They're better off when things go right but they're not worse off when things go wrong. The trend (perennially rising) of the compensation of members of the Boards of American banks has now taken on the appearance of a real paradox. When the economy was going well, salaries had to go up to reward excellent management; and, on the other hand, when the economy goes badly, they cannot decrease because managing companies – in times of crisis – is more difficult.
The picture that the New York Times paints (using Equilar data) on the scenario of the compensation of the members of the board of directors of the major American banks is impressive. And light years away from those statements with which in 2009 Barak Obama railed against the country's major banks who, despite having drawn on government aid, had increased the credit crunch but at the same time favored their own managers.
The richest managers are those of Goldman Sachs: The average annual salary per director (essentially a part-time job since it involves up to 15 meetings per year) was $488.709 in 2011. In 2008 (the year of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy) the average was 50% lower.
The other institutes follow the same line. The directors of Morgan Stanley are paid an average of 351.080 dollars, 8 euros more than in 2008. In Citigroup, the remuneration of board members is equal to 315 dollars (64% more than in 2008). For Wells Fargo, the paycheck rose to $299 compared to $253 in 2008. The data for 2012 will be published in the coming weeks and further increases are expected.
