Pigs at the trough 2016
Discussion
London424 said:
Shock horror, the Long Term incentive that is built using financial growth metrics has paid out. Just be glad that he only got 80% of what he could have got or you'd really be upset!
How much did the company grow in that time by the way?
Incorrect.How much did the company grow in that time by the way?
The link between pay and firm performance is asymmetric. In good times, bosses’ pay rises a lot, but in bad times, it doesn’t fall so far. In fact, the biggest influence on bosses’ pay is not so much company performance as simply the size of the firm.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/fmg/workingPapers/discussion...
Fittster said:
If bosses are plundering their firms there's less for shareholders, many of which are pension funds.
So the best people to decide whether the remuneration is appropriate are the owners of the business I.e. the pension funds and their appointed representatives (asset managers)?As Shareholders they have a vote and use it accordingly...
Fittster said:
London424 said:
Shock horror, the Long Term incentive that is built using financial growth metrics has paid out. Just be glad that he only got 80% of what he could have got or you'd really be upset!
How much did the company grow in that time by the way?
Incorrect.How much did the company grow in that time by the way?
The link between pay and firm performance is asymmetric. In good times, bosses’ pay rises a lot, but in bad times, it doesn’t fall so far. In fact, the biggest influence on bosses’ pay is not so much company performance as simply the size of the firm.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/fmg/workingPapers/discussion...
I've said that his LTI plan is based on financial metrics. Based on the achievement of those he will trigger his award (to a greater or lesser degree). In this instance he met 80%.
Fittster said:
If bosses are plundering their firms there's less for shareholders, many of which are pension funds.
As I understand it...Decisions like renumeration policy for executives are decided within a plc based on a vote by all shareholders; with the side gaining more than 50% of the vote (the majority) winning. For some shareholders this means that votes sometimes don't give the result they want however that's how it works. If they don't like that, they shouldn't be investing in a plc.
sidicks said:
Fittster said:
If bosses are plundering their firms there's less for shareholders, many of which are pension funds.
So the best people to decide whether the remuneration is appropriate are the owners of the business I.e. the pension funds and their appointed representatives (asset managers)?As Shareholders they have a vote and use it accordingly...
Next you'll be telling me you have to pay for top talent.
London424 said:
Fittster said:
London424 said:
Shock horror, the Long Term incentive that is built using financial growth metrics has paid out. Just be glad that he only got 80% of what he could have got or you'd really be upset!
How much did the company grow in that time by the way?
Incorrect.How much did the company grow in that time by the way?
The link between pay and firm performance is asymmetric. In good times, bosses’ pay rises a lot, but in bad times, it doesn’t fall so far. In fact, the biggest influence on bosses’ pay is not so much company performance as simply the size of the firm.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/fmg/workingPapers/discussion...
I've said that his LTI plan is based on financial metrics. Based on the achievement of those he will trigger his award (to a greater or lesser degree). In this instance he met 80%.
Not all CEO's are the same
Kapoor grew the business value by c17% (£800M) in a period when the FTSE100 fell by C11% (last 12 months)
Performance inline with FTSE would have seen a c£380 million drop in value, so in theory compared to the FTSE100 he increased the value for his shareholders by over a billion.... pretty good stewardship.
Perhaps the media should highlight those that get rich rewards for failures not great success???
Rupert Murdoch managed to lose a couple billion for his share holders over the past 12 months and still take out $27m
Kapoor grew the business value by c17% (£800M) in a period when the FTSE100 fell by C11% (last 12 months)
Performance inline with FTSE would have seen a c£380 million drop in value, so in theory compared to the FTSE100 he increased the value for his shareholders by over a billion.... pretty good stewardship.
Perhaps the media should highlight those that get rich rewards for failures not great success???
Rupert Murdoch managed to lose a couple billion for his share holders over the past 12 months and still take out $27m
I used to think,well good for them earning that amount of money.Now I think it's discusting,why does anybody need to take that amount,half or a third would still be plenty.CEOs don't earn peanuts day to day so why pay obscene amounts in bonus etc.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
0000 said:
crankedup said:
BlackLabel said:
I see that Sir Martin Sorrell was paid over £70m for 2015 (one of the biggest pay cheques in British corporate history) which some people didn't like - not sure why given he's built his company up for over 30 years. If shareholders don't object then is it really anyone else's business?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/29/s...
It's not his company. It belongs to the shareholders.https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/29/s...
ellroy said:
Lefty poster in envy post shocker.
Reported recently that excess pay for bosses has a negative effect on staff motivation and performance.www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/12056337/Pay-gap-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff