It seemed like only late last month when I mentioned, in passing, that capping banking executive pays would not achieve anything:

I’m positive there’ll be loopholes which will enable those executives to take that money away in other instruments (shares, for example, or some other kind of options; deferred quasi-pension payments; post-employment “consultation” fees; etc.), so it’ll stop exactly diddley-squat.

But sentiment in the blogosphere was still adamant that this was an Important Provision that Had To Pass. Well, in Bloomberg this morning, under a headline that read “Blankfein’s $70 Million Would Survive Paulson’s Rules”, I read that:

Blankfein, 54, was Wall Street’s best-paid CEO in 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. He “could still make tens of millions of dollars if he continues to receive stock grants and Goldman’s stock rises,” said David Schmidt, a senior consultant for New York-based compensation firm James F. Reda & Associates.

With the added detail that,

While performance-related pay over $1 million has been tax-deductible, companies were able to write off only $1 million of salary since 1993 [my emphasis, which shows that some irritant has been in place since 1993 ... but it still didn't change anything].
…

As a result, bankers’ salaries were often set beneath the $1 million cap. Blankfein’s was $600,000 last year, with the rest of his package coming in incentive compensation and services, including a car and driver, according to regulatory filings.

Doesn’t sound like much until you realise that Blanfein’s “official” salary was $600,000 last year, BUT “the rest of the package” meant he managed to walk away with total compensation of $70,300,000 for 2007 alone. Man, that’s some “package”. Wonder where I can get me some?

So I think that makes it Kaz’s Cynicism, 1; Laudable Naive Sentiment, 0.

POSTSCRIPT: I know, why am I blogging every day this week? Especially when I specifically said I’d be cutting down? My own perversity, I suspect. It’s an enemy I’ve yet to defeat.