Humility and new pay policies are in vogue right now. Banks are striking a humble tone as they re-write their compensation practices in light of the TARP bailouts and the recent crisis. We're hearing a lot about rights that cannot be cashed out for five years, clawbacks and more stock as part of bonuses plans in general--none of which are bad ideas.

But to some, the bigger point is being missed. No one is actually lowering bonuses for the same amount of success, as measured by revenue, profits or some other benchmark. They are merely making the payments more palatable. Given the same revenue or profits, one could argue that the board should cut the percentage handed out in compensation for 2009. But that would effectively say that the work is less valuable today than in 2007. Others could make a case that, based on the risks, the public was forced to bail them out. It will be interesting to see if Goldman Sachs' payout as a percentage of revenue dips this year. 

For more:
- here's the Fortune article

Related Articles:
Wells Fargo's grants reflect new era
Goldman Sachs' pay plan: A few fine print issues
Did exec pay cause the crisis?
Britain's one-time tax on bonuses