Normes d’encadrement

Le National Credit Union Administration est devenu la première des six Agences à dévoiler une proposition de règle d’implantation de l’article 956 de la loi américaine Dodd-Frank (« Incentive-based Compensation Arrangements », 17 CFR Part 303, Release No.; File no., RIN). Commentaire à recevoir au plus tard pour le 22 juillet 2016 !

The OCC, Board, FDIC, FHFA, NCUA, and SEC (the Agencies) are seeking comment on a joint proposed rule (the proposed rule) to revise the proposed rule the Agencies published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2011, and to implement section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). Section 956 generally requires that the Agencies jointly issue regulations or guidelines:

(1) prohibiting incentive-based payment arrangements that the Agencies determine encourage inappropriate risks by certain financial institutions by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to material financial loss; and

(2) requiring those financial institutions to disclose information concerning incentive-based compensation arrangements to the appropriate Federal regulator.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

« L’échec d’une décennie de régulation des très hauts salaires » (Le Monde, 19 avril 2016)… c’est sous ce titre que le journaliste Eric Albert revient sur le sujet polémique de la rémunération des dirigeants sociaux.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Les règles américaines en matière de rémunération se resserrent dans le domaine de la finance selon un article du Wall Street Journal : « New Rules Curbing Wall Street Pay Proposed ».

Sous les règles proposées, les grandes banques nationales auraient jusqu’à sept ans pour réclamer les bonus d’un cadre s’il s’avérait que son comportement avait été préjudiciable à son institution. De même, au lieu de restituer le bonus en un an, les paiements pourraient être étalés sur 4 ans.

Tens of thousands of Wall Street bankers face tighter restrictions on how they are paid under new rules proposed by U.S. regulators in response to the financial crisis of nearly a decade ago. Under the proposed rules, the nation’s largest banks would have up to seven years to « claw back » an executive’s bonuses if it turns out his or her actions hurt the institution. Also, instead of handing over all of a person’s bonus in one year, the payments would be spread out over four, according to the proposed rules.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Belle réflexion offerte par le Financial Times sur le rôle que le conseil d’administration devrait assumer en matière de rémunération des dirigeants : « Boards are responsible for limiting excess pay » (Financial Times, 17 avril 2016).

Boards of directors are not appointed to rubber-stamp formulas devised by consultants, no matter what the result. If there appears to be something awry, they should be able to exercise their judgment and not be limited by employment contracts that deny them authority. BP’s remuneration committee failed this simple test and so found itself exposed to scorn.

Nothing absolves a board of its responsibility to limit the quantum of pay. Chief executives perform tough, demanding, responsible jobs and their decisions heavily affect the value of companies. But it is not obvious why some need to be paid double-digit millions to do their best when single-digit millions or less were accepted as sufficient financial rewards not so long ago.

Boards sometimes need to compete for talent, signing contracts that raise expectations and constrain their freedom to cap pay. As the tenure of CEOs has reduced, bosses want to get rich faster. Some argue that they could earn more in private equity, away from the unforgiving public spotlight.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, en voilà une nouvelle : « BP investors revolt over chief Bob Dudley’s 20% pay rise » (Financial times, 14 avril 2016). La révolte des actionnaires est en marche dans le domaine de la rémunération des dirigeants des grandes entreprises américaines. BP vient d’en fournir une illustration…

Angry shareholders mounted an unprecedented protest against BP on Thursday, rebelling against a 20 per cent pay rise for chief executive Bob Dudley despite the oil group making its worst ever loss.

Investors voted against the company’s pay decisions for the first time in living memory, with 59 per cent of proxy votes cast going against BP’s decision to pay Mr Dudley nearly $20m for 2015, a year in which the company ran up a $5.2bn loss.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian