The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have long since instituted accounting and corporate reforms to increase public confidence in investment markets. Conflict-of-interest issues from overly optimistic research reports--written by analysts during the stock boom of the late 1990s caused investors to lose large sums of money. Now company research reports are written independently and require disclosure of any conflicts of interest.
Why are compensation firms allowed to have clear conflict of interest relationships with their clients? What compensation firm can expect to get actuarial or human resource consulting assignments without first ensuring that the pay packages for the executives making the decision are healthy enough?
Is anyone aware of a compensation consulting firm that advised top management that their pay was too high relative to others?
I don't understand how the compensation consulting firms have escaped legislative intervention. Finally, the House committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating this practice.
According to the Chairman of the committee, Henry Waxman, "The question, I'm looking at is whether potential conflicts of interest among compensation consultants and their corporate clients might play a role in some of the irrational compensation decisions."
You think?







