Business

Showers (AM and PM) 5° London Hi 10°C / Lo 6°C

'Here's the problem... people really hate you,' US bankers told

Wall Street's most powerful figures yesterday faced Congress to explain why taxpayers' money is being spent on bonuses, jets and junkets. Stephen Foley reports

It took lawmakers three hours to hear the word that the US public has been demanding for months, but it came first out of the mouth of John Mack, the chief executive of Morgan Stanley.

"If we could play the clock over again, we would do it differently," he said. "I'm especially sorry for what has happened to shareholders, and as a knock-on effect of that, what has happened to the American people. I take that responsibility for my firm."

Mr Mack and seven other of the most powerful men on Wall Street had been summoned to Washington to face lawmakers who, channelling public fury, assailed them over their bonuses and the recklessness that had brought the financial system to the edge of collapse.

What exactly, Republicans and Democrats alike demanded, did the US taxpayer have to show for the $176bn (£123bn) in bailout money that has been pumped into their eight firms since last October, without causing a notable increase in lending and alleviating the squeeze on businesses and consumers who need credit?

Announcing the hearings last week, Barney Frank, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said that public patience with Wall Street bailouts had worn thin.

"As I've said to a couple of the bankers, 'Here's this problem: People really hate you, and they're starting to hate us because we're hanging out with you,'" Mr Frank said.

Yesterday, he urged them to be "cooperative, not grudgingly, not doing the minimum" as the US government seeks to impose a new culture of responsibility on an industry that has become known for its enormous pay packets, corporate jets and lavish junkets.

"Understating that there is substantial public anger and alleviating that public anger not with mumbo jumbo but with reality is essential if we're going to have the support in the country to take the right steps," Mr Frank said.

Public anger boiled over last month when it was revealed that the total amount of bonuses paid out to staff for 2008 was $18.4bn – a figure that prompted President Barack Obama to describe the pay-outs as "shameful" while banks were being propped up by taxpayer money, and led him to impose a pay cap of $500,000 on executives of banks that need more emergency cash.

"It is abundantly clear that we are here amidst broad public anger at our industry," Lloyd Blankfein, the head of Goldman Sachs, said.

The chief executives before Congress included Vikram Pandit, the head of Citigroup, which received government guarantees of more than $300bn after coming close to collapse in December.

Mr Pandit made $216m when Citigroup bought his hedge fund business to lure him to a top job at the company and paid him bonuses to sign on as chief executive in 2007.

Yesterday, he took the lead in promising that Wall Street understands the new realities of life with the government as a significant investor. "I've told my board of directors that my salary should be $1 per year with no bonus until we return to profitability," he said. "We will hold ourselves accountable and that starts with me," he said.

Outside the House of Representatives office building where the hearing took place, about a dozen protesters taunted Bank of America's Ken Lewis. "Hey, Ken Lewis, feel our pain," they chanted.

"I feel more like corporal of the universe, not captain of the universe at this moment," Mr Lewis said inside, after coming under intense questioning from the California Democrat Maxine Waters.

Lawmakers' opening statements reflected public outrage over the economic crisis, but the questioning stayed mostly civil, in contrast to a grilling last week by many of the same lawmakers of securities regulators over Bernard Madoff's alleged fraud.

The intensity was dialled up as the hearing went into the afternoon, however. A Massachusetts congressman said that he wondered why the bank bosses hadn't been prosecuted. "I have some constituents who have robbed your banks, and they say the same thing, they say they are sorry, they didn't mean it, they won't do it again if you'll only let me out."

One by one the executives said that they did not take a bonus for 2008 and would not be having a salary increase this year. Between them, the eight took home around $400m in 2007, the last year for which figures have been published.

All the talk about bonuses triggered Mr Frank's ire, prompting him to demand why they needed bonuses at all when a good salary would do. "At your level, why do you need bonuses?" he demanded. "This notion that you need some special incentive to do the right thing troubles people."

"It's complicated," Mr Mack replied, citing the risks involved, the global nature of the banking business and the size of the companies. "If you gave me no bonus for the best year, I'd still be here."

South Carolina Republican Gresham Barrett said: "My folks simply have not seen the evidence that the money you were given is working or making their lives better."

But the executives insisted that money from the Wall Street bailout fund – known as the troubled asset relief programme, or Tarp – is being lent out into the real economy. "Make no mistake: We are still lending, and we are lending far more because of the Tarp," Mr Lewis said.

"The American people are right to expect that we use Tarp funds responsibly, quickly and transparently," Mr Pandit said.

In the dock: The bank bosses facing the music

Vikram Pandit

Vikram Pandit replaced Charles Prince, who left Citigroup in November 2007. The bank's shares have fallen by 79 per cent since 13 October and Citigroup, which required an emergency bailout in November after market panic on its prospects, has so far received around $45bn from the US Treasury. Pandit is foregoing his bonus for 2008, but will still earn more than $400,000.

Jamie Dimon

Jamie Dimon, chairman and chief executive of JP Morgan, joined the bank in 2004 when it bought rival Bank One, which he led. He was paid $1m a year in both 2006 and 2007 and turned down his bonus for 2008. JP Morgan has accepted about $25bn of US government bailout money, though it has emerged from the crisis stronger than some rivals, having absorbed the failed Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual last year.

Kenneth Lewis

Kenneth Lewis, Bank of America's CEO, was hailed for his acquisition of Merrill Lynch last year, but may have been better off doing more due diligence. Bank of America shares have fallen 76 per cent since mid-October, to a large extent on the back of write-downs related to Merrill. Bank of America has so far received $45bn in bailout assistance from the US Treasury. Lewis earned $24.8m incompensation in 2007.

Lloyd Blankfein

Lloyd Blankfein succeeded former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson as CEO of Goldman Sachs in 2006. Goldman Sachs shares have fallen 19 per cent since October 13 and the bank has so far received $10bn from the US Treasury. Blankfein earned a record $70m in compensation in 2007, though he and other top Goldman executives were among the first on Wall Street todecline bonuses for 2008.

John Mack

John Mackbecame CEO of the New York-based investment bank Morgan Stanley in 2005. He then presided over the expansion of trading and privateinvesting. Mack has kept the bank on its feet by securing $9bn from Japan's Mitsubishi UFJ Financial. Morgan Stanley has also received $10bn from the US Treasury. Mack has given up bonuses for the past two years but earned $1.6m in 2007.

Robert Kelly

Bank of New York boss Robert Kelly was CEO of Mellon Financial Corporation from February 2006 until its merger with BoNY in 2007. Bank of New York shares have fallen about 15per cent since mid-October, making it one of the better-performing US banks in the period. Even so, Bank of New York has received $3bn from the US Treasury. Kelly earned $20.1m in total compensation in 2007.

John Stumpf

John Stumpf became CEO of the historic US bank Wells Fargo in June 2007, just as the credit crunchbegan. In 2000, he oversaw Wells Fargo'sacquisition of First Security Corp, and last year spearheaded its acquisition of Wachovia. Wells Fargo shares have fallen 46 per cent since mid-October, as the bank has received $25bn from Treasury. Mr Stumpf earned $22.9m in total compensation in 2007.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Shareholders are complaining?
[info]drg40 wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 10:11 am (UTC)
Excuse me, but the last time I saw the articles and memorandum of association of a company, the board were solely responsible for implementing the wishes of the shareholders.

It is the shareholders who are, above all, to blame for this mess. Never mind that so many of them are money crazed representatives of pension funds - and in these days of pension problems we know what they are going to opt for - who represent US. We, the mob, who are demanding the money.

I also do love the hypocrisy with which the media carry on about the salaries. A bloke gets half a week of a footballer's pay in a month and that's excessive. A TV presenter with a dirty mind gets a cool million a year and the MPs think GBP60,000 to a man working for his living is excessive? About time for a list of MP's TOTAL income, I fear, and lets see how far the hypocrisy goes.
Wells Fargo Bank and the bailout
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 02:21 pm (UTC)
Wells Fargo Bank is the least user-friendly bank in the USA. I had a mortgage with them on my house in Iowa, and when I took a job teaching the English language in Peru, I set up an automatic payment plan with them for regular monthly withdrawals. This continued until late in 2006 when Wells Fargo stopped taking the withdrawals (without notifying me, and when I attempted to write them using their website it came back as Phishing, and when I wrote letters they were never responded to, nor any check cashed) and in 2007, again without notifying me they initated foreclosure on my home that was nearly paid for. In December my house was declared foreclosed--with neither the bank nor the federal courts notifying me even though both had my address as seen when in November 2008 I received a Disclosure Statement stating that all taxes and insurance on my Radcliffe, Iowa home was paid and no payment was due on principal and interest until February 09, 2009--then in January 13, 2009, the Sheriff of Hardin County sold my home (without notifying me) to Wells Fargo (it already had the mortgage on it) who promptly turned it over to Freddie Mac who engaged Fjeland Realty to sell it--but the realtor Brad entered the premises which had been locked against my assistant for over a year (which Deputy Sheriff Orgel said was illegal to lock my home), and suddenly all my possessions (including 4 new TVs, appliances, porclains, etc) "disappeared"--and the house was vacant. But Wells Fargo has used its bailout money to buy up other banks and foreclose on other homes. Wells Fargo is the most criminal bank in the USA as I have provided documents to the Iowa Attorney General, numerous attorneys, the sheriffs of Hardin County, and others--but the corrupt governmente of W Bush (who made the USA the most hated nation on this planet) did nothing and never responded to any inquriy from me or any of my representatives. To continue to bailout corrupt banks, such as Wells Fargo, or Freddie Mac, is a crime of theft against the American people.
Who should be bailed out?
[info]omirou wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 04:06 pm (UTC)
We are witnessing the governments of the G20 resuscitating their banking systems by the payments of billions of dollars. The payments are going to the agents who worked a con trick : that by gambling all our monies on assets, by paying themselves exorbitant bonuses, by getting the governments to pay off their debts, we shall all grow and prosper. But we are facing collapse of businesses, unemployment, loss of savings.
Don't forget that there is an even bigger con taking place. The 10.1 million owners of the world's capital are busy protecting their own interests in this game. At the same time, 5.5 billion people are trying to survive on less than $10 a day: of which 1 billion are starving.
Shouldn't we let the capitalist banking systems die? Shouldn't we develop a new system of finance and funding that enables 6.8 billion people to enjoy the same conditions and opportunities for a healthy life? Banks could be agents for social welfare rather private profit!
Memo to Barney
[info]robertsgt40 wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 04:31 pm (UTC)
You're dead wrong Barnie. We hate YOU because you gave them OUR money. You are joined at the hips with these parasites because they OWN you. For whatever price you sold your sold to the banksters, you will have a lot to answer for on judgement day. Which isn't far off.
Banksters
[info]bilejones wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 08:29 pm (UTC)
To watch the corrupt thieving politicians whining about the corrupt thieving banksters was nauseating.
Wolfenstein Amor
[info]wokfenstein wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 10:44 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I feel real sorry for these pirates. I bet you they feel just really bad about laying off all those employees too, and ruining all those families as well. These theives should not be allowed to foreclose on anyones property while they are receiving bailout money. These institutions and their rape of the common man must be stopped at all costs.
Bankers or moneychangers; a rose by any other name would be as repulsive
[info]james_b65 wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 12:01 am (UTC)
It OUGHT to be clear and plain WHO is causing the devastating financial problems in the world. I have the misfortune of living in America where the people will sit silently obedient as their house burns down around them. As the 'economists' and bankers continue business as usual and the politicians in collusion with them continue to reap the profits and rewards of selling out their own citizens. History shows the results of such behavior but the 'educational system' in America teaches its children to ignore history and just keep supporting the men that create the deteriorating conditions they live in.

When will the people awaken and realize that the boogeymen of the manufactured 'war OF terror' could not have been as successful as the terrorists in three-piece-suits that roam the White House, Congress, Senate, and Wall Street unmolested. Osama like Nazism is dead yet the system that has replaced them is far more malevolent.
BUNCH OF JERKS!
[info]tooskeptical wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 02:31 am (UTC)
They're a bunch of thieves and jerks! They wouldn't have been hired by the Rothchilds and Committee of 300 to run the banks in the first place if they weren't. The Rothchilds figured out long ago that poor people are honest, so they got rich by funding both sides of perpetual wars they created themselves, and by getting control of the money supply via the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 by creating the FED (owned by 12 wealthy families like the Schiffs, Warburgs, Rockefellers, Harrimans) and murdering whoever they needed to, like Lincoln and JFK, to hold ownership.
1. Take your money out of the bank and convert it to silver or gold ASAP.
2. Cut up your credit cards
3. Send this video to EVERYONE you know.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4430543376785758889#01h22m45s
This is how socialism works
[info]heroiclife wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 04:05 am (UTC)
This is how it works people - the politicians steal your wealth and then blame the people who created it.
Re: This is how socialism works
[info]jonny_socialist wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 04:33 pm (UTC)
That is not socialism that is capitilism. Socialism is the opposite and holding these criminal bankers to task is a socialist policy. Learn some history before you comment on things you dont understand.
Re: This is how socialism works
[info]heroiclife wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 04:36 pm (UTC)
It's not capitalism. Only a small minority of politically-connected businesses will benefit from the bailouts.

It's about political versus economic power. Economic power means the freedom to engage in mutually-beneficial exchanges. Political power is the power to seize values from others by force.
Re: This is how socialism works
[info]jonny_socialist wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 04:52 pm (UTC)
So whats that got to do with socialism? If you knew anything about MArxist economics you would realise that this is NOT a socialist or marxist policy.
Re: This is how socialism works
[info]jonny_socialist wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 04:52 pm (UTC)
Btw are you American? If so why are Americans so scared of the term socialism? It is the most moral and progressive political stance there is.
Re: This is how socialism works
[info]oz_naughten wrote:
Saturday, 14 February 2009 at 10:47 pm (UTC)
Odd isn't it? They sit there in the smoking ruins of capitalism, jobless, homeless and hopeless, and the scariest thing they can imagine is "socialism".

People holding 2 or 3 jobs to buy food while 8 men between them take home $400 million dollars a year? Not right. There's a lot of money in the world. Share it out around a little.
Wage laws
[info]jlee3793 wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 05:25 am (UTC)
There has been a minimum wage law for many years. There should be a maximum wage law starting right now.
Not a problem of capitalism, capitalism is the problem.
[info]proximaking wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 07:45 am (UTC)
I think the problem is people hate capitalism, they have seen how shareholders and bankers are given the RIGHT to fleece them and the sheep are revolting, ....... they just can't bring themselves to kill capitalism yet. But when they do it won't be done under clean conditions in an abattoir, capitalism is wounded and the sheep are closing in for the kill and they are going to rip the system and the people who benefitted from it limb from limb. Everything good in this world we ascribed to capitalism at work we actually got from decent people at work and something from the long forgotten past that is all around us, something called engineering. Once engineering has its clothes back from the capitalist guards who played lots for them then we can move forward and not before but first things first he has to get off the cross and that means the death of capitalism. It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man, or woman, to enter heaven. Just as well for them then that the rich will soon be poor otherwise we'd have to "get rid" the old fashioned way they have used so many times in the past wouldn't we!
[info]drug_baron wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 08:16 am (UTC)
Aw Shucks! Just make sure they pay for the bullet before you shoot these scumbags.

They are "hoods in suits" and must be made an example; unless you want to send the message; "Just say sorry and the continue shafting the public".
Banksters and their kind.
[info]iandemontfort wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 09:24 am (UTC)
"I've told my board of directors that my salary should be $1 per year with no bonus until we return to profitability," These are Mr Pandit's very own words. But this excuse of a man made 216 million dollars when he was bought out by City Group. This has to be a joke. It doesn't matter that he will take $1 a year from now until forever, because he is already swamped with enough personal wealth to feed the third world single handedly. Mr Pandit, like all the other bankers are simply self serving criminals. How dare they pretend to be sorry. THey don't give a damn and that's the truth of it. They have failed, as has have the governments they more, or less control. The people have had enough of enquires and fake justice. If these crooks will not be stripped of all of their ill-gotten gains, then the assets they have will be forcibly removed from them by the people who have been robbed and lied to. We are the people and our patience at the lack of justice is wearing very, very thin.
Will they escape with our gold
[info]tooskeptical wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 03:30 pm (UTC)
I found this ominous 4-part slide show that says it's "ficticiious". It may be an old plan; however, it can't hurt to be prepared. There are Arab names but probably cooked up internally. If this happens they can keep all those stolen dollars they've converted to gold and not have to pay out any pension funds.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread436023/pg1
It's not about the rich versus the poor.
[info]heroiclife wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 04:37 pm (UTC)
It's not about the rich versus the poor. Only a small minority of politically-connected businesses will benefit from the bailouts.

It's about political versus economic power. Economic power means the freedom to engage in mutually-beneficial exchanges. Political power is the power to seize values from others by force.
Rothschild banking cabal
[info]paschn wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 04:42 pm (UTC)
One need only peel away the onion-like layers to see the Khazar/Ashkenazi finger prints all over this world ecocollapse. When you consider that all central banks know no patriotism, have no allegiance to a flag and all are to some degree owned by the Khazar Rothschild parasites to realize they are pulling the same crap now that they pulled in '29 in the United States of Israel and early in the 20th century in Germany and who knows how many other ecodisasters that ruin lives, cause death, starvation....etc.
You all deliccately dance around the obvious either by ignorance, fear or betrayal. Buy a copy of Bernard Lazare's 1894 book and educate yourselves. As a bonus, it might pump more much needed calcium into your back-bones. As with the pompous ass Morgan, you look under the dress of these bankers and you'll see Ashkenazi or Khazar stamped on all their butts. As for your "terms of use", rather than cower in fear of the content, why not check it for veracity?
Banks - the economic terrorists!
[info]peeju wrote:
Friday, 13 February 2009 at 05:12 pm (UTC)
Lots of mergers amongst all this excitement - is there something I am not getting?
IGNRANCE GONE TO SEED !!
[info]walter8 wrote:
Saturday, 14 February 2009 at 03:49 am (UTC)
All I see is absolute, lunacy, Why aren't those bankers behind bars ???? We are a people of laws YES ! But it seems like we have lost all common sence, and dignity, when a few people { special people ???? } can litterly wreck the lives of millions of people around the world, for years to come, with really no one holding them accountable......I have only one question ! Were these people totally ignorant to what the implications to the economy was going to be, because of their unbridaled greed ?? They get paid the outragous bonuses, because they are the best ??? Yes !! shareholders are greedy little people too, but bankers have no moral soul, to tell any truth to their shareholders, while knowing that everyone of there little ponzi schemes,was a leading to disaster. My point is that they want to act like drunks the day after,saying they are not responsible this day, because they were drunk the night before !! and we as a law abiding people wanting only to have peace in our ignorant lives, allow this behavior again and again and again.......
It's not about the rich versus the poor
[info]heroiclife wrote:
Saturday, 14 February 2009 at 08:52 pm (UTC)
It's not about rich vs poor. Only a small minority of politically-connected businesses will benefit from the bailout. It's about political versus economic power. Economic power means the freedom to engage in mutually-beneficial exchanges. Political power is the power to seize values from others by force.
Wrong Hatred
[info]mzmadmike wrote:
Sunday, 15 February 2009 at 02:30 pm (UTC)
I don't hate bankers. Bankers helped me buy my house. They offered me a fair contract, and I am repaying it in good faith.

Barney Frank is a hypocrite, a socialist and there's strong evidence he's a child molester. He and his cronies, proposing to fix a problem they created using my tax dollars, while swiping some for their buddies and pet projects are the ones I hate. And feeling his hand in my pocket is beyond creepy to disgusting.
un friggin believable
[info]spyderkingbiker wrote:
Monday, 16 February 2009 at 04:00 am (UTC)
If you cant live 2 separate lives in class on 400k a year something is wrong. 24.8 million is so pathetic its sickening. You could feed a small country for that money and how much you think he actually gives away to those in need??? My money's on "NOT A FUCKIN PENNY"