2010年8月2日月曜日

米金融機関の市場原理

市場原理で米金融機関が二極化する。
 米大手企業のCEOが過去10年間に受け取った給与やボーナス、行使した
ストックオプションなどを独自に集計。
11位には、リーマン・ブラザーズの元CEOファルド氏、19位にはシティ
グループの元CEOワイル氏が入った。

米財務省の特別報酬監督官は、深刻な金融危機に陥った間に、公的資金の
注入を受けた金融機関17社が、経営幹部らに対して総計16億ドルもの巨額
報酬を支払っていたと発表した。

FDICは、フロリダ州の地銀など計7銀行が経営破綻したと発表。これで
米国内で今年破綻した金融機関の数は計103行となり、100行の大台を
突破した。約3カ月早いペース。

米CEO報酬番付
1.Larry Ellison,Oracle CEO $1.84billion
2.Barry Diller,IAC/InterActive and Expedia.com CEO $1.14 billion
3.Steve Jobs,Apple Inc. CEO $749 million
4.Richard Fairbank,Capital One Financial Corp.CEO $569 million.
...
11.Richard S. Fuld,Lehman Brothers CEO $457million
...
19.Sandy Weill,Citigroup Inc. former CEO $361million

公的支援を受けながら、巨額報酬の金融機関
・Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
・J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
・Citigroup Inc.
・Morgan Stanley


金融大手は、国から資金支援を受け、資金は会社には回さず、報酬に回した
ようだし、弱小金融は、半年で100校以上が二年続けて破綻。
米国は、よく市場原理と主張するが、大手には公的支援があるが、弱小は
支援がないようだ。異なる条件で競争するのは、市場原理ではなく、社会
主義と変わらないと思う。
米金融規制改革により、競争条件は同等になるのだろうか。

ゴーンは、「報酬は多くない」旨の感想を言って批判されていたが、
実際には、グローバル企業CEOの報酬は多い。

金融規制改革法案 米大統領署名


US Regulators Shut Down 2 Baltimore Banks


FDIC takes over bank in Hastings


News Update: Feinberg to cite banks for excessive pay during crisis, NY Times says


---米CEO報酬番付、1600億円 10年間で、高額に批判も---
2010年7月28日 08時13分
http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/s/article/2010072801000098.html

 【ニューヨーク共同】27日付の米紙ウォールストリート・ジャーナルによると、米大手企業の最高経営責任者(CEO)が過去10年間に受け取った報酬番付で、ソフトウエア大手オラクルの創業者エリソン氏が最高の約18億3500万ドル(約1600億円)だったことが分かった。
 同紙はそれぞれのCEOの給与やボーナス、行使したストックオプション(自社株購入権)などを独自に集計。ランク上位者の報酬額は極めて高水準で、米国の失業率が高止まりする中、批判も出てきそうだ。
 エリソン氏の報酬はストックオプションが大半を占めた。2位はネット通信販売大手インタラクティブコープのディラー氏で約11億4200万ドル。携帯電話「iPhone」などが大ヒットしている電子機器大手アップルのジョブズ氏が、約7億4800万ドルで4位だった。
 11位には、2008年に経営破綻した金融大手リーマン・ブラザーズの元CEOファルド氏(約4億5600万ドル)、19位にはシティグループの元CEOワイル氏(約3億6千万ドル)が入った。


---Oracle's Ellison: Pay King---
JULY 27, 2010
By SCOTT THURM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379680484726298.html?KEYWORDS=oracle+ceo+rank

Larry Ellison, founder and chief executive of software maker Oracle Corp., topped the list of best-paid executives of public companies during the past decade, receiving $1.84 billion in compensation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of CEO pay.

Coming in No. 2 on the compensation list was Barry Diller, who received roughly $1.14 billion from IAC/InterActive and Expedia.com, the online travel site IAC spun off in 2005, where he remains chairman.

Following Mr. Diller were Occidental Petroleum Corp. CEO Ray Irani at $857 million, Apple Inc.'s Steve Jobs with $749 million and, in fifth place, Capital One Financial Corp. CEO Richard Fairbank at $569 million.

Four of the top 25 CEOs worked at financial companies, two on Wall Street: former Lehman Brothers CEO Richard S. Fuld, at No. 11 with $457 million, and former Citigroup Inc. CEO Sandy Weill, who ranked 19th at $361 million. The others were Mr. Fairbank and former Countrywide Financial Corp. CEO Angelo Mozilo.

The Journal analysis includes salaries, bonuses, perks and realized gains on both restricted stock and stock options; it excludes new grants of restricted stock and stock options. The analysis didn't track whether executives sold shares they acquired after they exercised stock options or after previously restricted stock vested.

The survey shows that only some of the best-paid executives in the decade oversaw great stock gains for shareholders.

The size of executive pay packages, and the ways companies try to align executive pay to shareholder returns, became a heated political topic at several points in the last 10 years, especially in the wake of accounting scandals early in the decade and the Wall Street collapse of 2008. Critics say stock options sometimes work too well-pushing executives to make risky moves that lift the stock price in the short run, but ultimately hurt the company.

Oracle shareholders saw the value of their stock triple, while shareholders of Apple saw their stock soar nearly 12 times over. But shareholders of another tech giant, Dell Inc., lost 66% of the value of their stock during the decade, while CEO Michael Dell, who launched the computer maker in his dorm room in the 1980s, brought home $454 million.

Four of the 10 highest-earning executives ran companies whose shareholders lost money over the decade: IAC/InterActive, Countrywide, Capital One and Cendant Corp.

The disparity between those CEOs' fortunes and those of their shareholders is "pretty depressing," and "suggests there's a fair amount of pay without performance," said Jesse Fried, a law professor at Harvard University and co-author of a 2004 book, "Pay Without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation." But Steven Kaplan, a professor at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, said that in general, "the guys who got the big payoffs deliver."

Consider Mr. Ellison, a 65-year-old sailing enthusiast who founded Oracle in 1977. In the 10 years ended May 31, 2009, the most recent fiscal year for which Oracle has disclosed pay data, its market capitalization nearly tripled, to $98 billion, from $36 billion.

It has since risen further. Mr. Ellison's 23% stake in Oracle is valued at roughly $28.8 billion. Realized gains on options accounted for 97% of Mr. Ellison's total compensation.

An Oracle spokeswoman declined to comment.

Mr. Diller of IAC and a spokeswoman for Capital One's Mr. Fairbank say their compensation reflects solid returns for shareholders over earlier periods.

For example, Mr. Diller in 2005 exercised more than 22 million IAC and Expedia stock options that had been granted in 1995, recording a paper gain of $463 million; he still holds the shares. Over that period, IAC stock rose more than four-fold.

"I did exactly as well as shareholders during the exact same counting period," Mr. Diller said in an interview. "If you're thinking of alignment with shareholders, I can't imagine a more aligned system."

Mr. Fairbank also recognized big gains from options granted in 1995 and exercised in 2005; he took in $249 million that year, nearly half his total for the decade. Over the period of 1995 to 2005, Capital One shares rose eightfold. Mr. Fairbank hasn't been paid a salary or bonus since 1997, a spokeswoman said.

The stocks of Countrywide and Lehman Brothers, meanwhile, soared for years before the housing slowdown and financial crisis. That allowed Mr. Mozilo, the former CEO of Countrywide, and Mr. Fuld, the former Lehman CEO, to reap big gains on options before their companies faltered.

Mr. Mozilo's attorney, David Siegel, didn't respond to requests for comment. Former Cendant CEO Henry Silverman didn't return calls. Mr. Fuld's attorney, Patricia Hynes, said in an email that the Journal should exclude Mr. Fuld's gains on stock and stock-option grants prior to 2000; she didn't respond to requests for further comment.

Even at some companies that have done well, some shareholders say the CEO is paid too much. Occidental shares rose more than sevenfold in the past decade. But shareholders in May opposed the oil company's executive-pay plan in a nonbinding vote.

Investors who campaigned against Occidental's pay plan say the CEO, Mr. Irani, was paid roughly three times as much as other oil-company executives. They contend the board sets his pay too high and his performance targets too low.

An Occidental spokesman said company directors believe in "excellent pay for excellent performance." Most of Mr. Irani's pay is tied to Occidental's operating results and share price, the spokesman noted, and all of his stock and option awards are now linked either to operating results or share price.

A Dell spokesman said most of Mr. Dell's compensation reflected gains on options granted in the 1990s, when Dell's stock price soared. He noted that Mr. Dell hasn't received a bonus for four years and hasn't been granted stock or stock options for six years.

Changes in executive-pay systems beginning in the 1980s were aimed at better aligning the fortunes of CEOs and their shareholders.

Salaries were restricted and executives were given more of their pay in stock options, which have value only if the company's share price rises.

Stock options give holders the right to buy shares at a specified price, known as the strike price. Options are generally granted for a seven-to-10-year period at a strike price equal to the share price on the grant date. Options accounted for 78% of pay for the top 25 earners in The Wall Street Journal analysis.

Looking at pay over a decade is intended to smooth out year-to-year fluctuations. But there remain mismatches between when pay was awarded and when it was received.

With so much pay linked to stock prices, executives' total compensation in the analysis varied depending on when they realized gains on options or restricted shares. Many of the top-earning executives exercised stock options in years when stock prices were relatively high, such as 2000, 2005 and 2007. Many of those options were granted in the 1990s.

By contrast, compensation for the group fell last year, when few executives exercised options at relatively depressed share prices. Mr. Ellison, for example, gained about $700 million from exercising options in January 2001, when Oracle's stock was near the dot-com era highs. But the following year his pay was almost nil.

The financial-reform bill signed last week by President Barack Obama gives shareholders of all companies a periodic, nonbinding vote on their corporation's executive-pay plan and requires companies to disclose the disparity between the CEO's pay and that of other employees.

Several of the nation's wealthiest executives weren't among the top earners. Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. receives only nominal compensation. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates stepped down as CEO in January 2000, and retired as a Microsoft employee in 2008.

Apple's Mr. Jobs also took a $1 annual salary throughout the decade. But he ranked fourth primarily because of a $647 million gain on restricted stock that was granted in 2003 and vested in 2006. He still holds the shares.

Apple directors gave Mr. Jobs the restricted stock in exchange for stock options that were then worthless, but which ultimately would have been worth more than the restricted stock had Mr. Jobs held them. Apple later acknowledged that some of the options exchanged for the restricted shares had been backdated, boosting their value, and restated its financial results. An Apple spokesman declined to comment.

Sixteen of the top 25 executives on the list were at their companies for the full decade, though not always as CEO. The top five headed their companies the entire period.

It was conducted by University of Southern California business professor Kevin Murphy, based on company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Gains on restricted stock are included only for 2006 though 2009; companies didn't have to report them for earlier years.


---公的資金注入でも…米金融幹部「お手盛り」巨額報酬---
2010年7月24日19時32分 読売新聞
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/atmoney/news/20100724-OYT1T00665.htm

 【ワシントン=岡田章裕】米財務省のケネス・ファインバーグ特別報酬監督官は23日、深刻な金融危機に陥った2008年秋から09年2月の5か月間に、公的資金の注入を受けた金融機関17社が、経営幹部らに対して総計16億ドル(約1400億円)もの巨額報酬を支払っていたと発表した。
 17社には、ゴールドマン・サックス、シティグループ、バンク・オブ・アメリカなど大手金融機関が含まれているとみられる。
 巨額の報酬額について、「無分別な」金額であると判断した。巨額の報酬支払いは社会的な批判を浴びた。だが、違法ではないため、監督官に報酬の返還を求める権限はない。監督官は、金融危機で公的資金の注入を受けた419社、23億ドル分の報酬を調査していた。


---米国:銀行破綻100行突破…昨年より3カ月早く---
毎日新聞 2010年7月24日 12時04分(最終更新 7月24日 12時09分)
http://mainichi.jp/select/biz/news/20100724k0000e020035000c.html

 【ワシントン斉藤信宏】米連邦預金保険公社(FDIC)は23日、フロリダ州の地銀など計7銀行が経営破綻(はたん)したと発表した。これで米国内で今年破綻した金融機関の数は計103行となり、100行の大台を突破した。08年秋の金融危機の影響で米国景気に急ブレーキがかかった09年と比較しても約3カ月早いペースで、地方の中小金融機関を中心に、米国の金融機関の苦境が続いていることを改めて浮き彫りにした。
 この日破綻したのはフロリダ州のスターリング・バンクなど中小銀行で、預金は全額他行に引き継がれる。
 米大手金融機関6社の業績は、10年7~9月期の決算でいずれも黒字を確保するなど堅調だが、地方の中小金融機関は個人向けや商業不動産向け融資の比率が高く、雇用悪化の影響で融資の焦げ付きが膨らんでいる。
 FDICによると、財務状況の悪化した「問題銀行」が3月末時点で775行と、09年末(702行)から約1割増加している。FDICは、金融機関の破綻が今年7~9月期にピークに達し、今後は緩やかに減少すると見込んでいるが、景気動向次第では、さらに破綻件数が大幅に膨らむ可能性もある。


---Wall Street Exhales After Sidestepping Pay Czar's Wrath---
JULY 24, 2010
By AARON LUCCHETTI, VICTORIA MCGRANE and RANDALL SMITH
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703294904575385120617510164.html

Wall Street took the latest government report on its pay practices in stride Friday, saying it would review U.S. pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg's suggestions about compensation while privately expressing relief that the report wasn't tougher on them.

Mr. Feinberg's four-page public discussion of banks' pay practices concluded that 17 banks had handed out $1.6 billion in "ill-advised" executive compensation before he was assigned in 2009 to oversee banks that accepted government money during the financial crisis. Mr. Feinberg's report didn't disclose the level of ill-advised pay at the 17 firms, which included Goldman Sachs Group Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., and Morgan Stanley.

Although Mr. Feinberg noted that payments sometimes exceeded $10 million per-person, he said some forms of payment such as cash bonuses and retention awards have been limited by subsequent rules. He declined to request that the firms return any payouts, saying he didn't find them against the public interest and expressing reluctance to trigger private lawsuits and additional congressional investigation.

After a week of speculation that his report could greatly embarrass Wall Street and result in pressure for firms to take back compensation, banks said it could have been a lot tougher. "He's trying to get out more than trying to make waves," said one bank official.

Mr. Feinberg, who is transitioning into a new job as the government-appointed administrator of BP PLC's $20 billion fund for oil-spill damage, suggested that banks give their boards' compensation committees the right to restructure executive pay during a crisis. The proposal is "entirely voluntary," according to the release from Mr. Feinberg, the special master for compensation at the U.S. Treasury.

None of the firms contacted Friday said they would adopt the proposal on its face, with most saying they needed to study it, receive more detail or declining to comment. Others pointed out that they have already instituted similar procedures designed to claw back undue compensation.

The other firms named by Mr. Feinberg for having given some "ill-advised" compensation included American International Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., American Express Co., Capital One Financial Corp., CIT Group Inc., Sun Trust Banks Inc., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., and U.S. Bancorp. Eleven of the 17 have returned their government investment with interest. Mr. Feinberg also looked at about 400 other financial instutions that received taxpayer assistance before Feb. 17, 2009.

Several firms privately expressed doubts that they would be able to institute a proposal that would insert new uncertainty about the contracts of their most valued employees. And one bank official said Friday that there could be legal issues with ripping up compensation contracts during a crisis.

"If banks can avoid doing this, they will," said J. Robert Brown, a law professor at the University of Denver specializing in executive compensation and corporate governance. He says the proposal will likely only be adopted if regulators put pressure on banks. "I was expecting a little bit more" from Mr. Feinberg's report, Mr. Brown added.

A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman said, "We support the efforts of the special master on compensation reform and will review his proposal." A Citi spokeswoman said the company was working to make its pay more performance based. "Getting our compensation structure right is a priority for us."

An AIG spokesman said: "only about 1% of the payments identified by the Special Master went to AIG employees." The company "has since worked closely with" Mr. Feinberg and will continue to do so with his office.

CIT noted that its payments "were consistent with then-existing legal standards."

Mr. Feinberg said the payments "were ill advised, they were troublesome. But I do not believe it is fair to declare … that the payments were 'contrary to the public interest.' " In fact, Mr. Feinberg said he undertook the compensation review, which was required by the 2009 stimulus law, with "some reluctance."

"This is arm-chair quarterbacking," he said.
-Robin Sidel contributed to this article.


---US bank failures in 2010 surpass 100---
By MARCY GORDON
The Associated Press
Friday, July 23, 2010; 10:26 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072304903.html?hpid=sec-business

WASHINGTON -- U.S. bank failures this year have surpassed a bleak milestone of 100 as regulators shut down banks in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Kansas, Nevada, Minnesota and Oregon.

The seven bank seizures announced Friday bring to 103 the failures so far in 2010. The pace of bank closures this year is well ahead of that of 2009, which saw a total of 140 banks shuttered amid the recession and mounting loan defaults. That was the highest annual tally since 1992, at the height of the savings and loan crisis.

The pace has accelerated as banks' losses mount on loans made for commercial property and development. Many companies have shut down in the recession, vacating shopping malls and office buildings financed by the loans. That has brought delinquent loan payments and defaults by commercial developers.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said it took over Crescent Bank and Trust Co., based in Jasper, Ga., with about $1 billion in assets; Sterling Bank of Lantana, Fla., with $407.9 million in assets; Williamsburg First National Bank of Kingstree, S.C., $139.3 million in assets; Thunder Bank of Sylvan Grove, Kan., $32.6 million; SouthwestUSA Bank, with one branch in Las Vegas, $214 million; Community Security Bank of New Prague, Minn., $108 million; and Home Valley Bank of Cave Junction, Ore., $251.8 million.

Renasant Bank, based in Tupelo, Miss., agreed to assume the assets and deposits of Crescent Bank and Trust. Iberiabank of Lafayette, La., is acquiring the assets and deposits of Sterling Bank. First Citizens Bank and Trust Co. of Columbia, S.C., is assuming the assets and deposits of Williamsburg First National Bank, while Bennington State Bank in Salina, Kan., is taking the assets and deposits of Thunder Bank.

Roundbank of Waseca, Minn., is assuming those of Community Security Bank. Plaza Bank, based in Irvine, Calif., is acquiring the deposits of SouthwestUSA Bank and $137.3 million of the assets. The FDIC will retain the rest for eventual sale. South Valley Bank & Trust in Klamath Falls, Ore., is assuming the assets and deposits of Home Valley Bank.

The failure of Crescent Bank and Trust is expected to cost the deposit insurance fund about $242.4 million. The resolution of Sterling Bank is estimated to cost $45.5 million; that of Williamsburg First National Bank, $8.8 million; Thunder Bank, $4.5 million; SouthwestUSA Bank, $74.1 million; Community Security Bank, $18.6 million; and Home Valley Bank, $37.1 million.

By this time last year, regulators had closed 64 banks.

The number of bank failures is expected to peak this year and be slightly higher than the 140 that fell in 2009. Twenty-five banks failed in 2008, the year the financial crisis struck with force, and only three succumbed in 2007.

The growing bank failures have sapped billions of dollars out of the deposit insurance fund. It fell into the red last year, and its deficit stood at $20.7 billion as of March 31.

The number of banks on the FDIC's confidential "problem" list jumped to 775 in the first quarter, from 702 three months earlier, even as the industry as a whole had its best quarter in two years.

A majority of institutions posted profit gains in the January-March quarter. But many small and midsized banks are likely to continue to suffer distress in the coming months and years, especially from soured loans for office buildings and development projects.

The FDIC expects the cost of resolving failed banks to total around $60 billion from 2010 through 2014.

The agency mandated last year that banks prepay about $45 billion in premiums, for 2010 through 2012, to replenish the insurance fund.

Depositors' money - insured up to $250,000 per account - is not at risk, with the FDIC backed by the government. That insurance cap was made permanent in the financial overhaul legislation signed this week by President Barack Obama.


---役員報酬1億以上283人---
2010年7月5日 読売新聞
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/atmoney/mnews/20100705-OYT8T00280.htm

個別開示 算定根拠あいまい
 金融庁が国内上場企業に義務づけた役員報酬の個別開示で、2009年度に1億円以上を受け取った経営者が165社、283人に上った。株主からは今後、報酬算定の根拠を明確にするように求める声が増えそうだ。(西原和紀、武石将弘)
 報酬が高額なのは、日産自動車のカルロス・ゴーン社長の8億9100万円など外国人経営者や創業家出身者が目立つ。日産の6月の株主総会ではゴーン社長の報酬について、株主が「トヨタ自動車やホンダに比べて多すぎると声を上げる人はいないのか」と批判した。日産の有価証券報告書は、報酬の決め方について「個々の役員の会社業績に対する貢献で決定」と記載しているだけで、「決定方針は定めていない」(AOKIホールディングス)といった企業もある。
 だが、日産の役員報酬総額(社外取締役除く)の半分をゴーン社長が受け取り、大日本印刷の場合、約4割を北島義俊社長が占めるといった状況について説明が不十分では、今後、役員選任議案に反対票を投じる機関投資家などが増える可能性もある。
 また、企業情報の調査会社ゼブラルの集計によると、役員報酬が業績・株価に連動する部分は約23%に過ぎず、業績向上の動機付けが小さくなるとの指摘もある。
 「なぜ開示基準を1億円と決めたのか分からない。見直しが必要」(日本証券業協会の前哲夫会長)との声もあり、開示のあり方を見直す必要がありそうだ。

カルロス・ゴーン社長       日産自動車   8億9100万円
ハワード・ストリンガー会長兼社長 ソニー     8億1450万円
北島義俊社長           大日本印刷   7億8700万円
植村伴次郎最高顧問        東北新社    6億7500万円
アラン・マッケンジー前取締役   武田薬品工業  5億5300万円
金川千尋会長           信越化学工業  5億3500万円
細矢礼二最高顧問         双葉電子工業  5億1700万円
三津原博社長           日本調剤    4億7726万円
里見治会長兼社長         セガサミーHD  4億3500万円
古森重隆社長           富士フィルムHD 3億6100万円
稲葉善治社長           ファナック   3億3100万円
毒島秀行会長           SANKYO     3億3000万円
荒井元義前会長          ビー・エム・エル 3億2100万円
小松安弘会長           エフピコ    3億2000万円
松村謙三社長           プリヴェ企業再生グループ 3億1965万円
石井勝前会長           高砂熱学工業  3億1300万円
小林英夫前取締役         コーセー    3億0700万円
渡部賢一社長           野村HD     2億9900万円
上月景正会長兼社長        コナミ     2億9900万円
青木拡憲会長           AOKIHD     2億9300万円

0 コメント: