WASHINGTON — The American Bankers Association is still raising concerns over a Securities and Exchange Commission proposal that would more clearly disclose "in plain English" what executives and directors earn at publicly-traded companies.

In an Oct. 23 comment letter, the banking trade group responded to the commission's earlier proposal to require disclosure of the top three employees' compensation and job description who earn more than any executive officer. "Despite its good intentions, this proposal, like the earlier version, will leave publicly-traded companies at a competitive disadvantage to privately-held companies with very little concomitant benefit for investors," wrote Sarah Miller, director, Center for Securities, Trust and Investment, American Bankers Association. The SEC's earlier proposal on executive compensation and related party disclosure would have required publicly traded banking organizations to disclose director deposit and trust accounts, as well as securities processing and other services provided to director affiliated companies. The ABA argued that ordinary course of business transactions provided on a non-preferential basis, such as these, should be exempt from disclosure, Miller said, adding the trade group "is pleased that the Commission agreed with our reasoning and determined to exempt these ordinary course of business transactions and require only categorical disclosure of transactions with independent directors, instead of more detailed transaction disclosure." Miller said however ABA is opposed to requiring further disclosure of employee compensation beyond that already required under certain items within the proposal saying it will be difficult to implement, imposes "significant regulatory burdens with little investor benefit" and places publicly traded companies at a competitive disadvantage. "Determining which individuals perform policy making functions and are, thus, executive officers is difficult enough now," Miller said. "To require, all other employees to be viewed through a 'policy decision-making' or 'policy influence' prism will surely exacerbate current difficulties, requiring companies to create new procedures and assign new work to individuals to collect and analyze the necessary information." The proposal could place regulatory burdens on companies, Miller said. "The proposal is intended to give investors and others a better understanding of the compensation structure of the named executive officers and directors," she wrote. "It is unclear, however, what value the new proposal would add beyond what is already covered by the existing rule. For example, compensation for the principal executive officer the principal financial officer and the registrant's three most highly compensative executive officers other than the PEO and PFO is required to be disclosed in proxy and information statements."

Competitors could also be privy to information that could give them a competitive edge, Miller wrote. "Our competitors will surely be able to identify specific individuals from the more generalized disclosures. We are also opposed to these disclosures as they could alert our competitors, public and non-public alike, to confidential information about the company, its sales volumes, and commission schedules." Credit unions are not impacted by SEC's executive compensation proposal, but some industry experts have said that more disclosures could make members better informed investors. SEC said this is the first time in 14 years that the agency has taken a thorough look at executive compensation disclosures.