Financial Reform Watch : Financial Services News & Information : Blank Rome Government Relations Lobbying Firm : Government Relations, Corporate Governance : Financial Reform Watch Law Blog

The House of Representatives took the first steps towards enacting President Obama’s sweeping financial reform proposal today, voting 237-185 to approve the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009 (H.R. 3269) requiring all publicly-held companies to hold non-binding annual shareholder votes and expanding SEC authority over incentive-based compensation structures. Although the bill’s passage represents a major victory for the president and the Democratic Congress, it may prove to be the least controversial element of financial reform, as stark divisions remain on both sides of the aisle concerning the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency and an expanded role for the Fed as a systemic risk regulator.

Unsurprisingly, this afternoon’s vote fell largely along party lines, with only two GOP members supporting the measure and 16 Democrats opposing. The House also approved, by a vote of 242-178, an amendment offered by Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) that struck language prohibiting “clawbacks ” of executive compensation approved by shareholders. The amendment also inserted language that would prohibit clawbacks of incentive-based pay if a compensation agreement was in effect prior to this bill's enactment.

As the executive compensation legislation moves to the other side of the Capitol, conventional wisdom dictates that the Senate saucer will ultimately cool the House’s hot teacup – but this historical assumption may not apply for this bill.  The executive compensation debate was further inflamed yesterday following the release of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's report showing that the nine largest U.S. banks paid out $32.6 billion in bonuses in 2008 -- a year in which total losses reached $81 billion and nearly $200 billion of taxpayer money was directly injected through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).  Moreover, a handful of lawmakers on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee currently facing tough re-election bids in 2010 – including Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) – will likely avoid putting themselves in a vulnerable political position by advocating reforms that deviate too much from the House legislation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Your Financial Reform Watch team has reported before on key legislators' misgivings with the administration's plan to make the Fed the systemic risk regulator for so-called "Tier 1" financial holding companies. Those misgivings are holding sway now on Capitol Hill and are beginning to take hold in the administration itself.

Just yesterday, SEC Chairman Mary Shapiro and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair were the latest to endorse what Shapiro referred to as a “hybrid approach,” one that would significantly strengthen the president’s current proposal of creating a Financial Services Oversight Council, responsible for collecting data and identifying emerging financial market risks for the Fed. Instead, both Shapiro and Bair envision a council of regulators that would work in concert with the central bank. Additionally, Bair recommended that, in order to ensure independence, the chairman of the council should be a presidential appointee subject to Senate confirmation.

On the Senate side, Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL) are both giving voice to concerns about the enhanced role for the Fed. Shelby has been an outspoken critic of giving the Fed such authority from the start, but Dodd’s statements at a committee hearing yesterday that the “new authority could compromise the independence of the Fed when it provides monetary policy,” and that he “expect[s] changes to be made to this proposal," made it clear the Senate is heading in a direction different from the administration's.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Expanding shareholder voting rights to include corporate executive compensation has been a topic of considerable debate in Washington over the past few years, but not until the fall of 2008—when the federal government began undertaking unprecedented steps to stabilize the financial system—did “say on pay” gain real momentum. By late fall, there was strong public outcry for action as recipients of government bailout money reported high executive salaries and bonuses that appeared disconnected from their companies' financial health.

Congress took the first steps towards strengthening investor influence by imposing say on pay requirements for all Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed in February. However, in response to public uproar over American International Group’s (AIG) distribution of $165 million in corporate bonuses to their much-maligned financial products unit, the Obama Administration went one step further in early June by proposing an extension of say on pay to all publicly-traded companies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Treasury Department today released draft legislative language that would require all public companies to hold annual, non-binding shareholder votes on executive compensation packages as well as impose stricter standards to ensure the independence of corporate compensation committees. The "Say on Pay" proposal is modeled after a rule the United Kingdom adopted in 2002. Starting December 15, 2009, proxy materials will have to include tables summarizing the salary, bonus, stock option awards, and total compensation package for senior executives and also narrative explanations of any golden parachute and pension compensation packages. In the event of a merger or acquisition, companies will need to hold separate votes on golden parachutes and must lay out simply and clearly what the departing executives will receive.

To ensure the independence of corporate compensation committee members, the legislation calls for "exacting new standards" modeled on how Sarbanes Oxley established the independence of audit committees. The provisions would require compensation committees to be granted the funding and authority necessary to hire compensation consultants, legal counsel, and other advisers—all of whom should be independent of the company's management—to help the committee negotiate pay packages that are "in the best interests of shareholders."

Financial Reform Watch will be tracking this legislation as it moves through Congress.

Treasury: Proposed Legislation re Executive Compensation or "Say on Pay" (PDF)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Late yesterday afternoon, the Treasury Department released draft legislation that would require advisers to hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital funds, and other private pools of capital to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) if they have more than $30 million of assets under management. In addition to registering, the advisers will be subjected to new reporting, recordkeeping, compliance, and disclosure requirements as well as conflict of interest and anti-fraud prohibitions. In its release, Treasury said,

"The Administration's legislation would help protect investors from fraud and abuse, provide increased transparency, and provide the information necessary to assess whether risks in the aggregate or risks in any particular fund pose a threat to our overall financial stability."

Financial Reform Watch will be tracking this legislation as it moves through Congress.

Treasury:  Proposed Legislatve Language for the Registration of Hedge Funds (PDF) 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The quick emergence of GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy has been viewed as a victory for the Obama Administration in demonstrating that the government is focused on moving the companies through their restructuring and keeping them on the road to once again being private companies. Now a majority of Members of the House, including two key Democratic leaders, are pushing legislation that could jeopardize the restructuring plans supported by the White House.

As we write this, a bipartisan group of 240 House Members and 20 Senators are supporting legislation that will allow auto dealers who have lost their franchises in the restructuring to recover them simply by requesting their reinstatement from the auto companies. The legislation was attached to the House version of the Financial Services Appropriations bill last week by a unanimous vote of 60 to 0. The legislation would require Chrysler and GM, at the request of an auto dealer, to restore the dealer franchise agreement in effect prior to each manufacturer’s bankruptcy proceeding. The bill could save around 2000 franchises according to some estimates, although that may be high, since many dealers have already closed. Some had feared the House Rules Committee would remove the language from the Financial Services Appropriations bill, but the language will remain in section 745 of the bill when the House votes on the measure tomorrow.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After nearly four months of delay, the Treasury on Wednesday launched the Legacy Securities program—a key component of the administration’s Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) aimed at relieving financial institutions of illiquid assets that continue to hamper the flow of credit markets.

Scaling back the scope of the Legacy Securities program as originally envisioned in March, the Treasury, together with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve, offered a framework that will provide government investments of up to $30 billion so that private sector fund managers and private investors might purchase legacy commercial mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and non-agency MBS off the balance sheets of banks and other financial institutions.

Selected from a pool of over 100 applicants, below is a list of the nine private fund managers pre-qualified by Treasury to participate in the initial round of the Legacy Securities program:

• AllianceBernstein, LP and its sub-advisors Greenfield Partners, LLC and Rialto Capital Management, LLC
• Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P. and GE Capital Real Estate
• BlackRock, Inc.
• Invesco Ltd.
• Marathon Asset Management, L.P.
• Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.
• RLJ Western Asset Management, LP.
• The TCW Group, Inc.
• Wellington Management Company, LLP

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Demonstrating that Congress intends to put its own stamp on financial reform legislation, House Democrats on July 8 introduced their own scaled-back version of the new consumer protection agency proposed by President Obama. Coming on the heels of the president’s release of draft legislation to create a new independent regulator for financial products and services, House Democrats responded quickly on Wednesday by unveiling the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 (HR 3126).

The bill was introduced by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA). While it retains many of the key provisions outlined within the White House bill—including the transfer of consumer financial regulations to the CFPA in order for the new agency to write and enforce rules on financial products of both banks and non-banks—it is notable for several significant differences from the Obama proposal that may limit the CFPA’s jurisdiction.

In particular, the House bill preserves the current regulatory enforcement structure for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which is overseen by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) in order to ensure that depository institutions are engaging in fair lending practices to low-income communities. Additionally, unlike the President’s bill, which assumes a merger with OTS and OCC to form a new prudential regulator titled the National Bank Supervisory (NBS), H.R. 3126 makes no mention of NBS. Frank’s press release goes on to state that the details of the President’s merger proposal will be considered “at [a] later date.”
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link