The Dodd-Frank financial reforms of 2010 promised to better align risk-reward incentives by, among other things, reducing imprudent securitization (i.e., sales of financial assets) and excessive executive compensation. This would, in turn, promote systemic stability. To assess whether Dodd-Frank’s elaborate rules on securitization and compensation are likely to achieve this goal, we explore the connection between the two empirically. Using a unique dataset covering 1993-2009 — the largest of its kind — we find that securitizing banks (regulated depositaries) on average paid their CEOs twice as much as non-securitizing banks, a finding that is both statistically and economically significant. By contrast, non-bank (industrial) firms that securitized actually paid their CEOs less than non-securitizers. Because securitizing banks performed no better than other firms (non-securitizing banks or industrials), we find evidence of agency cost; because bank-originated securitizations performed especially poorly in the financial crisis, we find evidence of social cost. Our findings have important implications for Dodd-Frank, because its rules on securitization and compensation fail to account for the incentive effects of securitization by banks. Its compensation …