IBJNews

Indiana bank CEOs get bigger pay hike than peers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

For banks, the last two years have been among the most tumultuous in history. Financial institution CEOs across the country responded by trimming their raises in 2009. But in Indiana, bank chiefs didn’t follow form.

On Nov. 10, Oak Brook, Ill.-based accounting firm Crowe Horwath LLP released its “2009 Comprehensive Financial Institution Survey,” which compiled data from more than 320 U.S. financial institutions. The survey found that bank CEOs across the country enjoyed average raises of 4.7 percent in 2008, but got only 1-percent increases in total cash compensation in 2009.

In Indiana, the trend was reversed. Hoosier financial institution CEOs received average cash compensation increases of 2.5 percent in 2008. Their average raise in 2009 was 4.5 percent.

“Indiana banks appear to be performing better than in other areas of the country,” said Timothy Reimink, a senior consultant in Crowe’s performance group. “As a result of that better performance, CEO compensation increased more this year in Indiana than the national average.”

Crowe’s survey, which it’s conducted annually for 28 years, included data from the “2009 Indiana Financial Institution Compensation Survey,” which was co-sponsored by the Indiana Bankers Association and gathered data from 62 Indiana financial institutions.

Despite their larger raises this year, independent bank CEOs in Indiana still make less than the national average. According to Crowe, average total financial institution CEO compensation across the country in 2009 is $260,047. In Indiana, it’s $227,652.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So, Pence wants the federal government to ignore the 2008 law that allows children from these countries to argue for asylum in front of a judge. How did this guy become governor? And how is that we'll soon be subjected to repeatedly seeing him on TV being taken seriously as a presidential candidate? Am I in Bizzaro-U.S.A.?

  2. "And the most rigorous studies of one-year preschool programs have shown short-term benefits that fade out in a few years or no benefits at all." So we are going down a path that seems to have proven not to work very well. Right intention, wrong approach?

  3. Well for Dunkin Donuts it might say that even a highly popular outlet can't make a poorly sited location work. That little strip has seen near constant churn for years.

  4. Years ago, the Pharmaceutical and Medical Device companies shifted their research investment away from Medical Institutions to focus more on private research centers, primarily because of medical institution inefficiencies in initiating clinical studies and their inability/commitment to enroll the needed number of patients in these studies. The protracted timelines of the medical institutions were prompting significant delays in the availability of new drug and medical device entities for patients and relatedly, higher R and D expenditures to the commercial industry because of these delays. While the above stated IU Health "ratio is about $2.50 in federal funding for every $1 in industry funding", the available funding is REVERSED as commercial R and D (primarily Phase I-IV clinical work)runs $2.50 to $1 for available federal funding ($76.8B to $30.9B in 2011). The above article significatly understated the available R and D funding from industry......see the Pharma and Medical Device industry websites. Clearly, if medical institutions like IU Health wish to attract more commercial studies, they will need to become more competitive with private clinical sites in their ability to be more efficient and in their commitment to meet study enrollment goals on time. Lastly, to the reference to the above Washington Post article headlined “As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias", lacks some credibility as both FDA and Institutional Institutional Review Boards must approve the high proportion of these studies before studies are started. This means that both study safety and science must be approved by both entities.

  5. ChIeF and all the other critics – better is better no matter what. Get over it; they are doing better despite you ?

ADVERTISEMENT