Bonus Plans of Mice and Men

This is another series of posts based on an upcoming column of mine in the Wilmott Magazine. In this series, I will examine at the arguments for and against huge bonuses and golden parachutes. The first in the series, this post merely sets the stage for the next half a dozen. The starting point of this series is the public resignation letter by Jake DeSantis, ex-EVP at AIG, and his reasons for believing in the fairness of the huge bonus packages. And my arguments against them, with the personal suspicion that my views are perhaps more a case of sour grapes than of moral high horse.

Another common argument is that bonuses are necessary to retail the so-called “talent.” Are they?

If you generate profit, don’t you deserve a share of it? Profit generation and increasing shareholder value — these are the hallmarks of top talent in our capitalistic world view now. What is good for the shareholder is certainly good for the talent as well.

The last post in this series, this one exposes the extreme cases both in allowing and in denying bonuses, and their implications. Both the options imply our acceptance of certain economic idea. And, as with most things in life, it is not quite clear which is right, once you think long enough about it. A happy and stable middle ground is what we should seek and find.