Bank CEO thinks journalist salaries are 'outrageous'

As you said, the grants were paid as compensation for previous years. When he exercises his options has no bearing on his compensation for the current year. Those grants were already paid to him as part of his compensation in PREVIOUS years.

It wasn't compensation for 2010.

Jamie Dimon's total compensation from JP Morgan in 2010 was $20.8 million. If you have reason to not believe that, I will direct you to the Schedule 14A they filed with the SEC.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/19617/000119312511091290/ddef14a.htm#toc149447_12

Of that $20.8 million, $1 million was salary. $5 million was bonus, but part of that was deferred, so he didn't see it in 2010. Nearly $8 million was paid as stock awards (valued at the current stock price at the time). That means it is only worth that much, or more, if the company continues to perform well under his stewardship -- it is incentive pay. More than $6 million was awarded in options, again, incentive pay that he only sees if the stock performs well.

It's not like the guy doesn't make a healthy salary, but this is a topic I know a bit about. He didn't see $20.8 million in cash, even though that is his reported compensation. The regulators won't allow him to see that in cash now. He saw somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 to $6 million in cash, with a lot of stock and stock options that vest at a later date, and only vest at the price reported if he continues to run the company well.

And again, that was a reward for a company that profited more than $17 billion (that is billion -- as in fifth most profits of any company in the world).

As they wrote in that Schedule 14A:

 

Baron, Jamie Dimon made JP Morgan more profitable than ever last year. Yet, due to regulatory restrictions, which were the result of a populist movement (politicians pandering to a class warfare mentality), his total compensation was less than half of what it was in 2006, and there were severe limits on the amount he was allowed to see in cash.

I know you have no problem with that. You've posted a lot about it on here and think you should be allowed to put restrictions on his pay because his business "affects" you.

But if you are allowed to express that attitude--and no one begrudges you the right to say what you want--I don't see how you then feel justified to say that Jamie Dimon should shut up, take that treatment from all sides, and see his salary affected by regulatory authorities even as he grows his company and therefore certainly deserves every bit what the of CEO of Viacom earned (who didn't have his pay restricted due to populist regulations), for example.

You have lots of opinions about what Jamie Dimon deserves or doesn't deserve as compensation. He'd have no reason to "rub" anything in "anyone's faces" (and that isn't his intent) if there wasn't this atmosphere of class warfare that has you and every Tom, Dick and Harry commenting on his compensation, which used to be a private affair between him and his board of directors. You opened the door. He's just standing on the other side commenting back, now.

 

I'm not an analyst covering JP Morgan, and if I did give you a full report, I'd get criticized for the length of the post.

You can find their annual report online. It tells you all you need to know.

What I will highlight is that in 2011, JP Morgan Chase passed Bank of America to become the biggest bank in the country by assets. Under Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan avoided the subprime mortgage mess that Bank of America is still struggling under the legacy of. It is why JP Morgan sat in a position of strength in 2008, while its biggest competitors should have gone bankrupt. It is also why JP Morgan has grown so much and gained so much market share. It is not still paying for subprime mortgage losses, the way BofA is.

Otherwise, there were lots of areas in which the bank performed well. One that stood out was its commercial lending business. Profits rose 21 percent from 2010, and they have become the premier lender to businesses in the country as they have emphasized that business -- which has grown for six consecutive quarters.

In terms of the overall picture, facts are facts. JP Morgan's earnings increased from $5.6 billion in 2008 to $9.3 billion in 2009, to $17.4 billion in 2010. And for the full year 2011, it generated record net income of $19 billion.

If you want to argue that Jamie Dimon hasn't done anything tangible to bring about that performance, knock yourself out. You have a minority opinion. You clearly understand tangible iPhone sales. You don't understand that JP Morgan is involved in a SERVICES business and that they have dominated within their space recently.