June 10, 2009
TG-163
Statement by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on
Compensation
For the Say on Pay fact sheet, visit link.
For the Providing Compensation Committees New
Independence fact sheet, visit link.
WASHINGTON – Our financial system is
built on trust and confidence. It requires rules and practices that
encourage sound risk management and align the benefits for market
participants with long-term growth and value creation – not only at
individual firms, but for our financial system and the economy as a
whole.
This financial crisis had many significant causes, but executive
compensation practices were a contributing factor.
Incentives for short-term gains overwhelmed the checks and balances
meant to mitigate against the risk of excess leverage.
Today, I met with SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro, Federal Reserve
Governor Dan Tarullo, and top experts to examine how we can better align
compensation practices – particularly in the financial sector – with sound
risk management and long-term growth.
In considering these reforms, we start with a set of broad-based
principles that – with the help of experts like those we assembled today –
we expect to evolve over time. By outlining these principles now, we begin
the process of bringing compensation practices more tightly in line with
the interests of shareholders and reinforcing the stability of firms and
the financial system.
First, compensation plans should properly measure and reward
performance.
Compensation should be tied to performance in order to link the
incentives of executives and other employees with long-term value
creation. Incentive-based pay can be undermined by compensation practices
that set the performance bar too low, or that rely on benchmarks that
trigger bonuses even when a firm's performance is subpar relative to its
peers.
To align with long-term value creation, performance based-pay
should be conditioned on a wide range of internal and external metrics,
not just stock price. Various measurements can be used to distinguish a
firm's results relative to its peers, while taking into account the
performance of an individual, a particular business unit and the firm at
large.
Second, compensation should be structured to account for the
time horizon of risks.
Some of the decisions that contributed to this crisis occurred
when people were able to earn immediate gains without their compensation
reflecting the long-term risks they were taking for their companies and
their shareholders. Financial firms, in particular, developed and sold
complex financial instruments that yielded large gains in the short-term,
but still presented the risk of major losses.
Companies should seek to pay top executives in ways that are
tightly aligned with the long-term value and soundness of the firm. Asking
executives to hold stock for a longer period of time may be the most
effective means of doing this, but directors and experts should have the
flexibility to determine how best to align incentives in different
settings and industries. Compensation conditioned on longer-term
performance will automatically lose value if positive results one year are
followed by poor performance in another, obviating the need for explicit
clawbacks. In addition, firms should carefully consider how incentives
that match the time horizon of risks can extend beyond top executives to
those involved at different levels in designing, selling and packaging
both simple and complex financial instruments.
Third, compensation practices should be aligned with sound
risk management.
At many firms, compensation design unintentionally encouraged
excessive risk-taking, providing incentives that ultimately put the health
of the company in danger. Meanwhile, risk managers too often lacked the
stature or the authority necessary to impose a check on these
activities.
Compensation committees should conduct and publish risk
assessments of pay packages to ensure that they do not encourage imprudent
risk-taking. At the same time, firms should explore how they can provide
risk managers with the appropriate tools and authority to improve their
effectiveness at managing the complex relationship between incentives and
risk-taking.
Fourth, we should reexamine whether golden parachutes and
supplemental retirement packages align the interests of executives and
shareholders.
Golden parachutes were originally designed to align executives'
interests with those of shareholders when a company is the potential
target of an acquisition. Often, they have been expanded beyond that
purpose to provide severance packages that do not enhance the long-term
value of the firm. Likewise, supplemental executive retirement benefits
can make it more difficult for shareholders to readily ascertain the full
amount of pay due a top executive upon leaving the firm.
We should reexamine how well these golden parachutes and
supplemental retirement packages are aligned with shareholders' interests,
whether they truly incentivize performance, and whether they reward top
executives even if their shareholders lose value.
Finally, we should promote transparency and accountability in
the process of setting compensation.
Many of the compensation practices that encouraged excessive
risk-taking might have been more closely scrutinized if compensation
committees had greater independence and shareholders had more clarity. In
too many cases, compensation committees were not sufficiently independent
of management, while companies were not fully transparent in explaining
their compensation packages to shareholders. In addition, existing
disclosures typically failed to make clear in a single place the total
amount of "walkaway" pay due a top executive, including severance,
pensions, and deferred compensation.
We intend to work with Congress to pass legislation in two
specific areas. First of all, we will support efforts in Congress to pass
"say on pay" legislation, giving the SEC authority to require companies to
give shareholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation packages.
"Say on pay" – which has already become the norm for several of our major
trading partners, and which President Obama supported while in the Senate
– would encourage boards to ensure that compensation packages are closely
aligned with the interest of shareholders.
Secondly, we will propose legislation giving the SEC the power to
ensure that compensation committees are more independent, adhering to
standards similar to those in place for audit committees as part of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act. At the same time, compensation committees would be
given the responsibility and the resources to hire their own independent
compensation consultants and outside counsel.
Beyond legislation, I also want to emphasize the importance of
the efforts being taken by Chairman Bernanke and the bank supervisors to
lay out broad standards on compensation that will be more fully integrated
into the supervisory process. These efforts recognize that an important
component of risk management is getting incentives right, and we will
support the Fed and the other regulators as they work to ensure executive
and employee compensation practices do not create unnecessary risk.
Finally, I want to be clear on what we are not doing. We are not
capping pay. We are not setting forth precise prescriptions for how
companies should set compensation, which can often be counterproductive.
Instead, we will continue to work to develop standards that reward
innovation and prudent risk-taking, without creating misaligned
incentives.
As we seek to strike this balance, the President's Working Group
on Financial Markets will provide an annual review of compensation
practices to monitor whether they are creating excessive risks. And we
will encourage experts in the field – academics, business leaders and
shareholders – to conduct their own reviews to identify best practices,
emerging positive and negative trends and call attention to risks that
might otherwise go unseen.
Many leaders in the financial sector have acknowledged the
problems posed by past compensation schemes, and have already begun
implementing reforms. But we have more to do to address
this challenge, and we look forward to continuing this conversation with a
wide range of stakeholders in the weeks and months
ahead.
###
REPORTS