Wealth and Investing Center

FDIC backs pay clawback in bank liquidations

Related Topics

The outside of the New York Stock Exchange is seen in New York May 13, 2011. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

The outside of the New York Stock Exchange is seen in New York May 13, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton

WASHINGTON | Wed Jul 6, 2011 11:44am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. regulators will be able to snatch back up to two years of Wall Street executives' pay if they are found responsible for the collapse of a major financial firm, under a rule approved on Wednesday.

The provision is part of a broader Federal Deposit Insurance Corp rule laying out the order in which creditors will be paid during a government liquidation of a large, failing financial firm.

The 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight law gives financial agencies this power to recoup executives' pay. Bankers have complained regulators were too vague in an earlier proposal about what could trigger a clawback.

The FDIC's final rule provided some relief by clarifying "negligence" as the standard. The agency was careful to point out that it was not using the more narrow standard of "gross negligence."

Acting Comptroller of the Currency John Walsh, who had raised concerns about the standard being too broad, said he was pleased with the changes.

"I was concerned that it seemed to focus more on job titles than the actual actions that people had taken," he said.

The liquidation authority is a major part of the Dodd-Frank law.

The idea is to preserve economic stability by unwinding troubled firms, but in a way that is less politically explosive than taxpayer-funded bailouts and less traumatic to the markets than bankruptcy, like the Lehman Brothers collapse of 2008.

At the top of the list for who, or what, will be paid off first under the new resolution system are any debts the FDIC or receiver took on as part of the cost of seizing a firm, administrative expenses, money owed to the U.S. Treasury and money owed to employees for such things as retirement benefits.

Further down the list are general creditors.

Banks and financial services companies have complained the framework gives the FDIC too much latitude to treat some creditors differently.

FDIC leaders downplayed these concerns again on Wednesday, saying their rules are based as much as possible on the bankruptcy code as industry officials have advocated.

Also on Wednesday, the FDIC board discussed, but did not vote on, a final rule on how large financial firms should draft "living wills." These company-drafted documents will give regulators a roadmap for how they can be broken up if they fail.

The FDIC and the Federal Reserve, who will jointly issue the living will rule, are still deciding details.

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, who is leaving the agency on Friday at the end of her five-year term, said she hoped a final rule would be done in August.

(Reporting by Dave Clarke, Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
Bobbee wrote:
Thank you Sheila Bair for your service. You are one person in government that got it right and didn’t sell out. Would you please consider being Sec. of the Treasury?

Jul 06, 2011 2:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
imwithid wrote:
If the CEO is prepared to accept merit pay for leading a firm to higher shareholder value, they must be prepared to accept the corollary to that. Traditionally, this has not been the case. Heads or tails, you win. This is not a fair game.

Traditionally, the determinants of merit pay for heads of boards have been decided by an incestual board and defended, primarily and selectively (via tournament theory, talent retention, etc.), by the likes of consultancy firms and accepted by economists.

This is not fair to shareholders and sends a signal to heads of firms to take risks that may not be in the interests of shareholders and the boards of directors should, perhaps, be culpable to a certain degree themselves.

The dilemma is that shareholders should take a greater interest in the companies that they invest in. Often, they relegate this to a proxy, either out of ignorance or that they lack the choice as a result of their lacking financial knowledge or investment vehicle choices.

Jul 06, 2011 3:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
threeRivers wrote:
There salaries and benefits shouldn’t be so high that there is any issue here in the first place. The idea that a few people are Superman or Superwomen is just as much baloney as the idea that only Americans are entreprenurial, yet unemployment is a major political issue.

Jul 06, 2011 4:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.