U.S. Congress | The Finlay Centre for Corporate & Public Governance

Subprime Debacle Needs Congressional Spotlight, and So Do the Regulators Who Let it Happen

Investigations by Congress in 1912, 1932 and 2002 revealed weaknesses and abuses in both the regulatory regime and in the governance of corporations that yielded major reforms. A comparable effort is needed now in the face of the worst credit crisis since the Great Depression.

A trio of former SEC chairmen and a solo performance on the part of a former high-ranking Fed official are making for some interesting music and a much-needed counterpoint to the current chorus of conventional thinking. In a recent Op-Ed piece in The New York Times, William Donaldson, Arthur Levitt, Jr. and David Ruder write: “In 1987, a presidential task force was established to investigate the Black Monday crash. Today, we need a similar exhaustive, bipartisan and impartial examination to explore a series of possible business and regulatory failures”. The former securities regulators invite an examination of:

…apparent conflicts of interest on the part of the credit ratings agencies; the failure of banks and other lenders to adopt sound lending practices; the failure of investment banks to disclose that they had significant portfolios of securities backed by subprime mortgages; the sale of high-risk securities to investors for whom they were unsuited; the breakdown (or absence) of adequate risk management systems among the top financial services firms; and the failure of regulators to recognize and take early action to deal with the problems that have grown to today’s magnitude.

We would add to that list for investigation the alarming failure of too many boards to effectively oversee risk and the role that excessive compensation played in rewarding CEOs for taking on levels of risk that would run up the price of shares and boost their pay in the short term but which ultimately proved to be unmanageable over the longer run. As we predicted some years ago, Titanic-sized CEO compensation has proven to be the most corrosive force in the modern American boardroom. It will continue to be associated with mishaps, scandals and failures in the future, as it has been in the past, unless it is checked by a healthy injection of common sense and sound judgment around the director’s table.

Valuable as a review of the SEC’s role would be, we have expressed the view that a more comprehensive inquiry regarding the actions of all the players in the subprime ordeal, and what changes are necessary both in the regulatory system and in corporate governance practices, is more appropriate. Back in January, in Time for Tough Questions About Subprime Solutions -and Their Potential Dangers, we suggested that Congress needed to get to the bottom of what was happening and why. We concluded by noting:

The issues of subprime bailouts, foreign investment and the failures that brought American capitalism to this troubling state are far too important to be permitted to escape scrutiny or unfold by stealth or default, which is the current mode of operation. Those actors have too often entered the room when no one was paying attention and waltzed out with most of the silverware in their pockets.

Vincent Reinhart, who was director of monetary affairs at the Fed until last year, has called the Bear Stearns bailout “the worst policy mistake in a generation.” We, too, have had our reservations about that rescue and the lack of transparency associated with it. As we said shortly after the deal was announced:

Americans cannot permit free enterprise to reign just when CEOs and companies are making piles of money only to have it replaced by socialism when they are teetering on disaster.

In a later posting we noted:

More and more, the picture is emerging that this was a bailout of Wall Street, prompted by Wall Street, over problems caused by Wall Street, with terms dictated by Wall Street. The Fed’s agreement constitutes the single most significant market intervention in generations. Such a decision…places substantial taxpayer dollars on the line and the concept of moral hazard in jeopardy.

The causes of the worst crisis in America’s capital markets since the Great Depression, and the unprecedented decisions of the Fed in dealing with it, along with the role other public and corporate actors have played in this saga, call out for serious analysis and national discussion. Congress has acted before in the face of momentous challenges to the stability of the market and public confidence in its functioning. A special subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives was formed in 1912 under the legendary chairmanship of Louisiana Congressman Arsène Pujo to examine the influence of the “money trust” and the growing power of Wall Street titans like J.P. Morgan.

In 1932, in the wake of the Crash of 1929 and the ensuing economic depression, the United States Senate Committee on Banking and Currency (as it was called then) began to consider the need for reforms. Its landmark work, spearheaded by committee counsel Ferdinand Pecora, produced the first securities laws of 1933 and 1934 and created the SEC.

More recently, as a result of a series of accounting scandals and widespread failures in corporate governance, efforts by Congress under Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Mike Oxley led to the creation of omnibus boardroom reforms known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A wide-ranging inquiry into the causes and lessons of the subprime credit implosion, similar in scope and heft to the Pujo, Pecora and Sarbanes-Oxley hearings, needs to be conducted, and soon. We also think it is important to include in that review the governance of the Federal Reserve System and the reforms that are needed to bring it into line with 21st century levels of public confidence, independence and accountability. We pointed out earlier, for instance, that at the New York Federal Reserve, which played the leading role in the Bear Stearns bailout, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, the Fed-assisted purchaser of Bear Stearns, was a director. Richard Fuld and Jeffrey Immelt, CEOs of Lehman Brothers and GE, both big players in the capital markets, were elected by the New York Fed directors to represent “the public.” That, we find to be a bit of a stretch. It’s a throw back to the cronyism of the New York Stock Exchange before it was faced with a wave of demands for reform after the pay scandal involving former CEO Richard Grasso. It is simply not possible for any player in the Fed system to maintain credibility regarding its important public mandate while at the same time maintaining what is an essentially privately structured, club-like governance system. It is time for a serious rethinking about to whom and for what the Federal Reserve System is accountable, and how its governance practices need to be more aligned with its public mission.

Comprehensive investigations by Congress in 1912, 1932 and 2002 (and these were not one- or two-day affairs, as recent hearings on some aspects of the subprime debacle have been) revealed weaknesses and abuses in both the regulatory regime and in the governance of corporations that yielded major reforms. Their enactment paved the way for a restoration of public confidence and enabled significant periods of growth and expansion.

It is important that the opportunity to understand more completely the causes of the subprime crisis, and the vulnerabilities that led to it, not be lost. Only then will the full spectrum of necessary reforms both in the boardroom and in the regulatory arena become clear. In that respect, basic logic if not sound public policy principles counsel that the package of regulatory changes proposed recently by the Bush Administration was premature. More needs to be known about the specifics of the failures at all levels that created the current problem before the correct solution can be adopted. Uppermost in any such legislative review is the question: How exactly was one company, Bear Stearns, allowed to become so critical to the functioning of the market that only by preventing its failure through a massive intervention of the federal government could the collapse of the entire financial system be narrowly averted, as U.S. officials have asserted in testimony before Congress.

Not even in the unfettered era of J.P. Morgan’s trusts, or at the height of the rail-riding Great Depression, was the American public presented with the frightfulness of that prospect.

Did Bear Stearns Really Have a Board? | Part 1

How this 85-year-old icon of Wall Street was governed was also a clue as to how it might fail.

When rumors were circling the company and threatening its survival, it responded by issuing a strong statement denying liquidity problems. The board agreed. But astonishingly, the company disintegrated less than 48 hours later and was quickly valued at only $2 per share in a fire sale to JPMorgan. The board agreed with that number. Then, in yet another stunning twist, just a few days later the company was suddenly valued five times higher by the same suitor and a new price of $10 per share was set. The board agreed with that number, too. In the dust and rubble that cover the collapse of Bear Stearns, much is still unknown and unexplained. But one thing is clear: the fifth largest investment bank in America has been governed by one of the most incurious and acquiescent boards in history. On the other hand, perhaps it has had no real board at all.

On paper it appears that Bear’s board complies with NYSE rules and Sarbanes-Oxley legislation. Dig deeper though and you will find a dysfunctional board, overstretched independent directors and an executive chairman whose approach to his duties is novel, to say the least.The first thing that hits you about this Wall Street icon is that it is governed by men. Only men. It was like that at its inception in 1923; it remains a men’s club in 2008. Three of its 12-member board are insiders, as is the executive chairman, James Cayne. (There were actually four insiders until Warren J. Spector, the firm’s president and co-chief operating officer, resigned last fall over the collapse of Bear’s hedge funds.) Best corporate governance practices generally prefer management limited to one or two seats at most. The insider problem in Bear’s boardroom is even more pronounced where all the heavy lifting is done: the company’s executive committee. Composed entirely of the top insiders of the investment bank, company filings confirm that in 2006 (the most recent figures available) the executive committee met on 115 occasions. By contrast, the full board met only six times.

When the board of a sizeable and complex institution such as Bear Stearns believes it has so little need to meet, it is generally a sign that the company’s corporate governance culture has not evolved to the level that shareholders and the global capital markets require in the 21st century. Another red flag is the existence of a committee of insiders that performs much of the board’s work to the exclusion of any independent director involvement.One of the hallmarks of boards today is the role of independent directors and the extent to which they are actually informed and empowered. When they are left out of the equation, accountability and sound decision-making can be severely compromised. There was an executive committee composed solely of insiders at Hollinger International, for instance. It was headed by Conrad M. Black, who also held a jaded view of modern corporate governance practices. Lord Black of Crossharbour, as he prefers to be called, is now presiding over a small cubicle cell at the Coleman U.S. prison complex in Florida.

It’s not that Bear’s independent directors are underworked, however. They are busy –serving on the boards of other publicly traded corporations. On the all-important seven-member audit committee, three directors hold among them 18 board seats on listed companies. Vincent Tese, the audit committee chairman, serves on the boards of five listed companies in addition to Bear Stearns. Two members of the audit committee, Michael Goldstein and Frederick Salerno, serve on the audit committees of 11 public companies between them. In the Sarbanes-Oxley era which tightened up the role and duties of audit committees, it is rare, and more than a little troubling, to see boards tolerating that level of concurrent responsibility on the part of audit committee members.

Bear Stearns was among the most aggressive risk takers of the top investment banks. Its demise today reflects how poorly that risk was managed. Yet the firm never took a formal approach to its risk oversight responsibilities until a year ago when, on March 22, 2007, the board approved the charter for a finance and risk committee. Prudent directors would have known, given the nature of Bear’s business lines and how intricate its products had become, that a risk committee was called for much earlier. The choice of how Bearn Stearns was governed and how its board was structured to discharge its duties were clearly a decision of its directors and, especially, of James Cayne, who became CEO of the firm in 1993 and has been chairman of the board since 2001.

In my 30 years or so of following, working with and commenting on boards, I have come to learn that the chair of the board sets the tone for how it performs. In searching for clues as to where the board was when the seeds of Bear’s destruction were being sewn, one need look no further than Mr. Cayne. It has often been asserted, in the aftermath of boardroom debacles, that directors were asleep at the wheel. In Mr. Cayne’s case, there is compelling evidence that he was not even on the ship.

When Bear’s mortgage-based hedge funds were collapsing last summer –and there were strong adumbrations of a gathering storm of subprime credit before this– Mr. Cayne was off enjoying a golf and bridge vacation. As we noted previously:

Of course, it is harder to excuse a CEO who is making stupid mistakes or issuing comments that are so at odds with reality that it becomes impossible to have confidence in his sense of vision and judgment. This was the case with Mr. O’Neal’s previous pronouncements that things were looking OK with the subprime situation at Merrill Lynch. And we expect it will also be the case with Bear Stearns’s Jimmy Cayne, who rode out that company’s summer hedge fund storm in the calm of a golfing and bridge tournament vacation and who may yet learn that, in the department of CEO appearance, a corporate crisis always trumps a card game. Others will surely fall before the latest turmoil is quelled and the surprise-o-meter is likely to get quite a workout when all is said and done.

The first losses in Bear’s history soon followed Mr. Cayne’s summer shenanigans. A few months later he gave up the CEO slot while remaining executive chairman of the board. They were not the only hits the above noted surprise-o-meter took, as predicted.

But in an astonishing encore of his now infamous disappearing act, Mr. Cayne was at a bridge tournament in Detroit while the investment bank was facing its deepest crisis ever. This he chose to do even while rumors about the company’s liquidity problems were so rampant that it had to put out a press release denying them. So bizarre were Mr. Cayne’s actions that the only equivalent that comes to mind is Nero’s reported fiddling while Rome burned. It is no doubt an approach to a director’s duty of care that has not escaped notice by the shareholders’ bar. There is no record of any independent director having been troubled by Mr. Cayne’s frolics during the past six-month fall of the company. There is no evidence available that the corporate governance committee, whose charter includes “the evaluation of the Board and management,” or the lead director, took any action to replace Mr. Cayne when it was first apparent that he had other priorities besides leading the board during this decisive period.

With a board that seldom meets and has a habit of giving over so much of its authority to an insider-dominated executive committee, and an absentee leader at the helm like James Cayne, one wonders precisely how much due diligence directors did before they signed off on the sale. They sizably undersold the company’s assets, as the recent $10 per share price –five times what the board accepted last week- confirms. Such a dramatic shift over a period of just a few days in what the directors think the company is worth suggests a board that is either being poorly advised or is not entirely focused on its duties. It was an approach to corporate governance in Bear’s boardroom that was consistent with the pattern of shortcomings that brought the firm to the point of crisis and collapse in the first place.

Much of what happened and how it could have been permitted remains a mystery. There were, after all, many lessons from the past that showed the painful consequences of disengaged boards which the chairman and directors of Bear should have committed to memory. But this much is certain: When such an important financial institution begins to crumble so quickly, leaving the capital markets in turmoil and requiring the intervention of the highest echelons of the federal government, Congress needs to ask some pointed questions.

It should start with the Bear Stearns board.

_______________________________

If Bear Stearns had no chairman and no board at all, would the results have been any worse?

Read part 2 of this series.

Outrage of the Week: When Subprime CEOs Dissemble Before Congress

Never in modern business has so much been given to so few for such colossally failed results.

In just five years, these three CEOs made more than $460 million while leading their companies into the greatest losses in their history. One of them, Charles O. Prince of Citigroup, even got a bonus of $10 million, despite presiding over more than $20 billion in losses and write-downs. Stanley O’Neal left with $161 million after Merrill Lynch chalked up its largest losses ever. And Countrywide Financial‘s Angelo Mozilo, one of the highest compensated CEOs in America, has pocketed more than $400 million since 1999. The company has lost four times that amount over the past six months. Never in modern business has so much been given to so few for such colossally failed results.

To the average working person, who rarely receives a bonus even for doing an exemplary job, much less a bad one, this performance must have seemed like something of an out-of-body experience. Pay and accomplishment seldom have seemed more disconnected.

But to the past and current CEOs who testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform this week, there is no disconnect at all. The universe, for them, unfolded exactly as it should. It was about as we expected.

They, and the heads of the board compensation committees which approved these deals, all offered the usual bromides: The amounts were fully approved; the money was earned; the market is king; high pay is needed to attract and keep the best talent. How it is that CEOs who preside over record losses represent the best talent was never quite explained. One claimed only to want to help homeowners live out the American dream. Another cited his grandfather being born a slave. A third trumpeted his company’s ethics and corporate governance reforms. Mr. Mozilo ventured that the subprime meltdown had a notable culprit: “There was a lot of fraud there.” he told lawmakers. Many will agree, but they might not be thinking about the garden variety mortgage applicants to which Mr. Mozilo was referring. What role more lofty figures had in pushing out subprime loans, and who benefited from the resulting torrent of fees and record bonuses, will be something regulators and legislators should be looking at more closely.

The group of CEOs and directors who appeared before the comittee managed to slice and dice their compensaton decisions so much that they looked like they came out of a boardroom Veg-O-Matic: the pay wasn’t for this year, it was for last; it wasn’t severance, it was deferred compensation; it wasn’t a bonus for this year, it was payment for previous excellent performance. They said they actually lost a lot of money when the stock went down, just like all the other shareholders. Except most other shareholders did not head the company and make the wrong decisions. Most did not run up record losses and most did not receive tens or hundreds of millions in stock options and bonuses and salaries bigger than the state of Texas. One more thing: the process, they testified, is all fully in accord with the Business Roundtable guidelines on CEO compensation. Now that’s a really high bar. The Roundtable is made up of America’s top and best-paid CEOs. The ranking Republican on the Committee, Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), called the Business Roundtable guidelines the “gold standard” for corporate compensation. Is that because it makes sure the CEOs get all the gold?

Astonishing even for this group, when asked by Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) if there was any amount they would consider to be too much, there was silence, punctuated by self-serving proclamations of satisfaction with the way things are. All reassured the committee that they were not underpaid, however, and thus a sigh of relief was heard across the country.

America is experiencing one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression. The brokerage and mortgage lending industries played the central role in creating this contagion. But if high CEO pay is truly linked to performance and is good for the economy, people will want to know why it is, during a period that has seen the largest transfer of wealth from investors to the boardroom in history, the result is now one of falling stock values, shrinking economic growth, galloping home foreclosures and mounting job losses.

The hearing this week gave a rare opportunity for business leaders to admit that CEO compensation has gotten out of control and that it’s time for a new reality show in the boardroom. What began with the attendance of prominent CEOs and boardroom luminaries ended with the spectacle of men twisted like pretzels, having engaged in every type of contortion to show that these compensation arrangements were reasonable and had nothing to do with decisions to pump out more fee-generating subprime loans and structured investment vehicles. They also sent a veiled warning: any change to or reduction in the way CEOs are compensated, and capitalism as we know it may not survive. Here’s a bulletin for the boardroom: capitalism may not survive the kind of leadership that permits an ever increasing gap between CEO pay and everyone else’s, rewards failure with multi-million dollar bonuses and severance, and sees CEOs spinning off with a king’s ransom while leaving everybody else in the dust.

This was an opportunity for real leaders to admit that there are serious problems between the leadership class of capitalism and those who depend upon it for their well-being. To stand up and acknowledge the trend toward excess, to take the lead in stepping back and not being the first in the lifeboat when disaster strikes, to show some meaningful sacrifice at a time when so many are hurting instead of flashing five figure watches, five thousand dollar suits and a tan direct from the winter mansion at Palm Beach (or Palm Springs) -this would have been the kind of leadership that CEOs showed during two great wars and other times that tested America. This group showed none of that. One suspects they are, regrettably, an accurate reflection of the pool of CEOs and directors of which they are a part.

Excessive CEO pay has become synonymous with what is worst about American business: crony boards where one back scratches the other; compliant compensation committees made up of past and current CEOs; and an ethical value system enabling displays of greed and over indulgence that is not something parents generally want to impart to their children. It has been associated with every scandal from Enron and WorldCom to Nortel and Hollinger and countless failures in between. It is now a contributing factor to the recession that is unraveling the world’s credit markets and crippling economic well-being for millions.

What was obvious, too, from the testimony is that none of these CEOs and business leaders is possessed of superhuman ability. All seemed rather ordinary in the insights they offered and in the information they imparted, despite being recipients of extraordinary compensation and a corporate publicity machine that makes superman look like a slacker.

Despite the number of experienced CEOs and directors who appeared before Congress this week, one voice was distinguished by its absence: that was the voice of genuine leadership. America is entitled at a time of crisis to more than the spectacle of hugely paid, decidedly self-satisfied CEOs who feel that the system is working as it should. It needs leaders who recognize there is a need to restore public confidence in capitalism and the ethics of those who steer it. And that requires shared sacrifice and an understanding that, even in the great American boardroom, there are limits to what rational people both need and deserve.

Capitalism, like any household, should be governed by values, and not just who can get the most as quickly as they can. And so the actions of the CEOs and directors who appeared before Congress this week, and the failures of their boards that produced these results, is our choice for the Outrage of the Week.

The Scary Subprime Thinking of Angelo Mozilo and Other Overpaid CEOs

At what point will law makers, regulators and investors see that the so-called link between performance and high CEO pay is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American public?

When the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform meets today on the subject of CEO pay as it relates to Countrywide, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup, its attention will no doubt be turned to a stunning and illustrative example of the warped thinking that permeates too many boardrooms today. It comes in the form of a 2006 message which Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo wrote to his personal compensation consultant (who was paid for by the company):

Boards have been placed under enormous pressure by the left wing anti business press and the envious leaders of unions and other so called “CEO Comp Watchers” and therefore Boards are being forced to protect themselves irrespective of the potential negative long term impact on public companies. I strongly believe that a decade from now there will be a recognition that entrepreneurship has been driven out of the public sector resulting in underperforming companies and a willingness on the part of Boards to pay for performance.

(E-mail from Angelo Mozilo to John England, Oct. 20,2006)

In fact, Countrywide’s CEO and its board were obsessed with the subject of CEO pay and have devoted considerable energy to that topic. As we pointed out some months ago, Countrywide’s compensation committee met a staggering 29 times in 2006, according to the company’s 2007 proxy statement.

We’ve also observed what we have called Mr. Mozilo’s miraculously timed stock sales beginning in late 2006 and all through 2007. The exercise price for his stock was considerably lower than the trading price at the time. In 2007 alone, Mr. Mozilo received about $120 million in the form of compensation and proceeds from the sale of Countrywide stock.

So here’s a question: Since Mr. Mozilo was paid nearly a quarter of a billion dollars from 1999 to 2007 (House Committee figures), was it the “left wing anti business press” and “envious” union leaders who were responsible for the company’s losing $1.2 billion in the 3rd quarter of 2007 and a further $422 million in Q4? If he had been paid more, would the company have underperformed less?

As we noted previously in connection with our submission to the U.S. Senate banking committee in 2002 during its hearings into the Enron collapse and related scandals, in the past the lure of huge stock option packages has “tempted many CEOs to artificially push up the price of the stock in ways that cannot be sustained, and to cash out before the inevitable fall.”

When the dysfunctional state of executive compensation can produce the kind of screwy investment vehicles that were based on the wildly unrealistic subprime market, without proper consideration for their longer run hazards because CEO pay is so tied to short-term gains, and place the entire economy at risk of recession, the public at large, and not just company shareholders, has an undeniable stake in the efficacy and soundness of corporate compensation decisions.

America, and by extension much of the industrialized world, is today facing the worst credit disaster since the Great Depression. The crisis was prompted by the failures related to subprime mortgages and the myopic machinations that financial institutions engaged in to push out these toxic investment vehicles to unsuspecting clients. This took place at a time when the greatest transfer of wealth was occurring between CEOs and shareholders in the history of modern capitalism.

At what point will law makers, regulators and investors see that the so-called link between performance and high CEO pay is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American public?

Next Entries »