The Daily Walk of Shame: Obama's Pay Czar

Don't let it get away!

Keep track of the stocks that matter to you.

Help yourself with the Fool's FREE and easy new watchlist service today.

This new Motley Fool series examines things that just aren't right in the world of finance and investing. Here's what's got us riled today. If something's bugging you, too -- and we suspect it is -- go ahead and unload in the comments section below.

Today's subject: President Obama's "pay czar," Kenneth Feinberg, has formally approved the compensation package for Robert Benmosche, the new CEO of AIG (NYSE: AIG  ) . Since taking the post in early August, Benmosche has caused nothing but controversy. Yet for some reason, Feinberg approved a total salary package of $10.5 million -- $3 million in cash, $4 million in stock, and $3.5 million in annual performance bonuses.

Don't get me wrong; Benmosche is more than qualified. He's largely credited with shaping the insurer giant MetLife (NYSE: MET  ) and bringing a brash but efficient attitude to business. Since his appointment as AIG's new chief, the stock has soared by more than 200%. Wall Street obviously likes him. Shockingly, so does Kenneth Feinberg.

Why you should be indignant: Let me guide you through a very loose timeline of events since Benmosche took his new job:

  1. After being appointed CEO of the nation's largest TARP recipient, Benmosche took a two-week vacation to his 8,000-square-foot villa in Croatia. Interesting timing.
  2. He requested a corporate jet for personal leisure, and was rejected by AIG's board of directors.
  3. He has made several provocative statements, such as calling Congress "a bunch of crazies," and saying that New York state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo "doesn't deserve to be in government."

According to Feinberg, Benmosche's salary is commensurate with that of other CEOs. Feinberg also oversees the compensation packages for top executives of other bailed-out companies, including Chrysler, Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) , Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  ) , and General Motors.

I guess Feinberg is trying to find a middle ground in terms of salary. Certainly, a total package of $10.5 million isn't unheard-of, but considering the circumstances, I'm surpised Benmosche's making so much. In 2008, the CEO of troubled Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE  ) and untroubled Home Depot (NYSE: HD  ) each made less than $5 million. Guaranteeing $3 million plus stock options and bonuses for someone who has shown a general distaste for public servants, and a lack of fiscal restraint, seems like a premature move on Feinberg's part.

What now?
According to CNN, Benmosche told reporters he didn't want to be tempted to sell off assets too quickly -- just a guess, but maybe that's why he went on the two-week vacation? This isn't necessarily a bad strategy -- however, if Benmosche holds onto the assets, and their value goes down, the taxpayer loses. If he holds on to them, and the value goes up, AIG's shareholders win. As one congressman from California put it, "It's heads he wins, tails we lose."

That's a pretty good strategy for a normally functioning public company, but not really that great for a company that has "borrowed" $120.7 billion from the American taxpayer. Bottom line: Benmosche's on my watch list.

As for Feinberg, I haven't the slightest idea what he's thinking. Endorsing such a high salary for someone who has (a) proven nothing at his current position, and (b) only shown contempt for Washington and the general public seems like an irrational decision. I mean, really. Villas? Name-calling? Corporate jets?

Both the administration and the public have been outraged by excessive executive compensation and Wall Street's lavish bonus structure. Feinberg has talked a big game about curbing take-home pay, especially for bailed-out firms. So why the heck is he reinforcing an outdated system that rewards past performance, and ignores the benefits of a meritocracy?

So far, he seems more like a pay peasant than a pay czar. But that's just my take.

What do you think, Fools? Am I being too quick to judge, or do you feel the same?

Fool contributor Jordan DiPietro does not own shares of any companies mentioned. The Fool's disclosure policy is pretty fired up right now.

Read/Post Comments (44) | Recommend This Article (53)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On October 12, 2009, at 12:26 PM, Nicu1 wrote:

    In my opinion you were indeed a bit too quick to judge, but i guess we will wait and see what Benmosche has up his sleeve, i think AIG will get back up on its feet.

  • Report this Comment On October 12, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Savannahboy wrote:

    I'm not sure that the $10 million package is enough money to put up with having every pundit, journalist, newsman, or congressman looking over every move you make. I can assure you that the shareholders aren't going to get anyone talented enough to turn the ship around for less than that. Every person in America not qualified to run this company probably thinks this package is outrageous. Every person in America qualified to run this company is probably thinking they wouldn't touch this job with a ten foot pole for $10 million. It's just not worth the hassle if you are already successful.

  • Report this Comment On October 12, 2009, at 4:16 PM, ksteve1 wrote:

    Funny, his predecessor Ed Liddy worked there about 7-8 months for only one dollar. And people talked trash about Ed. So, working for nothing doesn't get you any credit. Government probably should regulate pay of companies it "owns." But all in all, I think the focus of executive pay is off target, and just pandering to the poor (and I am not rich). If bank execs had worked for nothing, would that have prevented subprime lending? Nope, we had government backed Fannie and Freddie encouraging subprime mortgages. Zero exec pay, would that have prevented the AAA ratings given to bonds backed by subprime loans? Thank Moody's, Fitch and S&P for that. Thank them also for the AAA ratings on CDOs that were built out of subprime mortgage backed bonds.

  • Report this Comment On October 12, 2009, at 5:29 PM, drsl wrote:

    Start tracking campaign contributions.

  • Report this Comment On October 12, 2009, at 6:40 PM, juice27 wrote:

    Your article fails to address whether a government 'pay czar' should even have the authority to reject the compensation of a CEO! That is a role of the board of directors, despite that boards often overpay the officers.

  • Report this Comment On October 12, 2009, at 6:45 PM, fromunder wrote:

    i agree with pay based on performance. all pay packages should have contingency clauses.perhaps Mr. Feinberg has forgotten who he works for. maybe we should consider changing leadership at the pay czar's every 30 days so we can keep the office clean.i am very sorry but i just can't get comfortable with a position were you earn your pay shaking hands

  • Report this Comment On October 12, 2009, at 7:18 PM, richsue3 wrote:

    Handsgrue makes a valid point. Most of the sharaes are owned by the taxpayers - Will our government take a capital gain and get out of this giant soon to fail or will they keep inflating it while AIG associates make a killing and then say the taxpayer's have a loss?

    Which do you think?

  • Report this Comment On October 12, 2009, at 7:25 PM, PeterNSmith wrote:

    I am not a conspiracy theorist but keep in mind that this is an insiders club and if you do not have a card then be advised they do not care about you.

  • Report this Comment On October 12, 2009, at 7:49 PM, xetn wrote:

    You also fail to state that we don't need a Pay Czar. In fact, we don't need any czars!

  • Report this Comment On October 12, 2009, at 8:10 PM, VEttariPEPC wrote:

    I thought the salaries for the officers of corporations on TARP Support was not to exceed the pay of the President.

    How quickly Mr. Obama's threats and promises have been tossed-aside.

    Personally, I believe that shareholders should determine salaries, not Board of Directors.

  • Report this Comment On October 12, 2009, at 9:56 PM, SINGSANK wrote:

    I have extreme contempt for Congress, especially the buffoon Barney Frank, probably more responsible for this mess than anyone, so that gets him points in my book

  • Report this Comment On October 12, 2009, at 10:07 PM, ozzfan1317 wrote:

    I think it seems like fair pay. Execs make more and hes only guaranteed 3 Mill he still has to earn the other 7.

  • Report this Comment On October 12, 2009, at 10:39 PM, drewski18 wrote:

    I have no problem with the structure of this deal, we're talking millions not billions. On a side note, I am in agreement that "congress is a bunch of crazies". The idea of a pay czar is government window dressing.

  • Report this Comment On October 13, 2009, at 10:14 AM, N510RL wrote:

    I just cann't see people, whomever they are getting such high salaries when the lower to mid class of American Citizens are either laid off and/or under paid. What is Obama doing to bail out the lower to mid Americans, I haven't seen any hands held out by the Government to really assist us Americans that are struggling to keep afloat! I agree with the comment, let the shareholders or the Americans that are out of work and no work to be found vote on all of these executive salaries, not the Board of Directors, who also are probably making very large incomes and congress whom also make sure their salaries and medical benefits are covered before we Americans are given anything to assist ourselves.

  • Report this Comment On October 13, 2009, at 12:31 PM, 86Targa wrote:

    Are you speaking of Obama? He's another person who's proven nothing yet and holds the general population in contempt. I think that also extends to the Washington crowd.

  • Report this Comment On October 13, 2009, at 2:05 PM, westsidebob wrote:

    The man's track record should speak for itself. AIG is fortunate to have him. What AIG does not need is a leader and visionary that does not have the talent, charisma, vision and strength to take unpopular or "non PC" positions. Mr. Benmosche has what it takes to turn the company around. At the compensation mentioned they got a bargain. Give him a chance and let the results be the judge of your concerns.

  • Report this Comment On October 13, 2009, at 2:36 PM, BenLMoon wrote:

    Reminds me of the comment by Gatsby (F. Scott Fitzgerals): "The wealthy are not like us." It's hard to comprehend someone who would feel $10 million is insufficient pay. I'm skeptical that we're that devoid of "statesmen" in the business world. Perhaps stricter limiting of executive pay is sort of like Congress outlawing the Communist Party several decades ago: it may not have done any good, but it sure made us all feel better. It just seemed the right thing to do.

  • Report this Comment On October 13, 2009, at 3:57 PM, vegastar wrote:

    Mr. Benmosche base pay should be set at 2.5 times the highest paid non-management worker. Then double that base pay if the company improves/performs better than the last quarter also the workers at that company should see a positive improvement in their benefits. I do not see that management contributes that much more compared to the workers hence their pay should only range from 1.5 to 2.0 times the highest paid non-management worker. This would help set incentives for management to improve the performance of the company so that some of the revenue increase would go to worker pay increases which triggers an icrease for management as well. The actual multiples should be optimized for a fair distribution to management with the workers having a vote for final approval. The current distribution multipiers somewhere in the 100s+ for upper level management vs worker pay.

    Have a good day.

  • Report this Comment On October 13, 2009, at 4:16 PM, TMFPhillyDot wrote:


    I don't necessarily think we should limit executive pay (in general), but great reference to Gatsby, and good point overall.

    Fool on,

    Jordan (TMFPhillyDot)

  • Report this Comment On October 13, 2009, at 4:31 PM, cordwood wrote:

    If taxpayers own the company,[ersatz shareholders], shouldn't board of directors submit executive pay proposal to our shareholder representitives ,Congress,for approval?

    Another circus czar!

  • Report this Comment On October 13, 2009, at 5:22 PM, wasmick wrote:

    Other than the corporate jet thing what did he say that was wrong?

    Andy Cuomo doesn't deserve to be in government. And although that could and should be considered a compliment, in this case it isn't.

    He presided over and was directly responsible for a significant portion of the subprime crisis while at HUD. Now he's reinventing his political career prosecuting many that were less involved in the scandal than he was.

    Only in America.

  • Report this Comment On October 13, 2009, at 5:59 PM, lamptramp1 wrote:

    Your comments about pay can be bantered back and forth with reasonable and thoughtful insights on both sides of the issue. The one comment that is absolutely ludicrous is your requirement that the CEO should be required to say nice things about a Pay Czar. This is America. We absolutely hold the right to publicly criticize any public figure and to refuse to bow down before them.

    This notion should be quashed immediately. It is dangerous in that it promotes the idea that officials, especially non-elected ones, have a right to make decisions for the country based on whether they are having their backsides kissed appropriately.

    As others have correctly noted, the issue of a Pay Czar or any other non-elected Czar is very suspect. Bureaucrats, such as those that serve us providing licensing, that do not have to answer to the electorate, can quickly become unproductive and unresponsive to the voters needs and desires. (Obviously my comments do not apply to the many civil servants that do not fall into this trap. I am forever grateful to those of you that remain polite and helpful.)

  • Report this Comment On October 14, 2009, at 5:22 PM, multi007 wrote:

    Well well well. so much for the "power" of Obama's czar. We all thought, and Obama directly said that Wall Street pay will be one of the first things he addresses and will not stand for pay abuse, and that Wall Street should all watch out! Sure, I paraphrased, but its like having that mommy tell her son "now im really mad" while shaking her finger. Yea, really mom? wow. i should be nervous now shouldnt I ?

    Pay Czar my butt! Funny how Obama says he will have a pay czar defeat high wall street pay. Yet, the Pay Czar possition is a highly paid not elected official, but appointed by Obama in order to defeat highly paid people. Now THAT is funny.

    ps. I voted Obama, and I DO regret it.

  • Report this Comment On October 15, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Clint35 wrote:

    Most politicians are just paid liars. So we shouldn't expect anything from them except the usual tough talk. But then the actual actions will be the opposite of what they promised to do. After all they don't wanna make wealthy people mad. Otherwise they might not be able to land that easy high paying job after they've "done their time, doing public service." By the way, what's a pay czar? Why does that job exist? Was that part of the stimulus package?

  • Report this Comment On October 15, 2009, at 2:04 AM, JustEconist wrote:

    It is beginning to look more and more like the government of the (too big to fail) bankers by the bankers for the bankers or socialist republic of bankers.


    "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner picked a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist as a top aide Tuesday, the same day he announced rules aimed at reducing the role of lobbyists in agency decisions."


    "The White House waived the rules Friday for William Lynn, who lobbied for a defense contractor last year, to serve as deputy Defense secretary."


    "A former employee of DFI International -- a D.C. consulting firm -- Lynn joined Raytheon in August 2002 and was elected an officer in May 2005. The firm and its subsidiaries are a major force on Capitol Hill, having spent more than $14.5 million on federal lobbying activities during the six years Lynn was working there

    The government outreach efforts seemed to pay dividends. Raytheon Company received more than $54 billion in contracts from the federal government during that time period,

    Read more at:

    Read more at:

    This at the time which poverty in america has been on the rise and politician (Obama included) are ashamed to even mention the word "poor". They just keep repeating "middle class" while rewarding the top 1% ( some supply side republican are at least honest by saying the business of america is business and saying to poor that you deserve what you got)

    I wonder if Obama is in charge anymore or may be I never knew Obama. Me too like quite a few commentators here voted for Obama and beginning to regret it specially if he can not pass a bill which free the nation from the grip of the insurance companies and save 44000 lives each year:

    SEE :

    "uninsurance is to blame for some 44,789 adult deaths across the U.S. every year, according to a new study published online today in the American Journal of Public Health. "

    Some body mentioned "death panels"?

    Mr president: Tear down the wall of shame and work to bring "LIFE,LIBERTY AND JUSTICE"

    F O R A L L

  • Report this Comment On October 15, 2009, at 9:05 PM, dph192 wrote:

    Interesting, the comment about endorsing someone who has "proven nothing at his current position", would certainly apply to our president receving a Nobel prize, even counting previous experience.

    To be fair, I'll accept that Obama is probably trying to do the best he can on managing the financial crisis based on what he believes - but he certainly has a more optimistic opinion of human nature than most of us.

    It's ironic to think that when the pendulum swings and a much more conservative government is put in place, they'll be able to leverage the powers built up by the "Tsars" and central-control legislation to push their own agenda.

    Whenever you craft a new weapon you need to ask yourself "what could this do in the hands of those I disagree with?"


  • Report this Comment On October 16, 2009, at 3:52 AM, wrkdiver wrote:

    I think we should do to all Obama's Czars just what Russia did to their Czar!

  • Report this Comment On October 16, 2009, at 4:34 AM, RGGrass wrote:

    Kenneth Feinberg, has formally approved the compensation package for Robert Benmosche,

    Don't worry about it folks Kenneth has insured that we won't have to pension him off, when his government time is up he will have a job at AIG waiting.

    dph192 You are right to ask that question about new weapons. Czars go back to FDR but are becoming more prevalant

    President's name ↓ In office ↓ Number of

    "czar" jobs ↓ Number of

    appointees ↓

    Franklin Roosevelt 1933–1945 12 19

    Harry Truman 1945–1953 6 6

    Dwight Eisenhower 1953–1961 1 1

    John F. Kennedy 1961-1963 ? ?

    Lyndon Johnson 1963–1969 3 3

    Richard Nixon 1969–1974 3 5

    Gerald Ford 1974–1977 1 1

    Jimmy Carter 1977–1981 2 3

    Ronald Reagan 1981–1989 1 1

    George H. W. Bush 1989–1993 2 3

    Bill Clinton 1993–2001 7 10

    George W. Bush 2001–2009 31 46

    Barack Obama 2009– 32 35

  • Report this Comment On October 16, 2009, at 4:40 AM, RGGrass wrote:

    Well the chart did not come out right. The idea is that more of our lives are being directed by unelected unaccountable people. This Czar approved the pay package because his knowledge is so superior to the rest of us about what is needed to keep good qualified people to run AIG. We dare not question his decision, oh wait, we cannot question his decision, there is no mechanism for that.

  • Report this Comment On October 16, 2009, at 1:07 PM, trhs77 wrote:

    If Motley Fool becomes another Fox News like political

    sounding board ...I will cancel subscription. I am interested only in investment info not side issues. Stick with why I subscribed. mtjed

  • Report this Comment On October 16, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Ozzy900 wrote:

    You want him to demonstrate capability and accomplishment before compensation? That's so last century. Haven't you noticed that prizes now come for promise?

  • Report this Comment On October 16, 2009, at 5:45 PM, dc46and2 wrote:


    "This notion should be quashed immediately. It is dangerous in that it promotes the idea that officials, especially non-elected ones, have a right to make decisions for the country based on whether they are having their backsides kissed appropriately."

    Yes, we must quash this idea straightaway. We don't want anyone else to figure out how things really work...

  • Report this Comment On October 16, 2009, at 11:16 PM, sarjes wrote:

    I agree! In the first place the United States does not need a pay czar. In fact we do not need any czars; this is a republic. Who approved Obama's czars?

  • Report this Comment On October 17, 2009, at 5:40 AM, wbarsanti wrote:

    How absurd and outrageous compensation to executives in millions of dollars! What are the multiples of their contributions to the company over than of a secretary or janitor?

  • Report this Comment On October 17, 2009, at 7:20 PM, gnorton100 wrote:

    Remember history. Hitler, Stalin, Mao. They all put into power a cadre of supporters that have no responsibility to anyone but them. Obama is doing the same thing.

  • Report this Comment On October 17, 2009, at 11:10 PM, RHoneycutt wrote:

    I don't think your article really adds much value, and is somewhat misleading. Consider these two points:

    1. You chastise Mr Benmosche for taking off 2 weeks of vacation at his villa in Croatia (shocking!). You failed to mention that Mr Benmosche was previously retired, living at his Croatian villa. He was recruited out of retirement to take this position (with all its media spotlight). Mr Benmosche had originally agreed to start the job the following month, but agreed to start early, provided he could begin working remotely.

    3. Mr. Benmosche made several derogatory comments about congress and the NY Attorney General. Wow, how dare he. Crazy thought, what if he's on to something. I'm confused, are you saying that you value political correctness over the CEO's ability to manage the business for the best interest of the shareholders?

  • Report this Comment On October 18, 2009, at 8:30 AM, Lawvan wrote:

    What does corporate CEO pay relate to? How is it determined and who determines it? To me, it looks like CEO pay is like "trying to ke up with the Joneses." The ridiculous pay and perk package of one CEO sets the mark and establishes the trend for every other CEO and seems to have nothing to do brains, ability or past/future performance . It's like an entitlment. I mean, really, who in his right mind would want a cushy job with bells and whistles limited only by imagination, which pays only $10,000,000 a year? A person would have to be some kind of saint, "nut case" or a masochist even to consider it. Only rock stars, Hollywood celebrities/entertainers and top professional athletes/entertainers can expect to earn more, but they arguably must have talent, must stay in shape, depend on the public for their incomes and have to "work" for a living. When Feinberg's "job" as "public servant" is over and he returns to the private sector for real, gainful employment, he'll be rewarded, for sure. By then, maybe Benmosche may have floated back into retirement on his golden parachute, and the CEO position at AIG may be available.

  • Report this Comment On October 18, 2009, at 10:58 AM, blesto wrote:


    If you & other like minded people keep posting, it won't.

    All points of view should be welcome, hopefully to give us all insights to our investing.

  • Report this Comment On October 18, 2009, at 7:07 PM, MKArch wrote:

    <<<He has made several provocative statements, such as calling Congress "a bunch of crazies," and saying that New York state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo "doesn't deserve to be in government." >>>


    He should get $10M for that comment alone. As a tax payer (thus investor) I'm feeling better about AIG's prospects already.

  • Report this Comment On October 18, 2009, at 11:22 PM, billybob220 wrote:


  • Report this Comment On October 19, 2009, at 5:10 PM, maccdw wrote:

    Did we (taxpayers) buy equity in AIG or just anunsecured debt position with our bailout money? If we are a shareholder, then we have a right (and a responsibility) to judge exec pay. If we are just debt holders, then the US gov't has no business whatsoever in ruling on exec pay no matter how much we hate what AIG does.

    If anything is ever going to come out of this, it should be that shareholders pull their collective heads out of the sand and demand a voice in exec pay.

    I doubt that will ever happen.

  • Report this Comment On October 22, 2009, at 11:47 AM, puckfan7 wrote:

    I AGREE with Snuffy49. I AM a conspiracy theorist and I KNOW "OUR government" doesn't give a RAT'S ASS about YOU, ME, OR ANYONE ELSE!!! It's all about "How much can we profit off the American public."

    That being said....I can assure you that investing IS NOT the answer to OUR problems (Unless you're investing in "The United States Government"). What makes US FOOLS think that the market will help us? OPTIMISM!!! That's what "OUR" president stresses and expounds upon.

    FOOLS....Optimism DOES NOT make us wealthy, DOES NOT pay our mortgages, and, ultimately, DOES NOT feed our families. Optimism IS NOT REALITY!!!

    I'm not into posting "Blogs" but I just thought I should put my two cents in.

  • Report this Comment On October 22, 2009, at 2:01 PM, voelkels wrote:

    Interesting!!! In today’s “The Times-Picayune” from New Orleans is an article titled “White House wants executives’ pay cut” in which . . . “The seven companies that received the most assistance will have to cut the annual salaries of their 25 highest-paid executives by an average of about 90 percent from last year, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because it has not been announced.” and later in the article “At the financial products division of AIG, the giant insurance company which received taxpayer assistance valued at more than $180 billion, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, a person familiar with Feinberg’s plan said. . . “

    Sounds like someone in the White House is blowing smoke (per normal IMHO) again.

    C.J.V - jest my 2 cents, yes

  • Report this Comment On October 27, 2009, at 12:14 AM, IRS706 wrote:

    Lets see. He gets $7,000,000 in ordinary income and probably pays in state & federal taxes about 40% or $2,800,000 leaving him $200,000 cash and $4,000,000 in stock which he probably can't sell right away. As I see it, 95% of his after tax income is tied up in AIG stock. HIs a__ is on the line, just like every other investor in AIG (of which I am not).

    If AIG goes bust, he has a $4,000,000 capital loss of which he can take $3,000/year against his other income and only needs to live for another 1,333 years to break even. If AIG goes down the tubes he most likely does not get a performance bonus and thus after his year is $200,000 richer versus someone who gets $2,000,000 in cash and keeps 60% after taxes or $1,200,000.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1004933, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/25/2016 12:10:10 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,177.73 -45.30 -0.25%
S&P 500 2,144.87 -6.46 -0.30%
NASD 5,287.89 -21.94 -0.41%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

10/25/2016 11:54 AM
AIG $60.43 Up +0.11 +0.18%
American Internati… CAPS Rating: ****
BAC $16.71 Down -0.06 -0.36%
Bank of America CAPS Rating: ****
C $49.66 Up +0.08 +0.16%
Citigroup CAPS Rating: ***
FMCC $1.67 Down -0.01 -0.65%
Freddie Mac CAPS Rating: ***
HD $124.38 Down -3.41 -2.66%
Home Depot CAPS Rating: ****
MET $46.40 Down -0.25 -0.53%
MetLife CAPS Rating: *****