Nine US banks asked to justify bonuses
Waxman demands US global banks explain billions in employee remuneration
WASHINGTON, DC – In letters to nine US banks, Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has demanded they justify billions of dollars in compensation and bonuses paid out after they accepted $125 billion as part of a taxpayer-funded bail-out.
In the letter, sent to Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, State Street and Wells Fargo, Waxman said they collectively will pay $108 billion in employee compensation and bonuses in the first nine months of this year, almost the same amount as last year.
“I question the appropriateness of depleting the capital that taxpayers have just injected into the banks through the payment of billions of dollars in bonuses, especially after one of the financial industry's worst years on record,” Waxman wrote. He also referred to a Bloomberg News article of October 27 that detailed how Goldman, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch had already accrued $20 billion to pay bonuses this year.
Waxman wants banks to divulge their total company compensation arrangements, including the average compensation for each employee broken down by salaries, bonuses, and benefits, as well as the number of employees paid or projected to be paid more than $500,000 in each year from 2006 to 2008. Waxman has asked the firms to supply the information by November 10.
Goldman Sachs indicated that it will co-operate with Waxman’s request, while a Citigroup spokesperson confirmed the bank would “adhere to the requirements in the government programme, including restrictions on executive compensation”.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Treasury clearing timeline ‘too aggressive’ says BofA rates head
Sifma gears up for extension talks with incoming SEC and Treasury officials
Rostin Behnam’s unfinished business
Next CFTC chair must finish the work Behnam started on crypto regulation and conflicts of interest
European Commission in ‘listening mode’ on potential FRTB changes
Delay or relief measures on the table after UK postpones start of Basel III to 2027
Australian FRTB projects slow down amid scheduling uncertainty
Market risk experts think Apra might soften NMRF regime to spur internal model adoption
EBA to address double-counting caused by new capital floor
Existing EU capital add-ons for model risk would duplicate new Basel floor on internal models
The Emir error reports that cost banks millions
Dealers lambast onerous EU requirement to notify clients of all errors and omissions
Basel stops short on wrong-way risk
New guidelines a step in right direction, but experts warn they won’t prevent another Archegos
Trump 2.0 bank supervision: simpler but no soft touch?
Republican FDIC vice-chair Travis Hill wants more focus on financial risk instead of process