I don’t know, but average CEO pay relative to average employee pay is many, many times higher than it’s ever been (some months ago I posted a link but don’t have it handy.)
It’s too bad we don’t regulate C-level folks in business the same way we regulate attorneys or medical professionals. If you’re an attorney who is discovered to have breeched ethical standards you get sanctioned and/or disbarred. If you’re a doctor who does the same, you have your license to practice revoked. Both are potentially devastating punishments as they effectively end your earning potential in your chosen profession.
If the SEC (or some agency) had the power to “suspend” executives found to have presided over companies that were guilty of consumer fraud or shareholder shenanigans (including blocking compensation packages), perhaps there would be less of it. If Strumpf and the other execs involved knew going in that they could face civil liability and potential punishment that included not being able to hold a C-level or board-level position within a company if it was determined that their company defrauded consumers during their tenure, I bet companies would suddenly get a whole lot more serious about internal oversight.
It’s a crazy idea, and I have no clue if it would even be possible, but for now the problem is definitely that there are no real consequences for high level execs when stuff like this happens, so it’s going to just keep happening. As long as they can jump to another C-level or board-level position somewhere else and/or take home their ridiculous compensation packages there is no real reason NOT to look the other way when unethical business practices are pumping up your companies stock value.
I would just point out that neither lawyers nor doctors typically make anywhere near these C-suite execs. I do feel the only way to curb this kind of unethical or reckless behavior is partial or total forfeiture/confiscation of monies earned during the entire period of misfeasance, and a jail term.
It’s certainly theoretically possible. The UK financial conduct regulator has the power to bar people from carrying out “controlled functions” if they are not “fit and proper”, while the prudential regulator can effectively veto applicants to positions of significant influence at regulated firms.
I am just using the Consumerist article which has links to others but…
It sounds like the Execs were not as ignorant about it as they want others to think they were… although many of us didn’t believe them in the first place.
Nope. They’re never criminals and should never be punished. Maybe a fine smaller than the amount of profit they made and no criminal charges will teach them a lesson.
Yeah, I’d wager it’s a very high percentage of Fortune 500 CEO’s who have gotten at least one bump like that within the past 5 years, though in many cases it’s probably in the form of stock options (probably post-dated).
Wells Fargo’s forms, according to the senators, don’t just show that Wells Fargo knew about the fraudulent activities, but that it may have used that information against employees who attempted to bring the issues to light.
A negative comment on an employee’s U5 form can make it impossible to find another job in the banking industry, the senators say.
I hope we see a very large lawsuit against this company and a nice payday for the employees they screwed.
Of course corporate welfare and bailing out stockholders seems to be all the rage these days. Everyone else who might struggle gets a nice so sorry you gambled and lost sticker.