April 25, 2024

DealBook: Directors at Goldman Sachs Get a Pay Raise

The headquarters of Goldman Sachs in New York.Mark Lennihan/Associated PressThe headquarters of Goldman Sachs in New York.

Goldman Sachs directors are getting a pay raise.

Goldman’s directors, who were already among the best-compensated corporate directors in the country, will receive an additional 500 shares, for 3,000 shares a year in compensation, according to a regulatory filing submitted Friday.

In 2012, the average compensation for a Goldman director was $447,622, according to compensation data provider Equilar. This was down from 2011 when the average compensation was $488,709. Still, some of the firm’s 13 directors made more than $500,000 in 2012 because they led a committee, which pays extra.

Related Links



Goldman, in the filing, said directors received a raise because of the “increase in demands” placed on directors “particularly considering that during 2012 all them served on each of our board’s standing committees as well as the additional oversight responsibilities required by recent laws and regulations.”

The additional 500 stock units, which have a current value of almost $75,000, are on top of an annual retainer of $75,000 or 532 shares. All told, Goldman’s board met 12 times in 2012.

Goldman has previously defended its pay for directors, saying the bulk of the compensation is in stock that directors cannot touch until after they have left the board. That arrangement, the firm says, aligns directors’ interests with those of shareholders.

The data on director pay was part of a grab bag of information about the company in the filing, which included the pay of Goldman’s chief executive and chairman, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and a list of proposals shareholders will vote at the firm’s annual meeting, which is May 23 in Salt Lake City.

Mr. Blankfein also received a raise. He made $21 million in compensation in 2012, up from $12 million in 2011. Gary D. Cohn, his second in command, made $19 million last year, up from almost $11.9 million in 2011. Investors will vote on four shareholder proposals at the annual meeting. One of the proposals asks the board to “immediately engage the services of an investment banking firm to evaluate alternatives that could enhance shareholder value including, but not limited to, a merger or outright sale of the company, and the shareholders further request that the board take all other steps necessary to actively seek a sale or merger of the company on terms that will maximize share value for shareholders.”

Goldman’s board is recommending shareholders vote against this proposal, saying it will “continue to pursue strategies” that it believes will achieve shareholder value.

What is not in the proxy is also noteworthy.

Earlier this week Goldman said it had reached a deal with the CtW Investment Group, an organization that advises union pension funds, to put the brakes on a vote on a proposal to split the roles of chairman and chief executive.

Under the agreement, Goldman is enhancing the powers of James J. Schiro, the board’s lead director. Mr. Schiro, for instance, will now have to set the agenda for the board, instead of merely approving it.

“We’ve had a constructive engagement with our shareholders, and believe that the enhancements we have made further solidify the independence of the board,” a spokesman for Goldman said in an e-mailed statement.

The question of whether a chief executive should also be chairman has generated discussion among shareholders of big banks. At JPMorgan Chase the board favors the dual role for Jamie Dimon and is working to shore up support among shareholders, who will vote on the issue next month at that bank’s annual meeting.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/goldman-directors-get-a-pay-raise/?partner=rss&emc=rss

E.C.B. President’s Comments Send Euro Lower

Mario Draghi, the E.C.B. president, denied that the central bank was trying to influence the value of the euro, no doubt mindful of provoking a currency war with Japan or the United States. But he then made statements that investors interpreted as meaning the E.C.B. could take action if the euro rose too much.

“The exchange rate is not a policy target, but it is important for growth and price stability,” Mr. Draghi said at a news conference after the regular monthly policy meeting of the E.C.B.’s Governing Council, in which the central bank left its main interest rate at 0.75 percent, as expected.

Separately, the Bank of England also kept its benchmark interest rate unchanged on Thursday, at 0.5 percent, amid worries that the British economy could fall back into a recession for the third time in five years. The pound has been falling against the euro and the dollar this year, pressured by investor concerns that the British economy may not manage to recover anytime soon.

Mr. Draghi, during the news conference, was careful to avoid any explicit threat to take action to push down the euro, or to criticize any other countries. He said the euro’s current value was not far from its historical norm. But he noted that economic policy by other countries, none of which he identified, could affect exchange rates.

“Draghi’s biggest challenge was to show his magic skills of verbal interventions and to talk down the euro exchange rate,” Carsten Brzeski, an analyst at ING Bank, wrote in a note to clients. “He succeeded.”

Having traded at nearly $1.36 to the dollar earlier on Thursday, the euro dropped to below $1.34 after Mr. Draghi’s comments. In July it was trading just above $1.21.

Its record high of just below $1.60 was reached in April 2008, when the U.S. banking crisis was gathering steam.

Recent data have supported the E.C.B.’s view that the euro zone will emerge from recession this year, a view Mr. Draghi repeated Thursday. German industrial production rose 0.3 percent in December from November, according to a report Thursday, reversing a decline in the previous month and signaling a pickup in Germany, which has the largest euro zone economy.

But the recovery is threatened by the rising value of the euro, which could hurt European exports by making them more expensive for foreign buyers. In recent weeks, the euro has risen substantially against the dollar, to its highest levels in a year.

Few analysts had expected the E.C.B. to shift its monetary policy Thursday. Some predict that the benchmark rate could stay at its present level for an extended period as the euro zone slowly returns to growth.

But Mr. Draghi also emphasized Thursday that inflation was headed below the E.C.B.’s target of about 2 percent. The lack of price pressure would allow the E.C.B. space to cut rates if it chose.

Mr. Draghi argued that the appreciation of the euro “is a sign of return of confidence.” Some analysts said it could take a bigger increase in the currency’s value before the E.C.B. would consider taking action, like a cut in the benchmark interest rate.

A stronger euro means that products ranging from cars to wine become more expensive abroad, putting European producers at a disadvantage against foreign competitors. But there are also positive effects. Imports, particularly oil, become less expensive for Europeans, which helps stimulate the economy.

“The main factor behind the euro strength is the easing of the sovereign debt crisis, which is clearly positive for the euro zone growth,” Jörg Krämer, chief economist at Commerzbank, wrote in a note. “The E.C.B. is likely to tolerate further euro appreciation and is quite unlikely to cut rates again.”

During the news conference, Mr. Draghi deflected persistent questioning about a deal that the Irish central bank announced Thursday. It said that the E.C.B. had agreed to stretch out repayments for the 2009 bailout of Anglo Irish Bank to 40 years, instead of the 10 years previously scheduled.

The Irish Parliament approved legislation early Thursday to liquidate Anglo Irish Bank, after negotiating with the E.C.B. to swap the so-called promissory notes used to bail out the Irish lender for long-term government bonds.

Mr. Draghi said the E.C.B.’s Governing Council merely “took note” of the Irish action. But he declined to provide any details.

He may have wanted to avoid any impression that the central bank was giving a financial break to the Irish government. The E.C.B.’s charter prohibits it from directly financing euro zone governments.

Mr. Draghi did, however, applaud efforts by the Irish government to restore growth and get government finances under control. “All in all the outlook is very positive,” he said.

He also strenuously defended himself against criticism that, in his previous job as governor of the Bank of Italy, he had not done enough to prevent problems at Monte dei Paschi di Siena, which has required a €3.9 billion bailout by the Italian government.

Mr. Draghi was governor of the Italian central bank, responsible for bank supervision, during the period when Monte dei Paschi was getting in trouble several years ago. The former Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, with whom Mr. Draghi has tense relations, has tried to capitalize on the issue during the current Italian election campaign.

Mr. Draghi said the Bank of Italy had done all it could, and noted that it lacked the power to remove managers at Monte dei Paschi or to pursue criminal wrongdoing. “You should certainly discount much of what you hear and read as part of the regular noise that elections produce,” Mr. Draghi said.

Julia Werdigier and Mark Scott contributed reporting from London.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/business/global/european-central-bank-leaves-interest-rate-unchanged.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Mortgages: More Loan-Modification Options for the ‘Underwater’

Six months after the Federal Housing Administration announced an $11 billion refinancing initiative for these “underwater” borrowers, nearly two dozen lenders have agreed to take part in a new loan modification program.

Two exceptions are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government buyers of loans, which will not allow loans that they still own to qualify for the program.

The F.H.A. program — called Short Refi — requires major concessions from lenders, which must agree to write off at least 10 percent of the principal balance, and from investors, who, if they own the mortgage, must also agree to the deal.

To qualify, homeowners must be current on their monthly mortgage payments and not already have an F.H.A. loan. The size of the new primary loan cannot be more than 97.75 percent of the current value of the property; refinanced loans for homeowners whose properties carry second liens cannot exceed 15 percent of the property value.

In late February, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial, formerly known as G.M.A.C., said that they had created test programs for the F.H.A. option. “We currently are conducting a small-scale pilot of the F.H.A. Short Refi program for loans in our owned portfolio,” said Tom Goyda, a Wells Fargo spokesman, in a statement, “to help us better understand which customers may benefit and qualify.”

Bank of America, Citibank and JPMorgan Chase are not participating in the program, according to spokesmen for them. “Without the participation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” said Terry H. Francisco of Bank of America, “we don’t believe the program can help a significant number of our borrowers.”

But Mark C. Rodgers, a spokesman for Citibank, said that his bank was “participating in a third-party pilot program along the same lines as the F.H.A. Short Refi program.” He declined to provide details.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees the F.H.A., said this month that 23 lenders had signed on to the Short Refi program, though it will disclose only the names of the five lenders that have already restructured a total of 44 loans. They are: Wall Street Mortgage Bankers of Lake Success, N.Y.; 1st Alliance Lending of East Hartford, Conn.; Nationstar Mortgage of Lewisville, Tex.; E Mortgage Management of Haddon Township, N.J.; and Glacier Bank of Kalispell, Mont.

HUD estimated that 500,000 to 1.5 million borrowers could be eligible for the program.

Even so, it faces challenges in Congress; on Thursday, the House of Representatives voted to end it.

One mortgage expert, John Diiorio, the owner of 1st Alliance Lending, said that big banks were taking part behind the scenes, by referring homeowners to third-party lenders that could restructure their mortgages. He added that 1st Alliance had “several hundred F.H.A. Short Refi” loans in the pipeline.

Because the F.H.A. announced the program only last September, and because such loans take three to four months from start to finish, Mr. Diiorio said, the number of refinanced loans should increase in coming months. He said that, on average, 1st Alliance had negotiated a principal reduction of $86,000 on a $256,000 loan, a 33.5 percent cut, to $170,000.

But he said lenders and investors had agreed to reduce principal for only half of the loans he had worked on.

The refinanced borrower, Mr. Diiorio said, had to pay a slightly higher fixed rate, typically 6 or so percent. But he added that the financial impact was the same as a 5 percent rate on a higher-balance loan of $100,000, with less principal forgiven. “It seems counterintuitive,” he said, “but the economics work both for the consumer and for the lender.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=ec1f2a6af8352b74c7b2127ca874c099