Market Hilights

March 9, 2008 6:43AM

Final Thoughts on the Fat Cat CEO Pay Hearing

By Elizabeth MacDonald

Some final thoughts on the hearing last Friday on the rich compensation given to Angelo Mozilo, founder and chief executive of Countrywide Financial (CFC), E. Stanley O’Neal, former CEO of Merrill Lynch (ML), and Charles Prince, former CEO of Citigroup (C).

There were dozens of questions I wanted asked, which I’ve noted below.

We have reported this story on Money for Breakfast, and I also covered the hearing with Fox Business’s crack team of Cheryl Casone, Tom Sullivan, Dagen McDowell and Ray Hennessey.

These bank executives are under fire for getting rich pay at a time when the government is now struggling with a housing and credit crisis these three helped engineer. Banks have written off $180bn in assets in the housing slump, while thousands of jobs have been lost and home foreclosures soar to record highs. Moody’s estimates 3.5mn people will lose their homes to foreclosure during this crisis.

During the five-year period from January 2002 through December 2006, the stock of Countrywide, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup appreciated, and the three CEOs collectively received more than $460mn in compensation. Mozilo in particular got $250mn in compensation plus made $414mn in stock sales.

However, the executives received rich payouts largely based on profits that didn’t exist. Their companies booked $20bn in writedowns for the final two quarters of 2007. The three banks to date have reported more than $45bn in writedowns from the crisis. Stocks in their companies have plunged to record lows, and investors have lost tens of billions of dollars.

And as I’ve already reported to you, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice are probing 14 companies, including mortgage brokers, investment banks and mortgage lenders, as part of a wide-ranging investigation of potentially fraudulent business practices. It’s an unusually wide-ranging probe, as the bureau is reviewing possible accounting fraud, insider trading or other violations in connection with loans made to borrowers with weak, or subprime, credit.

At the same time, the Securities and Exchange Commission has been conducting about three dozen civil investigations into the origination and valuation of securitizations of subprime loans.

Justice and the FBI is looking at whether officials at Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, misrepresented its financial condition and the soundness of its loans in security filings, The Wall Street Journal reports. However, a Countrywide spokeswoman has said the bank is not aware of any investigation.

Here’s what I would have asked Mozilo, O’Neal and Prince:

Do you think it is right that you got paid for “performance” when your companies were booking massive losses?

Due to the record writedowns and losses your companies are reporting, the compensation you received was essentially based on phantom profits. Given how your companies are struggling, do you think you should give some of that pay back?

Your rags to riches tales–O’Neal says he was descended from slaves, Mozilo from immigrants, and Prince, the first in his family to go to college–sound like a compelling, made in America story.

But wouldn’t you agree that plenty of Americans have risen above difficult backgrounds, and none were paid millions of dollars to leave the smoking wreck of their companies behind after they have driven them into a ditch?

Was this instead an emotional tug at the heartstrings, a head fake to mask your rich payouts given at a time when you left behind companies that are suffering like never before?

Do you, Mr. Mozilo, think it’s right to be asking for so much in pay at a time when your company sold borrowers loans they could not afford, 90,000 of which are delinquent, at a time when your bank along with Bank of America is asking US taxpayers to bail out these loans, at a time when your bank has already laid off 11,400 workers?

Mr. Mozilo, you said in your testimony that you plan to waive $37.5mn in severance pay if Bank of America buys Countrywide in a $4.1bn deal, a deal BofA needs to do to protect its $1bn investment in Countrywide last summer. However, you reportedly stood to collect a windfall of $115mn dollars after Countrywide agreed in January to the sale to Bank of America. Why just $37.5mn?

Mr. Mozilo, why did you suddenly announce on Jan. 28 that you would forfeit the $37.5mn? Was it due to the public outcry over your pay package and Congress’s announcement of the hearing on executive pay?

In talking about how you built the company, Mr. Mozilo, you said that the stock in your company “started at zero,” and yes stock in your company made an astronomical ascent. Isn’t saying it started at zero was a tad bit of an overstatement, made during your discussion of your humble beginnings, as the initial public offering in Countrywide stock debuted over-the-counter in 1969 at about $1, then started trading on the New York Stock Exchange in 1985 at around $2?

According to internal documents reviewed by Congressional committee staff, Mr. Mozilo, you used one of Countrywide’s compensation consultants as your own personal adviser, with the goal of achieving “maximum opportunity” for yourself. Two other compensation consultants hired by Countrywide from 2004 to 2006 were soon terminated after they questioned the amount of compensation you received as being inflated, with one consultant noting that you wanted them to regard your pay package as commensurate to the compensation paid to the CEOs of the largest US banks, worth many times more in market cap than Countrywide.

How do you explain using Countrywide shareholder capital to pay for three consultants, two of which you didn’t agree with because they thought your pay was inflated, and one of which advocated even more shareholder capital be spent on you?

Mr. Mozilo, separately, two executive pay consultants your bank, Countrywide, hired told the bank they considered your pay “inflated,” according to the Congressional report, partly due to easy bonus targets and the use of this flawed peer group. How do you explain their conclusions?

Mr. Mozilo, when Congressman Elijah E. Cummings asked why you had demanded that Countrywide pay income taxes on your wife’s travel on the company jet, you replied, “It sounds out of whack today because it is out of whack, but in 2006, the company was doing great,” adding you would not have made such a request today and apologized for complaining about your compensation in an internal email. Can you please explain your thinking here?

And by the way, you did more than complain if Countrywide refused to pay these income taxes on your wife’s use of the company jet. You threatened that if you quit, the company would have to pay out a lot of money toward your retirement, and that you would get to liquidate 12mn shares in the bank, according to an internal email you sent. The bank’s board eventually capitulated. All correct?

Mr. Mozilo, while still at the company, you asked to collect $3mn a year in benefits that you were eligible to receive only when you retired, internal documents show. You noted in testimony that this request was “unusual,” and a hired consultant wrote in an email that “We can troll through proxy statements but I have never heard of a CEO receiving a pension payment in addition to earning salary, bonus and long-term incentives,” while still working at the company. How do you explain your request?

Mr. Mozilo, why did you on three occasions increase the amount of stock you could sell, selling a total of $150mn from 2006 to 2007, at a time when your company was borrowing $1.5bn to do a $2.5bn buyback of shares, stock sales which occurred right when Countrywide was on the brink of plunging into the mortgage meltdown? (Readers, the SEC is probing the sales.)

Mr. Mozilo, you have maintained that the sales were prompted by deadlines you faced to exercise stock options as well as the desire to diversify your assets in preparation for your retirement. Why did you wait so long to diversify?

Did you diversify at a time when shares in your company were increasing due to record profits your bank was enjoying from the housing bubble? Did you purposely “diversify” at a time when your company was borrowing money to do a share buyback, a buyback that increases stock prices?

Mr. Mozilo, you said in testimony: “The goal was to reduce my holdings because of my retirement . . . almost all my net worth was in Countrywide.” However you got paid $250mn in cash compensation, or $25mn for every year you worked as CEO, and you sold $414mn worth of shares, shares you did not have to pay for. So what do you mean “almost all” of your net worth was in Countrywide?

Mr. O’Neal, you said in testimony that you earned the stock options in Merrill that you were given. SEC filings though indicate that you got $131mn of the $161mn you were given when you were shown the door last fall in an “early retirement” payout. You wouldn’t have been given the payout if you were fired. How did you get your company to agree to an early retirement deal when you had no intention of retiring up until last fall?

Mr. O’Neal, you received $131mn in stock and options that were not vested yet, meaning, you didn’t work the remaining years of your vesting period to earn them. Workers typically must work five years, the usual period of time for a vesting period, before they get to own their stock and options. Can you explain what you meant by saying that you earned them?

Mr. O’Neal, can you please explain to us why you were given that payout, given that it was based on phantom profits since to date your company has recorded $24bn in writedowns from the subprime mess?

Mr. Prince, why did you say last summer that Citi was still “dancing” in the subprime business when the computer terminals at your bank were flashing fire engine red signals that a meltdown was already underway, proving, as I’ve said before, that artificial intelligence is no match for natural foolishness?

Mr. Prince, do you think you should hand back to Citi your $10.4mn “performance” bonus you received on being shown the door given that your bank has recorded $21bn in writedowns, and given that that bonus was based on profits that didn’t exist? Do you think you should also give back the $28mn in unvested stock and options and $1.5mn in annual perquisites you received?

Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), what did you mean when you said linking executive pay to the subprime crisis ”only seems to muddle the issue further,” given that these executives were paid compensation based on the record amount of business they brought in from selling and securitizing subprime loans?

To all three executives: Why did you remain silent and not utter a word when Republican Congressman Cannon, who lauded you and thought you were terrific, asked you all whether you thought you were paragons of Corporate America that our nation’s children can look up to as examples of who they can be when they grow up?

To all three executives: What do you say to Congressman Henry Waxman’s comments: “’You’re in the middle of an enormous debacle. It seems like everyone is hurting except for you” and “I have no problem with paying for success. But it looks like when you’re a CEO you get paid for failure.”

To all three executives, what do you say to comments from Nell Minow, editor of The Corporate Library and one of the corporate governance experts who testified: ”It’s only in the wacky world of CEOs where you get severance for failing.” Also, Minow criticized “all-upside, no downside pay plans.” What do you say to that?

And finally Minow said a significant “corporate governance weakness, even in the post-Enron era, remains investors’ inability to do much about excessive CEO pay approved by subservient boards.” Minow urged the Senate to adopt legislation already passed in the House to give shareholders a non-binding “say on pay.”

To all three executives: Do you think this legislation would work?

 

12 Responses to “Final Thoughts on the Fat Cat CEO Pay Hearing”

  1. 1
    joey45 Says:

    Liz, I heartily agree with both the spirit, and the content of your article here. The word ‘Utilitarianism’ comes to mind, which puts forth the notion that “The fundamental desire in everyone is to maximize personal pleasure, while minimizing personal pain.” It is clear to me, that John Stewart Mill’s theory is a tidy explanation of how the market sometimes works.

    There are other consequences, which you hadn’t mentioned, that may be forthcoming. Such ‘payment for failure’ may have a trickle down effect in the greater society at large. Those in charge of the actions, thoughts, and directions of employees, might see in this demonstrated behavior, at the highest levels, a tacit approval of smililar behavior on their part, thus battering already stressed workers. Isn’t it true that American workers are the most productive ones in the world? Isn’t this type of attitude yet one more example which verifies the old saw “S— flows down from the top”?

    Advertising works. Everyone tacitly knows this. If it were not so, there would not be billions of dollars spent on it. People form their presuppositions of how the world is supposed to work, on their own experiences, and input from people whom they believe to be authoritative figures.

    If nothing is done to villify and dissapprove the behavior and attitudes of the ‘gentlemen’ being questioned at that hearing, would not many come to believe that the behavior is appoved…and then emulate it?

    The young are not stupid. If they adopt the same attitudes, what sort of future will we see? Should these be our heroes? Does ‘morality’ become no more than some ‘Hedonic Calculus’? Do altruism and aesthetics, perhaps the most important differences between man and beast, become no more than ‘bread and circuses’ for the masses? Does society become driven only by shame, and never by true guilt, meaning ‘it’s ok…unless you get caught’? This is just one philosopher’s viewpoint.

    I’ll understand if you choose not to approve of my rant on your blog. Joey45

  2. 2
    tom a taxpayer Says:

    What a red herring! The more important issue is not what these CEOs got paid but what they did. Did they and the firms they led commit acts of fraud, malfeasance, misfeasance, illegality, financial irresponsibility, reckless behavior, shirking fiduciary duties, etc.? That is the question Congress needs to be investigating not just of O’Neal, Prince, and Mozilo, but also the rest of the Wall Street gang who have raped and pillaged the mortgage industry, ruined the housing market, destroyed the credit system, endangered municipal financing, pension funds, and the banking system, and sent the economy into a downward spiral.

    What a circus! A Congressional circus led by ringmaster Waxman. Waxman tried to get three Lion Kings of the Wall Street jungle to jump thru hoops of contrition over executive pay. Instead of a circus about pay, Waxman should have grilled the three Lion Kings about their role in mauling the natives and destroying villages.

    Congress should be grilling Stanley O’Neal of Merrill Lynch, Charles Prince of Citigroup, and Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide Financial(and others) about their role in possible illegal activities such as the FBI is now investigating. I expect the FBI will “follow the money” and bring every lawbreaker to justice, wherever they may be, from loan originators to appraisers to homeowner scammers to rating agencies to Wall Street investment firms to bankers to government regulators to the Fed to…?

    The dereliction of duty by Congress in investigating the financial crime of the century is a scandal. Congress has every reason to believe the potential illegal activity is on-going as firms, banks, and federal co-conspirators do what they can to continue the Ponzi scheme or to hide the extent of damage to the banking system, shareholders, pension funds, municipalities, etc.
    Congress needs to investigate now, especially to stop any on-going illegal activity by private firms, banks, or federal regulators.

  3. 3
    Jeff Says:

    Sounds like another ENRON brewing. They should all be TARRED AND FEATHERED, the old fashioned way.

  4. 4
    paul220 Says:

    Emac:

    You’ve fallen for the left-wing hysteria. O’Neal didn’t receive anything when he left — he was just able to keep restricted stock and other grants he had been awarded for performance over many years because he was eligible for retirement under Merrill’s policies. His comp for 2007: no bonus, no severance. Do you advocate that people should have to write a check to pay back compensation awarded 10 years before if things don’t work out well or give back all stock previously awarded? Good luck finding executives to run such a company.

    Citicorp made a $4 billion profit last year — shouldn’t Prince as CEO get some kind of bonus for that? And Mozilo’s stock was worth as much as it is because he was the founder of the company and had a lot of the stock and options when it was worth less for him — and shareholders.

    I hope Fox Business will do a little more “fair and balanced” digging in the future.

  5. 5
    Jerry Carter Says:

    While I have leaned toward fewer regulations and a free-market economy, regulation/control is always “after the fact” where some executive-clown abuses the system or his position: the Enron-era and now the sub-prime fiasco recently. Thinking too back to the turn of the century where scoundrels fleesed the shareholders again leading to increased regulation. Where are the boards-of-directors in these cases? It’s their job to protect the shareholders. It’s hard to feel sorry for businesses when they clamor about “over regulation”, they bring it on themselves as the people who are supposed to police the CEO’s (boards) sit idolly by…..

  6. 6
    mtwyank1 Says:

    How refreshing to read such well written, intelligent responses.

    It is well known in the real estate and mortgage industry that Countrywide blatantly made loans to unqualified home buyers, illegal aliens and questionable real estate investors. Their loans were even laughingly referred to as “pick a pay,” as in “you pick however much you want to pay” for your mortgage. It is also common knowledge in the industry that Countrywide loan officers instructed mortgage applicants to provide false information in order the get loans approved.

    The result is that thousands walked away from their mortgages and homes and we are all paying the price. This has had far greater implications than the Enron fraud. The tragedy is that Countrywide’s Board wasn’t looking or turned a blind eye to the company’s business dealings and FBI didn’t look into this earlier.

  7. 7
    Bob Boos Says:

    These Congressional hearings into executive compensation are about as useless as the hearings into professional athletes’ use of performance enhancing drugs because nothing but a lot of hot air will come of them.

    Let’s face the truth: in America, the rich can do just about anything they want and no one “in authority” will do anything to hold them accountable. In fact, there isn’t any “authority” when it comes to reining in the rich and powerful, so the whole thing in Washington is a pathetic charade.

    This is a potentially dangerous situation, one that can easily lead to social revolution if corrective action isn’t taken by those “in authority.” Because those “in authority” aren’t going to do anything to offend the rich and powerful, we are facing a sociaL revolution, The arrogance of the rich and powerful just exacerbates the situation and makes the revolution increasingly likely.

    Warren Buffet, when accused of conducting a class war,” asserts the if indeed there is a class war, his class is winning. He’s right, but I think that’s about what the Russian and French aristocracies thought, right up to 1917 and 1789, when their cozy little worlds exploded and they lost their fortunes and in some cases their lives.

  8. 8
    Kevin Gree Says:

    As homeowners, we ultimately only have the mortgage company to share the investment in our home.
    We have to look to them as the professional experts on the future value of our homes.
    We must trust in their experience and judgment that the property they pay for initially, and we agree to assume repayment over 30 years, will at the very least maintain value… certainly not loss value dramatically!
    “Who profited from housing bubble??? Why should the homeowners seeking to stay in their homes - take the devastating equity losses alone? Why should they continue to collect the same profit from interest payments? This is one very good reason they have foreclosures in the thousands. People have been betrayed, misled and lied to.

  9. 9
    Kevin Gree Says:

    Many good points noted in the replies. FACT: While the Federal & Local Gov take their time deciding what to do, tens of thousands more families will LOOSE their homes - destroying their credit & lives for at least 7 years.
    All the while, the companies that should SHARE the burden as the so called real estate industry experts continue to collect regular profits on interest rates, as well as selling the homes they foreclosed on for millions in profit.
    Yes… they are profiting from the foreclosures they ultimately set up and should be responsible for!

    How much longer can Gov wait!!!
    I say local Gov above, because taxes were raised on real estate balloon market, but have not fallan or been decreased with dropping home values! This is criminal, and is also forcing people out of their homes.

    Until the elected officials start loosing their homes, they take there sweet time!

    Come guys… this is NOW… DEAL WITH IT NOW!!! Hold the people responsible accountable!

    We pay millions in aid around the world - while millions here in the US are getting run over.

  10. 10
    Katie Says:

    My parents’ mortgage is with Countrywide. I can’t believe what the former CEO (Mozilo) is getting paid for leaving (even if he is planning on forfeiting it all). Now Bank of America (a company one parent hates) is buying Countrywide, which is being investigated by the Feds.

    Then we have CitiGroup (cards held by me and my parents). Even with a new chairman, the company’s being investigated.

    If any of the companies involved in this craziness goes under, who looks out for the consumers?

  11. 11
    Cleareye Says:

    What’s wrong with corporate America? I don’t understand why people like Mozilo are worshiped as “Management Talent”. Management talent??? You don’t need talent to manage a company to lose money. If you put a monkey in Mozilo’s seat, Countrywide would’ve probably done much better. Same thing with those so-called “star analysts” during the tech bubble, do those thieves really know how to analyze a company?

  12. 12
    Ro Says:

    Who do the consumers, who got shafted by Countrywide, contact when they have proof of fraudulent activity by the lender and one its brokerage companies?

Close
E-mail It