Already have an account?  Log In
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Influential lawmaker seeks to cap AIG exec comp

by: Mark A. Hofmann
published: Oct 22, 2008
A key congressman plans to introduce legislation limiting the compensation of American International Group executives if the federal government does not do so.
''I must rebuke the greed of some AIG executives and agents,'' said Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises, during a Tuesday hearing on financial industry regulation. He said if federal authorities do not take steps to rein in AIG executive compensation, ''I will do it legislatively.''
Rep. Kanjorski has been particularly critical of the decision of AIG to go through with an event for independent life insurance agents who sell AIG products at a California resort shortly after AIG's parent company accepted $85 billion in federal loans.

In an Oct. 20 letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Rep. Kanjorski cited ''yet more frivolous excursions that AIG paid for after the federal government assisted the flailing company,'' including a hunting trip to England. In his letter, he called on the Fed to review an agreement between New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and AIG to account for all executive compensation as well as bring an end to corporate perks.

The Fed ''must'' review that agreement, ''compare it with the executive compensation standards'' in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act - which eliminates the tax deductibility of salaries in excess of $500,000 paid to executives of companies that tap federal bailout funds - ''and impose the stricter of the two on AIG or any other company that receives a direct loan from the Federal Reserve in the future.''

On another insurance-related matter, several witnesses at Tuesday's Financial Services Committee said adoption of an optional federal charter for insurers should be part of any larger reform of financial services regulation.

''Congress should consider the creation of a federal insurance charter and a federal insurance regulator,'' said T. Timothy Ryan Jr., president and chief executive officer of the New York-based Securities Industry and Financial Markets Assn.

Steve Bartlett, president and CEO of the Washington-based Financial Services Roundtable, called state insurance regulation the ''last vestige of the 19th century.''


Get Updates Via Email

Get monthly updates about the debate over an Optional Federal Charter.
Sign up Today! ... Click Here
National Regulatory Modernization for Insurers FAQ's
Would the proposals create a big new bureaucracy?
Would these national regulatory proposals increase compliance costs?
Would the creation of a national regulator help incumbent companies make larger profits?
Is an Office of Insurance Information a good idea as a precursor to a national insurance market?
What would the proposed national regulators affect state regulation? What about federalism?
Will states lose tax revenue under an Optional Federal Charter?
Would insurance companies withdraw from certain parts of the country under an OFC?
Would there be a ''race to the bottom''?
Would an OFC subject insurance companies to both federal and state laws, thus increasing the overall burden of regulation?
What is really wrong with the current state system?
Will an OFC help the development of new insurance products?
Is the insurance industry unified in its support of OFC?
Would local insurance agents go out of business under an OFC?
Supporters and opponents of an OFC both cite Illinois as an example of what the market would look like under an OFC. What is the Illinois market like?
What would an OFC do for America’s international competitiveness?
Do other developed countries have something like an OFC?
Would an OFC protect consumers from insurance fraud?
Will it confuse consumers?
Do government-set rates protect consumers?
J. Robert Hunter of the Consumer Federation of America has presented a range of data showing that publicly held insurance companies are relatively safe investments and have become safer in recent years. Does this prove that the insurance industry is reaping more profits than it deserves and should not be rewarded with an Optional Federal Charter?
Does a ''revolving door'' between the industry and regulators prove that the insurance industry and the state regulatory systems are corrupt or that the insurance industry ''owns'' state regulators?
Is an OFC the only way America could liberalize its insurance markets?
What are some alternatives to an OFC?
Resources

You are Visitor #2295967 Since 2007