Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


 STEVEN PEARLSTEIN 
6

New Pay Rules May Hurt Banks, but Protect Public

They'll discourage commercial banks from being investment banks

Share

(Newser) – Steven Pearlstein isn't exactly wowed by the new salary rules being proposed for Wall Street. "Don't get carried away. By themselves, these measures won't prevent future crises, nor will they likely do much to lower the prevailing pay levels on Wall Street or in corporate America." But, he writes, they do have elements of meaningful reform. It's time, after all, for commercial bankers to stop behaving like investment bankers.

Under the Fed rules, banks would no longer be able to give sky-high bonuses to traders who work in risky fields such as derivatives. Banks will no doubt complain that this puts them at an unfair advantage against unregulated hedge funds and the like. "They may be right," writes Pearlstein in the Washington Post. "But if it turns out that these pay rules wind up steering the riskiest activity to smaller, more focused institutions whose failure won't require them to be bailed out by the taxpayer, that might be a good thing."

Pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg in a 2007 file photo.
Pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg in a 2007 file photo.   (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)
Kenneth R. Feinberg in a 2007 file photo.
Kenneth R. Feinberg in a 2007 file photo.   (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)
Big paychecks won't go away, but the new compensation rules have solid elements of reform.
Big paychecks won't go away, but the new compensation rules have solid elements of reform.   (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, file)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

We know what happened when the button-down commercial bankers were let loose a decade ago to start competing with, and behaving like, investment bankers.
- Steven Pearlstein

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
6 comments
VIEWING:
 
Doctor_Zaius
Oct 23, 09 8:39 AM CDT
Exactly. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IndependentThinker
Oct 23, 09 10:11 AM CDT
It has to start somewhere. It is ok that this is unfair, the system has been "unfair" in their favor for too long. Start here as a jumping off point and progress to those hedge funds and the rest of wall street till we have good strong regulations for the entire system. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Netstorm2k9
Oct 23, 09 12:53 PM CDT
If the new rules actually affect the banks, then the banks will just tell the politicians to vote no. Duh. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
cornelison
Oct 23, 09 2:26 PM CDT
What I can't figure out is why shareholders approve of those big bonuses. It means less for them, doesn't it? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Shannonals
Oct 23, 09 4:35 PM CDT
The shareholders were informed of the bonuses cornelsion, otherwise I'm quite sure they would have protested considering how much they have lost prior to the bailout. What I find strange is the fact that these bonuses weren't covered more in detail by the, "Fair and Balance", team, considering the Bailout was so negative in the publics eyes. The outrage over the President winning the nobel Peace Prize had more coverage than banks paying out large amounts of bonuses.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.