CEOs still making huge pay
Despite shareholders advocating for lower CEO pay, a study out says compensation for chief executives is up from 2006. Scott Jagow asks Fortune Magazine's Allan Sloan why there isn't more pressure on executive paychecks.
Allan Sloan is a senior editor-at-large at Fortune (APM)
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Scott Jagow: I don't know if you caught this study that came out last week from Associated Press. It said the CEOs of S&P 500 companies had a median pay of $8.4 million last year. That's total compensation. That was a 3.5 percent gain from 2006.
Thought with all the losses on Wall Street, the layoffs, the downturn, Allan I thought we were gonna see shareholders demand some changes. Where are they?
Allan Sloan: You know, there's a principle that says if a small number of people care about something an awful lot, they will have more influence than a lot of people who care about it only a little. And if there's anything in the world that chief executive officers of U.S. corporations care about, it's their compensation packages. And they care a lot. And no matter what the formula is, or often what the shareholders do, the CEOs influence the process enough -- either directly or indirectly -- that they all make out.
Jagow: Are you hearing about any movement within companies by shareholders to put more pressure on executive compensation?
Sloan: There is in fact something called "say on pay," which is really interesting, which proposes to give shareholders a say on the compensation of the top executives. And the name say on pay is very catchy, but it's been adopted in only one or two places, one of which is Afflec. I just sort of wonder in the end how much good it'll do. But what could it hurt?
Jagow: We had talked before about the newest round of shareholder meetings, and how we were expecting shareholders to come in there with fire in their bellies and demand things like accountability. Have we seen any of that?
Sloan: Well, we've seen some accountability at a bunch of these financial companies that have really run into trouble. The chief executive has been offered up as a human sacrifice. However, the CEOs of these big financial companies that have been broomed, no one said to them, you know, maybe you should give back some of the money we awarded you when we thought we were making a ton of money, and it turns out we really didn't because we had to take all these write-downs and all these profits were illusory -- you know, nobody does that. I mean there's accountability in the sense that these people lose their jobs, but there's no accountability in the sense that they're pursued for the money they probably shouldn't have gotten. And barring, you know, a complete miracle, I don't think that will ever happen, because shame used to be a powerful motivator, and I guess it isn't any more -- if you have enough money, you could afford to be ashamed.
Jagow: All right, Allan Sloan from Fortune Magazine. Thank you.
Sloan: You're welcome, Scott.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Springfield, VA, 06/23/2008
Why doesn't Congress establish the Special Counsel for Public Securities and Exchanges with the power to sue for restitution of excess compensation and bonuses of executives who stolen money from public companies and exchanges by theft or fraud?
From Fort Lauderdale, FL, 06/23/2008
Thank you Scott. I try to catch guest Allan Sloan each Monday. I particularly noted the unusual reference -- in a market report -- to "SHAME" being used hand in hand with remuneration.
In forwarding it I could not resist changing the 'Subject'to:
While Americans, Iraqis & Afghanis Die: Back at the Office, CEO's Take-Home $8.4 Mill Annually -- And Are Not SHAMED* A Bit (Ck Last Paragraph)
From Washington, DC, 06/23/2008
When contemplating “say on pay” proposals in a recent interview, Mr. Sloan, a Fortune senior editor-at-large, wondered, “….how much good will it do? But what could it hurt?” The answer: Because the proposals are non-binding, they likely won’t do much good, but they could hurt a lot by compromising confidential information critical to a corporation’s ability to compete, allowing certain shareholders to promote their own special agendas over the broader group and unduly abdicating power to proxy services. Perhaps that’s why shareholders have rejected the vast majority of “say on pay” proposals this year. Instead, companies should increase their direct communications with shareholders who, in turn, should retain their authority over directors by being able to vote them out – the ultimate “say on pay” in our carefully balanced, effective corporate governance system that provided shareholders some $256 billion in dividends from S&P 500 companies in 2007.
Submitted by Charles G. Tharp, Executive Director, Center on Executive Compensation (www.execcomp.org), a not-for-profit association dedicated to providing a reasoned voice on executive compensation and other corporate governance matters
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.