Down A Slippery Slope: Regulating Executive Compensation Sets a Bad Precedent
Our government has proven once again that it is more reactive than proactive. Government proposals to place a $500,000 limit on executive compensation for Wall Street bankers is purely a political reaction to the public outrage over the profitability of investment banks in a time of economic crisis. The extravagant bonuses and profits that are earned on Wall Street are the norm and have been so for decades. Investment bankers and money managers command extraordinary salaries, multimillion dollar bonuses, and stock options for managing huge amounts of risk for their firms and investors. The politicians in
The irony surrounding the proposed executive compensation restrictions for the financial industry is that the government does not place any limits on the compensation of executives who work in industries that have received government subsidies and tax and trade incentives for decades. The level of hypocrisy being exhibited by the government and the double standards being applied across industries and sectors are too obvious. One can only wonder how the government is able to justify capping executive compensation for one industry and not for others, especially since they all benefit from some form of government assistance or tax breaks. Meddling with executive compensation sets a bad precedent for any governmental entity. Boards of Directors, shareholders, and consumers are the only stakeholders who should be establishing compensation guidelines for corporate executives. After all, that’s what Board votes, shareholder meetings, and consumer protests and boycotts are for. Government interference in free market practices not only sets a bad precedent, but it will ultimately encourage companies to relocate overseas to corporate friendly cities such as London, which has been clamoring to become the center of global financial activity. To the extent that corporate failures do not threaten a collapse of the entire American economy, we must be courageous enough to allow companies to fail when they make bad decisions and engage in highly risky activities. Similarly, if companies don’t want the government interfering with their proprietary practices, then they should reject government bailouts during times of crisis.



Comments