TPMDC
« Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Approve Obama's Iraq Plan | Home | Poll: People Are Paying Attention To AIG »

Could the Dems' AIG-Inspired Tax Bill Exempt Citigroup -- And Other Bailed-Out Banks?

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, just pointed out the potential for loopholes to be opened in the AIG-inspired bonus taxation bill that his party is about to push to passage today.

Sherman, who warned TPMDC early on that executive-pay limits in the stimulus bill would be watered down, called today's bonus taxation bill "a step in the right direction" -- but noted that it would allow companies to still pay lavish bonuses while merely changing the terminology used to describe them.

But the most nagging question Sherman raised in his statement this afternoon relates to language in the Democratic bill that limits any bonus taxation to firms getting "capital infusions under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008." Sherman interprets this language as applying to the preferred-stock purchases that were authorized under that law, which provided the first round of bailout funds nearly six months ago.

So would today's AIG-inspired bill apply to Citigroup, which last month converted its preferred stock to common stock and a "trust preferred security" with the government's blessing? And if 18 other banks follow Citigroup's lead by trading in their preferred stock -- they're all eligible to do so, as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said last month -- would that exempt those banks from today's bill as well?

Given the vaunted skill of internal counsels in the financial industry, one suspects they're working on making that potential loophole larger. You can read Sherman's full statement after the jump.

The tax bill coming before the House of Representatives today is a step in the right direction. It imposes a 90% tax on bonuses paid to executives of the big bailed-out financial institutions.

While the bill focuses on bonuses, it does not affect million-dollar-a-month salaries. In fact, a bailed-out bank which might otherwise pay an outrageous bonus, is free to raise an executive's salary to $2 million a month. Not a penny of that $2 million a month would be taxed or restricted by this bill.

The bill also allows unlimited commissions, without defining the word commissions. If Wall Street firms can rename their "bonuses" and call them "commissions," they may escape the bill entirely.

The bill applies to those financial institutions that have received over $5 billion in return for their preferred stock. The Treasury is now planning to spend hundreds of billions of dollars buying toxic assets from financial institutions. A financial institution's executives are not affected by the bill merely because the institution sells tens of billions of dollars of toxic assets to the Treasury.

I will be introducing a bill either Friday or Monday which imposes a substantial tax on all excess compensation (over $500,000) paid to executives of all the big bailed-out firms. It will deal with salaries, bonuses, retention payments, commissions, employee-of-the-week prizes, and all other manners of compensation.


9 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Is converting "preferred stock" to "common stock" something which is desirable? I mean, let's say the only effect of this bill is every bank which has the ability to convert preferred stock to common stock does so. Is that a good effect?

user-pic

The bill says "any person who receives after December 31, 2007, capital infusions under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which, in the aggregate, exceed $5,000,000,000..." and "any person who is a member of the same affiliated group."

That includes CitiGroup.

The bill doesn't say that if a corporation converts the stock from one type to another than the law doesn't apply.

user-pic

It also says something I don't understand about returning the money, though. Could converting the stock constitute in some sense returnign the money?

user-pic

There's a better solution. Put AIG into receivership, split off the financial derivatives group, shut it down and fire everybody in it. That will give Citi and others something to think about when they want to give bonuses.

user-pic

Out of curiosity, what exactly do the folks at AIGFP do? Yeah, I know they created and marketed the derivatives, but I'd guess there's not a lot of that going on right now. And I've heard that they're needed top roll back the derivatives....but....just what the heck does *that* mean?

I mean, why are these people still employed? What exactly are they doing?

user-pic

One of the things you may have noticed when discussing the CDS markets is that claims concerning the amount of outstanding risk vary wildly, frequently by up to an order of magnitude. Part of this is because some people are talking about "notional value", which basically entails simply adding up the value of all the written contracts, while others are talking about the value at risk.

Think of it like this A owes B $1 and B owes C $1 and C owes A $1, we can either say that the size of that market is $3 or $0, depending on how you want to measure it.

With that in mind, AIG FP is ideally working to find as many offsetting contracts as possible and clear them from the books. This may sound trivial, but I've heard so many wildly conflicting accounts of the level of internal record keeping in this area, that I have to assume there are some real problems. Or it could sound like rearranging the deck chairs, but given the complexity and interrelation of all these transactions, unwinding them before anyone actor can pull down the rest is a real good goal.

Admittedly, we are paying the bombmaker to defuse the bomb, but I haven't heard of any useful alternatives.

JMS

user-pic

Rep. Brad Sherman has a good point that salaries are exempt.

Therefore, a bailed-out firm which would have given an executive a million-dollar bonus can raise his salary by a million instead, and this new tax won't apply.

user-pic

Why everybody here is so legally obsessed?
When so few can do so much harm to so many, contracts (yes contracts!) can (should!) be violated.
And, BTW, a Country where it's easier to fire hundreds of workers than to violate one contract has its priorities backward...

user-pic

Look if the Congress can increase taxes on my cigs and single out my group...They sure can single out a group with a tax on bonus.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Elana
Schor

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address