According to regulatory filing, CIT paid less than the 2015 target bonus to former chief executive John Thain because he did not successfully integrate OneWest, the California bank CIT acquired last year for $3.4 billion, into the company.
Thain’s short-term incentive target was $1.75 million (down from $5.0 million in 2014 due to a shift in target incentive opportunity from short-term to long-term), and his 2015 short-term incentive award was $1.225 million, representing 70% of target.
In determining Thain’s award, in addition to the company’s financial and operating performance, the committee noted the following 2015 key accomplishments:
Quantitative Criteria (50%)
- Performance results were between mostly meets and meets for three out of four pre-established goals: pre-tax income, funded new business volume and CIT Bank assets, resulting in below target payout for these goals.
- While the goal for provision for credit losses was exceeded, payout was capped at 100% (as in 2014).
- Overall payout for this category was approximately 43%.
Qualitative Criteria (50%)
- Risk / Regulatory / Compliance (10%): Launched new, company-wide mandatory compliance program; grew portfolio assets while maintaining strong credit including corporate credit upgrade Resulted in payout of 10% for this category.
- Strategic Vision (30%): Partially met goals, reflecting the assessment by the Board that the management team and the cultures of the two organizations were not successfully integrated in a timely manner; and the limited development of significant new products. Resulted in a payout of 7% for this category.
- Talent Management (10%): Fostered the ongoing development and expansion of management and leadership programs, as well as new business education and acumen programs; continued progress on diversity hiring and promotions across the company, resulting in a payout of 10% for this category.
- Overall payout for this category was approximately 27%.
One Reply to “CIT Cuts Thain’s Bonus for Lack of Timely Integration of OneWest”
I find it distasteful that this was reported as newsworthy. Any individual at this level has board oversight in their performance review, and despite the public filing, some discretion should be utilized. It’s disappointing that your editorial staff would not exercise better judgement.