摩根大通交易巨亏折射出的高管薪酬问题

    杰米•戴蒙于2006年1月1日出任摩根大通首席执行官。根据最近的摩根大通投票委托书，杰米•戴蒙所持股票（和等价物）若按摩根大通6月8日收盘价，价值逾2亿美元。如果股价涨至5年前水平，戴蒙所持股票净值将再增加7500万美元。

    同样的股价上涨将令前摩根大通首席投资官伊娜•德鲁所持股票净值增值超过2300万美元，包括她的延付薪酬和未行权股票。根据戴蒙的证词，德鲁负责的正是造成此次交易巨亏的部门，她直接向戴蒙报告。和近年来一样，董事会给戴蒙和德鲁的的薪酬主要是股票和期权。仅这两项2011年就分别合计1700万美元和850万美元。

    那么，他们的行为驱动力是什么？当董事会以这种方式支付高管薪酬时，传递出的时什么信息？

    纽约联储银行去年12月份的一份工作人员报告警告称，这类高薪可能鼓励首席执行官的冒险行为，造成公司财务压力（讽刺的是，戴蒙是纽约联储银行的董事会成员，但要求其离任的一份请愿书获得超过3.6万个签名)。

    与之形成对比的是，监管部门制定的《稳健薪酬指南》建议采用基于风险的指标，即将一家公司和员工的绩效与所承担风险的数量和质量相挂钩。虽然银行业宣称采用基于风险的指标，但股价仍是决定银行高管实际薪酬的最大决定因素。但推高一家公司的股价和理性承担风险，往往背道而驰。前雷曼兄弟（Lehman Brothers）首席执行官迪克•富尔德就是一个例子。

    不过，即便是投票委托书列出的考量戴蒙、德鲁薪酬的指标，也不是基于风险。今年高管薪酬方案被股东否决的花旗银行（Citi）通过发言人回复电子邮件，声称“花旗通过薪酬计划，持续强化公司降低风险的能力”，摩根大通、高盛（Goldman）、美国银行（Bank of America）和摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）拒绝在本文中讨论他们的薪酬做法。毫不奇怪。美联储（Federal Reserve）2011年10月的一份报告证实大银行应用基于风险的指标存在“不均衡”现象，每家银行都有更多工作要做。报告称“要推广基于风险的指标，实现一致性和有效性，还有大量的工作要做。”简言之，银行董事会需要踹上一脚。

谁会加大监督力度？

    两年前，美国联邦存款保险公司（FDIC）发出了一则征求意见的预先通知，计划如果银行的薪酬方案风险高，它将向银行收取更高的存款保险费。这样一项举措本应起到敦促银行尽快调整高管薪酬的作用。但“迄今为止，这一拟议条例尚无进展，”FDIC的一位发言人最近在电子邮件中表示。近日，FDIC的代理主席马丁•格鲁伯格在参议院发表预先准备好的讲话时，也没有谈到薪酬或这样一项拟议条例。

    Jamie Dimon became CEO of J.P. Morgan on January 1, 2006. The latest J.P. Morgan proxy shows that Jamie Dimon holds shares (and equivalents) worth over $200 million based on the company's closing price June 8. If the stock price rose to where it was just five years ago, his net worth would jump by $75 million.

    A similar pop would net Ina Drew, former chief investment officer at the bank, over $23 million, if you include her deferred compensation and unvested shares. Drew oversaw the unit responsible for the large losses and reported directly to Dimon according to the testimony this morning. As in years past, the board gave Dimon and Drew's pay primarily in stock and options-based awards. Those items alone totaled $17 million and $8.5 million in 2011, respectively.

    So what really drives their behavior? And what message is the board sending when they pay their executives this way?

    This kind of high pay is exactly what a December New York Fed staff report warned could encourage risky CEO behavior and create economic distress. (Ironically, Dimon sits on the NY Fed's board, although a petition for his removal has garnered over 36,000 signatures.)

    In contrast, sound compensation guidance from the regulators recommends risk-based measures, which put a company's and its employees' performance in the context of the quantity and quality of the risk that's taken on. Though banks claim to use risk-based measures, stock price is still the biggest determining factor in top bank executives' actual rewards. But goosing a company's stock price and taking rational risks are not exactly close companions. Former CEO Dick Fuld at Lehman Brothers was the poster child for this issue.

    Even the measures cited in the proxy for rewarding Dimon and Drew are not risk-based. While a spokesperson for Citi (C) (which received a no vote on pay this year) wrote in an email that "Citi has continued to enhance the ability of the firm to reduce risks through its compensation programs," J. P. Morgan, Goldman (GS), Bank of America (BAC), and Morgan Stanley (MS) declined to discuss their pay practices for this article. No wonder. An October 2011 report by the Federal Reserve confirms that the use of risk-based measures at the large banks is "uneven" and every bank has more work to do. "Substantial work remains to be done to achieve consistency and effectiveness … in providing balanced risk-taking incentives," the report states. Put simply, bank boards need a kick in the pants.

Who will step up?

    The FDIC put out an advanced notice over two years ago asking for comments on proposing a rule that would charge banks more for depository insurance if their pay programs were risky. Such a measure could have been a real impetus to fix pay. But, "to date, there has been no follow-up to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking," an FDIC spokesperson recently emailed me. And Martin Gruenberg, acting chair of the FDIC, did not address pay or such a proposed rule in his prepared testimony before the Senate last week.