Opinion

[Print]  [Email]        

Executive compensation makes it to the Supreme Court

By: J.P. Freire
Associate Commentary Editor
11/03/09 2:20 PM EST

Even for free-market types, there is such a thing as getting paid too much. That may be happening among mutual fund managers, which is why the Supreme Court began hearing arguments this week in Jones v. Harris. The case essentially deals with the higher rates that mutual fund advisers may charge their captive funds versus their institutional investor clients. The fund's board of trustees generally negotiates on behalf of investors to arrive at this sum.

At first blush, the libertarian approach should be simple enough: Judges should not set the rates of mutual fund advisers, and instead should allow market forces to make the call.

But the case has a twist. Two judges known for their market-based view of the law are add odds in the case. Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit ruled against the suit, saying that if investors have a problem with how much the advisors are charging in fees, they can pull their money out and go elsewhere. "It won't do to reply that most investors are unsophisticated and don't compare prices," Judge Easterbrook said in his opinion in rejecting the shareholder suit. "The sophisticated investors who do shop create a competitive pressure that protects the rest."

On the other hand, Judge Richard Posner wrote that the trustees of a mutual fund that determine compensation for advisers are too insulated from market forces, and there isn't enough incentive for compensation to be appropriately adjusted. Abuse in these organizations was rampant, he felt, regardless of the number of firms available to the sophisticated investor.

Based on a review of the oral arguments from yesterday, it looks like the case is winding up in the weeds of figuring out how much is too much to justify the view that a fee is exhorbitant.

A fantastic symposium on the case is here and a good Wall Street Journal explainer is here. The SCOTUSwiki entry is here




beltway confidential

Call it what you like -- it deserves a complete investigation. (afp) Any reporter worth their salt knows that when government decides to investigate itself, exonerations tend...

Where is your stimulus money going? In Baker City, Ore., the Bureau of Land Management is putting $256,000 of it toward "rattlesnake stewardship." It's the latest...

So let me get this straight, the government created the housing market crash by insuring a lot of really expensive, little-to-no money down mortgages for people that couldn't...

Although the Department of Justice is not yet investigating the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), its Inspector General has looked into whether...


To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

publius

Nov 4, 2009

Market forces? What market forces? With 29,000 registered corporate lobbyists in Washington the fix is in. Two years ago some members of Congress thought it might be a good idea to make hedge fund managers making $3/4 billion a year to pay more than 15% of that in income tax. The idea was killed after a significant injection of campaign contributions from Wall Street. Because the Congress no longer represents the people, the Court must represent the people. Yes it is the tyranny of the unelected judges, but their tyranny is better than the tyranny of a bought and paid for Congress.

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Display Name:

Comment:




Economy

Thousands of Spanish farmers protest low prices paid for their agricultural produce

Several thousand farmers protested the low prices Saturday they receive for their products, saying that commercial middlemen take too high a cut. Full story

Entertainment

Pedro Almodovar discusses his childhood, his influences and what he won't put on film

Sex. Drugs. Prostitution. Pedophilia. Rape. Pedro Almodovar has been able to translate some of the most delicate subjects to the big screen with grace and humor. Full story