The Problems With Obama's Pay Caps

奥巴马(Obama)政府不会坐以待毙。不过，对那些需要政府“特殊救助”的公司高管薪酬加以限制，这种做法带来的麻烦只怕和它解决的问题一样多。首先，这种做法可能会导致劳动力市场发生扭曲。公司雇员和管理人士会很想离开身陷困境的银行，到外资银行的分支机构或实力更强的美国机构那里谋职。而这将让原本就很虚弱的美国公司更加雪上加霜。第二，这一计划限制的是高层管理人员的薪酬水平。而存有争议的更为重要的一个问题，即组织结构内部薪酬结构不合理高管以下部分员工薪酬过高的问题却仍然没有得到解决。高管薪酬限制措施可能会使那些任职于投资银行大型部门收入优厚的负责人们设法避开薪酬水平会受限制的高层职位。薪酬限制措施确实不够严谨。大量出于激励目的的限制性股票仍然可以发行，当然只有在银行高管对公司做出突出贡献纳税人得到回报之后才能授予。第三，上述规定并没有追溯力。所以，理论上说，美国国际集团(American International Group Inc. (AIG))还会继续错下去。不过，现在一家公司陷入如此困境就要受到更加严格的规定制约。从好的方面来看，这一计划确实能够鼓励银行尽快偿还政府救助资金，即便这也意味着它们从公共财政中获得资金将付出高昂的代价。但即使是这样也会招致混乱：像美国银行(Bank of America Corp., BAC)和花旗集团(Citigroup Inc., C)这些早先获得政府特别救助签署过损失共担协议的银行，它们面临的尽早还款压力就相对较小。那些最先遭遇麻烦的，即便是最不称职的人，最后的结局可能相对好些，这种情况已经不是头一回了。持有贝尔斯登(Bear Stearns)风险敞口的投资者得以全身而退，相反，那些雷曼兄弟的投资者却落得个血本无归。Thorold Barker相关阅读奥巴马限制受助公司高管年薪   上限50万 2009-02-05华尔街薪酬体系向现实屈服 2009-02-02美国受助金融机构薪酬限制趋紧 2009-02-02奥巴马称华尔街滥发奖金“可耻” 2009-01-30


The Obama administration had to do something. But capping executive pay at $500,000 at banks needing 'exceptional assistance' could create as many problems as it solves. First, it could distort labor markets. Employees and executives will be tempted to flee troubled banks to subsidiaries of foreign banks or stronger U.S. institutions. That could make the weak even weaker. Second, the plan caps pay for top employees. It doesn't yet address the arguably more important issue of generous pay structures lower down organizations. The cap could encourage those in, say, better paying jobs running big departments at an investment bank to shun top positions where pay would be limited. True, the limits aren't rigid. Large amounts of restricted stock could still be issued, although this would only have value if executives could dig their bank out of a deep hole and pay back taxpayers. Third, the rules aren't retroactive. So AIG, theoretically, can bumble along, while a company getting into such trouble now would be subject to tougher rules. On the positive side, the plan does encourage banks pay back government aid as quickly as possible, even if it means tapping public markets at expensive rates. But even that could create a distortion. Those who took special assistance early, such as Bank of America and Citigroup with their loss-sharing agreements, would be under less pressure to refund that help early. Not for the first time, the most incompetent, who hit trouble first, could end up relatively better off. Contrast creditors who had exposure to Bear Stearns - made whole - with those exposed to bankrupt Lehman Brothers. Thorold Barker