Many of the sledge hammer regulations the Obama administration's SEC had proposed failed to get finalized before the Trump inauguration. IMO, the hubris of liberal expectations of a Hillary victory led to delay.

In its latest report, the SEC and 5 other agencies, have all but abandoned any changes to big bank executive pay packages.

Clearly, having the government interfere with the most private of private sector liberties, that is pay plans, should never be considered a good idea.

Quote:Several regulators have dropped pursuit of a long-running plan to restrict bonuses on Wall Street, as part of a wider effort to stop working on unfinished rules put in place after the financial crisis.

Government agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and several banking regulators, were directed under the 2010 Dodd-Frank law to develop compensation rules intended to curb excessive risk taking. ..... The six agencies delivered a new proposal in April 2016, but that was too late to push through a final version of the rule before President Donald Trump took office in January.

Link to WSJ

(07-21-2017 08:17 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  Many of the sledge hammer regulations the Obama administration's SEC had proposed failed to get finalized before the Trump inauguration. IMO, the hubris of liberal expectations of a Hillary victory led to delay.

In its latest report, the SEC and 5 other agencies, have all but abandoned any changes to big bank executive pay packages.

Clearly, having the government interfere with the most private of private sector liberties, that is pay plans, should never be considered a good idea.

Quote:Several regulators have dropped pursuit of a long-running plan to restrict bonuses on Wall Street, as part of a wider effort to stop working on unfinished rules put in place after the financial crisis.

Government agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and several banking regulators, were directed under the 2010 Dodd-Frank law to develop compensation rules intended to curb excessive risk taking. ..... The six agencies delivered a new proposal in April 2016, but that was too late to push through a final version of the rule before President Donald Trump took office in January.

Link to WSJ

Good.

What I would like to see is more shareholder ability to control executive pay packages.

(07-21-2017 08:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  What I would like to see is more shareholder ability to control executive pay packages.

Fair point.

I actually recall arguing a shareholder pay approval case in business school back in the 1980s.

As an aside, I recently read an article that ETFs are skewing shareholder votes because the managers, and not the shareholders, cast the ballots. I own about 40 different stocks in my name and as a result, I vote my shares directly. Almost every big company has a proxy vote on the executive pay package; but it's only an approval of what the board has decided.

(07-21-2017 08:26 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(07-21-2017 08:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  What I would like to see is more shareholder ability to control executive pay packages.

Fair point.

I actually recall arguing a shareholder pay approval case in business school back in the 1980s.

As an aside, I recently read an article that ETFs are skewing shareholder votes because the managers, and not the shareholders, cast the ballots. I own about 40 different stocks in my name and as a result, I vote my shares directly. Almost every big company has a proxy vote on the executive pay package; but it's only an approval of what the board has decided.

True to both. I can only think of one time within my portfolio that a pay plan increase was denied by shareholders or the voting managers.