial of Birmingham, Alabama really is.
Also, shareholders will sue if a bank refuses TARP money or returns it prematurely because of any hint the executives want to get out with the loot. (Not that it’s going to happen.) In that case the shareholders wouldn’t need the SEC involved, just the services of a hungry law firm.
The government is the bank’s owner.
Link to SEC document?
EP,
While I understand the audience to which you’re writing (pandering), I enjoy playing a little game of “what if?” every now and again. Surely you’ll play along?
What if Wall Street had shown itself to have a modicum of restraint with regard to executive compensation? No AIG spa trips with TARP money, no lavish bonuses, no trips to Vegas, and maybe even a bit of modesty considering how poorly things have turned out?
What if Wall Street had actually managed risk instead of actively seeking it out with zeal not witnessed since Nick Nolte’s last horse tranquilizer-induced “hooker hunt”?
What if Wall Street made some attempt to regulate itself (I know I’m being overly idealistic with this one) such that Madoff, Stanford Financial, and the dozens of other scandals that continue to dominate news cycles had been tempered in scale. God forbid anyone address blatant conflicts of interest until after they blow up.
What if Spitzer wasn’t banging hookers?
What if SS wasn’t fighting zoning regulators over proposed expansions to Mt. Schwarzman?
What if the ratings agencies didn’t rubber stamp shit with “AAA” while simultaneously sending intra-office emails about how they can’t make heads or tails of the nonsensical instruments they’re covering?
The answer, of course, is that the government/SEC would never have been able to pull off such a power grab in the first place. It simply would not have been politically feasible.
It’s really a lot like kids in a sandbox when you stop to think about it. Dad (the government/SEC) is content to let the children be so long as you’re playing nice, or at the very least, not annoying the rest of the people in the park. When the children start setting stuff on fire, snorting the sand, hitting each other with the shovels and etcetera…play time is over. Never more so than when mom (the tax payers) is the one that pays for the hospital bills, lawsuits, and property damage (tax payers fund the bail-outs) that invariably arise when things get out of hand. Suffice it to say that dad doesn’t want mom to be upset.
While dad (again representing the govt./SEC) was off playing with himself in the men’s room (he’s not getting any love because mom is still upset about what the children did back in 2000), Wall Street’s children have again pissed in their sandbox. As it appears, Wall Street’s children have also pissed in mom and dad’s bed, spray painted graffiti on the basketball court, broke an old lady’s hip, stoned the ducks in the pond, kidnapped a toddler, set an old man’s dog on fire, stole some baseball bats from the little league team and then vandalized cars in the parking lot with the stolen bats (homeowners got screwed, pension funds are screwed, individual retirement funds are screwed, unemployment is high, viable businesses are now facing unprecedented credit constraints, etc.).
Rather than apologizing and then volunteering to make things right as best they can, Wall Street’s children, not unlike any horde of unruly school children, have opted instead to spit in the very faces of those they have harmed during their little bender. Dad has once again been embarrassed by the reign of terror his little hellions visited upon the other park goers (plus he’ll never get any love from mom if he can’t take care of the kids). Mom even wants the children to get spanked. Traditionally mom would rely on dad to be the disciplinarian, but now she’s losing confidence in her husband’s abilities. She’s desperately hoping that a little corporal punishment might straighten out her band of misfits. Even so, all dad intends to do is cap the children’s allowance for a bit. Mom thinks dad’s a pussy.
Now Wall Street’s children are complaining that dad’s punishment (and I use that term very loosely here) is unfair. The children plead that mom just doesn’t get it (as evidenced by her allowing such a travesty as the docking of their allowance to occur) and besides, it’s all dad’s fault for not keeping a closer eye on the children to begin with…even though the children consistently purport themselves to be smarter than mom and dad could ever hope to be.
What if Wall Street got reacquainted with reality?