Executive pay reform unlikely to reduce systemic risk in economy

July 21, 2011

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Reforms aimed at curbing executive compensation will likely have little effect on reducing systemic risk in the financial system, and they may even have unintended consequences for the freedom to contract, according to a University of Illinois expert in business law and corporate finance.

In a paper published in the Ohio State Entrepreneurial Business Law Journal, law professor Christine Hurt argues that giving regulators unprecedented power to prohibit certain types of private compensation under the guise of minimizing systemic risk in the financial system is an unwise move that could ultimately undermine the freedom of contracts.

"Since the financial crisis, both states and the federal government have tried to go in and rewrite existing contracts or put limits on what people can contract for in various areas," said Hurt, a co-director of the Program in Business Law and Policy at Illinois. "We do all sorts of things because we are confident in contracts as enforceable legal documents. Why? Because we believe in contract law, and that courts will uphold contracts. But if it gets to the point where courts can go in and change contracts - well, contracts won't be worth the proverbial paper they're printed on. Ultimately, that could have an impact on everyone whose contractual compensation suddenly seems undeserving, from the executive level to public employees and retirees."

Whether it's executive compensation or public union contracts, just because one side of the contract is disadvantageous to one party doesn't mean courts or legislators should be able to rewrite it, Hurt says.

"Generally, legislators have had little appetite for interference with private contracting," she said. "But in the wake of the housing crisis, it now seems that various government actors do have some interest, provided the benefits of the new contract favor a sympathetic party. Executive compensation reform would be a good example of an easy target of such contract reform, since people love to turn their scorn to the highly paid."

Although executive compensation has become a lightning rod for legislation, it's actually, in the grand scheme of things, "a very small amount of dollars," Hurt said.

"In the aftermath of the financial crisis, we think that all of these financial firms took on way too much risk and that their actions threatened our economy. But instead of trying to figure out what went wrong, and what prompted them to take on so much risk, legislators have naturally gravitated to executive compensation, which the general public has always thought was way too high. So now we have this new argument for capping executive compensation."

According to Hurt's paper, no theoretical or empirical link exists between how much executives are paid and how much systemic risk their firms cause.

"If you think of AIG and Lehman Brothers, and all the really bad positions they had in mortgage-backed securities, the people who made those trades weren't executives," said Hurt, the Guy Raymond Jones Faculty Scholar at Illinois. "The people who approved those trades weren't executives. So if there is behavior that leads to systemic risk, it's firm-wide by employees - employees who executive compensation reforms are never going to touch.

According to Hurt, if a financial behemoth such as Lehman Brothers was unable to foresee that its compensation program was going to lead to devastating loss, then it's hard to believe that regulators would be able to have better predictive powers than those with the incentive to stop it.

"A decade or two ago, there was a push for incentive-based compensation because we thought if executive pay was tied to a firm's performance, that would ensure we're paying for performance," she said. "So instead of just paying an executive $10 million, we paid them $1 million plus stock options. And that has led to all sorts of creative chaos. Not only are executives allowed to hedge away the downside risks of their stock options, but it also incentivizes them to take risks so the stock price goes up."

Hurt says it's hard to see how Congress comes up with a better solution.

"The last time that we had this debate, the legislature comes up with pay-for-performance," she said. "Well, pay-for-performance may have caused the financial crisis. Critics have been pointing to a lot these firms that we blame for causing the financial crisis - Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs - and saying, 'See, all of their executive are very well-compensated. Therefore, it must be the money that led these firms into ruin.' Well, these were very large firms, and if they weren't large firms they wouldn't have had an impact on the economy.

"Generally speaking, people at large firms make a lot of money. But there's no logic to saying if they had made a little bit less money, then the financial crisis could have been avoided."
Editor's note: To contact Christine Hurt, call 217-244-8293; email achurt@illinois.edu.

The paper, "Regulating Compensation," is available online.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Related Employees Articles from Brightsurf:

How initiatives empowering employees can backfire
Strategies meant to motivate people in the workplace may have unintended consequences -- depending on who's in charge.

Some employees more likely to adhere to information security policies than others
Information security policies (ISP) that are not grounded in the realities of an employee's work responsibilities and priorities exposes organizations to higher risk for data breaches, according to new research from Binghamton University, State University of New York.

Covert tobacco industry marketing tactics exposed by former employees
Tobacco companies use covert marketing tactics and exploit loopholes in Australian tobacco control laws to promote their products despite current tobacco advertising bans, finds new research from University of Sydney and Cancer Council NSW.

How employees' rankings disrupt cooperation and how managers can restore it
First prize is a Cadillac Eldorado, second prize a set of steak knives, third prize you're firedĀ».

Employees less upset at being replaced by robots than by other people
Generally speaking, most people find the idea of workers being replaced by robots or software worse than if the jobs are taken over by other workers.

Some LGBT employees feel less supported at federal agencies
Workplace inequality is visible when it involves gender and race, but less so with sexual identity and gender expression.

Workplace interventions may improve sleep habits and duration for employees
Simple workplace interventions, like educating employees about the importance of sleep and providing behavioral sleep strategies, may produce beneficial results, according to a new review.

To keep the creative juices flowing, employees should be receptive to criticism
Though most firms today embrace a culture of criticism, when supervisors and peers dispense negative feedback it can actually stunt the creative process, according to a new study co-authored by Yeun Joon Kim, a Ph.D. student at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management.

How a positive work environment leads to feelings of inclusion among employees
Fostering an inclusive work environment can lead to higher satisfaction, innovation, trust and retention among employees, according to new research from Binghamton University, State University of New York.

How susceptible are hospital employees to phishing attacks?
A multicenter study finds high click rate for simulated phishing emails, potential benefit in phishing awareness training.

Read More: Employees News and Employees Current Events
Brightsurf.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.