The fallacious compensation formula for top management

Goldman Sach is going to reward its top management with bountiful bonuses again as its profit soars. Technically it appears a reasonable thing to do given that the top management were the people that helped to generate the profit and should be duly rewarded. But, but the formula is loaded on one side. Big profit means big bonuses. No profit no bonus and big losses, it is the organisation that pays, or the shareholders that pay. Nothing to do with the top management. They only miss out on the big payout. Look at yesterday when all the big organisations were bleeding in the billions. Would the top management put back those billions that were lost? What if the last losses were $200b, as an example, and they started to make back $20b this year, big bonuses again? By right, they should work for the organisation for free or at a fixed pay until all the losses were recovered. Would that be fairer to the organisation and the shareholders? For such organisations that have suffered huge losses, the compensation formula should and must take that into consideration. That was why older compensation schemes were not foolish enough to pay everything with the sky's the limit computed on a spot year. You can't do that! The American govt should pass a law to make those top management to work for life, without bonuses or pay increases, until the losses are made good. Then only can they talk about more bonuses.


Anonymous said...

President Obama does'nt seemed uneasy with the Fallacious Compensation.

And I wonder if that Fallacious Compensation does not siphon the investors money in the long run ?


redbean said...

the law makers are tabling a bill to this daylight robbery. mind you, it is legal and approved by the board.