Directors' pay up 50% in a YEAR
Discussion
It's not fair to demand that increases in Director's pay are matched by increases in company performance in a single year, one must take a longer view. One should really look at an indicator of company performance such as share price, and look at it over a longer period, say 5 or 10 years....
<goes away to look at historic share price trends of FTSE 100 companies>
..nope, Fittster's right. It's just a con. The companies aren't doing any better than they were 10 years ago, and yet their director's pay has risen out of all proportion.
I'm all in favour of performance-related pay, but surely it has to be justified by some improvement in the bottom line?
The 'you've got to pay the best to get the best' argument is clearly b
ks.
<goes away to look at historic share price trends of FTSE 100 companies>
..nope, Fittster's right. It's just a con. The companies aren't doing any better than they were 10 years ago, and yet their director's pay has risen out of all proportion.
I'm all in favour of performance-related pay, but surely it has to be justified by some improvement in the bottom line?
The 'you've got to pay the best to get the best' argument is clearly b
ks.
Randy Winkman said:
bobbylondonuk said:
Top boardroom pay avg of 2.7m for a FTSE 100 company?? What is the big story here?
Managing billions in different markets and handling 10's of thousands of employees worldwide is not a joke. I guess is sells papers and politicians get some free PR.
But are they doing 50% better than last year?Managing billions in different markets and handling 10's of thousands of employees worldwide is not a joke. I guess is sells papers and politicians get some free PR.
It also amazes me that people who don't blink an eyelid at someone getting paid millions to kick a ball around, or present a tv show for a couple of hours a week, become hysterical at someone earning that who is running a billion pound company.
JagLover said:
Randy Winkman said:
bobbylondonuk said:
Top boardroom pay avg of 2.7m for a FTSE 100 company?? What is the big story here?
Managing billions in different markets and handling 10's of thousands of employees worldwide is not a joke. I guess is sells papers and politicians get some free PR.
But are they doing 50% better than last year?Managing billions in different markets and handling 10's of thousands of employees worldwide is not a joke. I guess is sells papers and politicians get some free PR.
It also amazes me that people who don't blink an eyelid at someone getting paid millions to kick a ball around, or present a tv show for a couple of hours a week, become hysterical at someone earning that who is running a billion pound company.
My eyelids are constantly blinking at all sorts of mad things - what's that got to do with it?
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Blah Blah Blah. Why are people always concerned about other people's stuff? Let them get on with it (because they can) and maximise your own income. Good luck I say!
Too right. Anybody would think this was public sector territory, which is where the know-what-everybody-gets-and-whine-about-it mentality is cultivated.
Perhaps there is an argument that high Directors' pay is necessary in order to encourage those below to aim for, and work towards, a seat on the board? In the wider ecosystem of commerce, is it necessary for those in lower 'ranks' to have lofty aspirations, and to work hard in order to (try to) attain them? Maybe it doesn't matter whether a particular Director is 'worth' the money, so long as it keeps people in the company working hard and smart?
skwdenyer said:
Perhaps there is an argument that high Directors' pay is necessary in order to encourage those below to aim for, and work towards, a seat on the board? In the wider ecosystem of commerce, is it necessary for those in lower 'ranks' to have lofty aspirations, and to work hard in order to (try to) attain them? Maybe it doesn't matter whether a particular Director is 'worth' the money, so long as it keeps people in the company working hard and smart?
It doesn't, because 99.9% of people know they will never get there and aren't actually trying to get there.How about - it's a f***ing scandal and means that we'll continue to lose ground to China/India/Brazil etc because our business leaders are paid handsomely for total mediocrity?
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Blah Blah Blah. Why are people always concerned about other people's stuff? Let them get on with it (because they can) and maximise your own income. Good luck I say!
They would prefer to expend their efforts moaning about injustice. Meanwhile they will arrive late to work (because of "traffic") every day, and leave spot on 5:30, because that is what they are paid to do.They don't understand that for a tiny bit of extra effort, they could make their own lives so much better.
Don
--
Some folks really need to get rid of that massive chip on their shoulder, just how exactly does a Top 100's CEO's remuneration have to do with them, and please do not spout that pension crap, thats already been played out and shown to be a non argument. If you get to the top the rewards are yours, running a multi billion pound company with thousands of employees is one hell of a job.
Company share prices rise and fall on the reputation of these guys let alone their performance, if company x can attract one of the perceived big hitters to the board the company share price can gain 10's of millions. Like wise if they lose a well respected CEO it can drop like a stone (for a high profile example look at Steve Jobs and the effect that his standing down and subsequent death had on the company share price). There are also many many other examples of this.
So get over yourself, if you want a pay packet that comes near CEO level, dedicate your life to achieving it. Trust me here, some bloke did not turn up one morning and offer them the job while they stood in the local unemployment line and despite the crap you hear from the socialist nutters they did not get there because Tarquins dad was personal friend. The board room is not a giant love in for the old school boys, its dog eat dog and a very hard place to survive in.
Company share prices rise and fall on the reputation of these guys let alone their performance, if company x can attract one of the perceived big hitters to the board the company share price can gain 10's of millions. Like wise if they lose a well respected CEO it can drop like a stone (for a high profile example look at Steve Jobs and the effect that his standing down and subsequent death had on the company share price). There are also many many other examples of this.
So get over yourself, if you want a pay packet that comes near CEO level, dedicate your life to achieving it. Trust me here, some bloke did not turn up one morning and offer them the job while they stood in the local unemployment line and despite the crap you hear from the socialist nutters they did not get there because Tarquins dad was personal friend. The board room is not a giant love in for the old school boys, its dog eat dog and a very hard place to survive in.
Generally, I agree. If the shareholders of a company endorse the pay levels of their board of directors, then it's nobody else's business. If anyone disagrees with an organisation's renumeration policy, they are free not to do business with that company.
There is, however, one logical flaw in the pro high salaries argument: Although it is true that unless one offers a high level of renumeration one is unlikely to attract top talent, it is by no means certain that by doing so one will actually get it. I suspect this has been exploited by more than one mediocre executive in the past.
There is a strong argument to say that actually one should recruit not from the top echelons, but from the 'second division' of talent. They are hungrier, eager to prove themselves, and represent a more effective spend on the part of the shareholders.
There is, however, one logical flaw in the pro high salaries argument: Although it is true that unless one offers a high level of renumeration one is unlikely to attract top talent, it is by no means certain that by doing so one will actually get it. I suspect this has been exploited by more than one mediocre executive in the past.
There is a strong argument to say that actually one should recruit not from the top echelons, but from the 'second division' of talent. They are hungrier, eager to prove themselves, and represent a more effective spend on the part of the shareholders.
Gaspode said:
Generally, I agree. If the shareholders of a company endorse the pay levels of their board of directors, then it's nobody else's business. If anyone disagrees with an organisation's renumeration policy, they are free not to do business with that company.
There is, however, one logical flaw in the pro high salaries argument: Although it is true that unless one offers a high level of renumeration one is unlikely to attract top talent, it is by no means certain that by doing so one will actually get it. I suspect this has been exploited by more than one mediocre executive in the past.
There is a strong argument to say that actually one should recruit not from the top echelons, but from the 'second division' of talent. They are hungrier, eager to prove themselves, and represent a more effective spend on the part of the shareholders.
It's remuneration....There is, however, one logical flaw in the pro high salaries argument: Although it is true that unless one offers a high level of renumeration one is unlikely to attract top talent, it is by no means certain that by doing so one will actually get it. I suspect this has been exploited by more than one mediocre executive in the past.
There is a strong argument to say that actually one should recruit not from the top echelons, but from the 'second division' of talent. They are hungrier, eager to prove themselves, and represent a more effective spend on the part of the shareholders.
I hope that helps
Gaspode said:
Generally, I agree. If the shareholders of a company endorse the pay levels of their board of directors, then it's nobody else's business. If anyone disagrees with an organisation's renumeration policy, they are free not to do business with that company.
There is, however, one logical flaw in the pro high salaries argument: Although it is true that unless one offers a high level of renumeration one is unlikely to attract top talent, it is by no means certain that by doing so one will actually get it. I suspect this has been exploited by more than one mediocre executive in the past.
There is a strong argument to say that actually one should recruit not from the top echelons, but from the 'second division' of talent. They are hungrier, eager to prove themselves, and represent a more effective spend on the part of the shareholders.
How do you think they got to the top in first place, CEO,s just dont turn up one day good to go. Have a read at the profile of one of them and you will get an idea of the trip you have to make to the topThere is, however, one logical flaw in the pro high salaries argument: Although it is true that unless one offers a high level of renumeration one is unlikely to attract top talent, it is by no means certain that by doing so one will actually get it. I suspect this has been exploited by more than one mediocre executive in the past.
There is a strong argument to say that actually one should recruit not from the top echelons, but from the 'second division' of talent. They are hungrier, eager to prove themselves, and represent a more effective spend on the part of the shareholders.
Here is an example, Mark Hurd, ex CEO and chairman of HP, despite his little indiscretions he was one hell of a CEO and despite his hatchet tactics made HP a bundle.
Hurd spent 25 years at NCR Corporation, culminating in a two-year tenure as chief executive officer and president. His leadership was marked by successful efforts to improve operating efficiency, bolster the product line and build strong leadership. In the fiscal year of 2004, NCR generated revenue of $6.0 billion, up 7 percent from a year earlier, and net income rose nearly fivefold to $290 million.[citation needed]
Hurd was named president of NCR in 2001 and was given additional responsibilities as chief operating officer in 2002. Hurd began working for NCR as a junior salesman in San Antonio in 1980, and subsequently held a variety of positions in general management, operations, and sales and marketing. He also served as head of the company's Teradata data-warehousing division for three years.[5]
Hurd is a member of the Technology CEO Council, a coalition of chairmen and chief executive officers of IT companies, which develops and advocates public policy positions on technology and trade.[citation needed] Hurd has since been removed from mention on the official website of the Council, and is conspicuously missing from the Council's listed members.[6]
Hurd served on the board of directors of News Corporation until 2010, but was not renominated to his seat following the Jodie Fisher scandal.[7][8]
Just one example, there are many many more, guy started life as a salesman and worked his b
ks off to get to the top. As I have already said, if you want the cash and the top job, set your sites, be prepared to sacrifice one hell of a lot and spend the next 25 years working your arse off.chim said:
How do you think they got to the top in first place, CEO,s just dont turn up one day good to go. Have a read at the profile of one of them and you will get an idea of the trip you have to make to the top
Here is an example, Mark Hurd, ex CEO and chairman of HP, despite his little indiscretions he was one hell of a CEO and despite his hatchet tactics made HP a bundle.
Hurd spent 25 years at NCR Corporation, culminating in a two-year tenure as chief executive officer and president. His leadership was marked by successful efforts to improve operating efficiency, bolster the product line and build strong leadership. In the fiscal year of 2004, NCR generated revenue of $6.0 billion, up 7 percent from a year earlier, and net income rose nearly fivefold to $290 million.[citation needed]
Hurd was named president of NCR in 2001 and was given additional responsibilities as chief operating officer in 2002. Hurd began working for NCR as a junior salesman in San Antonio in 1980, and subsequently held a variety of positions in general management, operations, and sales and marketing. He also served as head of the company's Teradata data-warehousing division for three years.[5]
Hurd is a member of the Technology CEO Council, a coalition of chairmen and chief executive officers of IT companies, which develops and advocates public policy positions on technology and trade.[citation needed] Hurd has since been removed from mention on the official website of the Council, and is conspicuously missing from the Council's listed members.[6]
Hurd served on the board of directors of News Corporation until 2010, but was not renominated to his seat following the Jodie Fisher scandal.[7][8]
Just one example, there are many many more, guy started life as a salesman and worked his bks off to get to the top. As I have already said, if you want the cash and the top job, set your sites, be prepared to sacrifice one hell of a lot and spend the next 25 years working your arse off.
..or just have a bit of luck & be in the right place at the right time Here is an example, Mark Hurd, ex CEO and chairman of HP, despite his little indiscretions he was one hell of a CEO and despite his hatchet tactics made HP a bundle.
Hurd spent 25 years at NCR Corporation, culminating in a two-year tenure as chief executive officer and president. His leadership was marked by successful efforts to improve operating efficiency, bolster the product line and build strong leadership. In the fiscal year of 2004, NCR generated revenue of $6.0 billion, up 7 percent from a year earlier, and net income rose nearly fivefold to $290 million.[citation needed]
Hurd was named president of NCR in 2001 and was given additional responsibilities as chief operating officer in 2002. Hurd began working for NCR as a junior salesman in San Antonio in 1980, and subsequently held a variety of positions in general management, operations, and sales and marketing. He also served as head of the company's Teradata data-warehousing division for three years.[5]
Hurd is a member of the Technology CEO Council, a coalition of chairmen and chief executive officers of IT companies, which develops and advocates public policy positions on technology and trade.[citation needed] Hurd has since been removed from mention on the official website of the Council, and is conspicuously missing from the Council's listed members.[6]
Hurd served on the board of directors of News Corporation until 2010, but was not renominated to his seat following the Jodie Fisher scandal.[7][8]
Just one example, there are many many more, guy started life as a salesman and worked his b
ks off to get to the top. As I have already said, if you want the cash and the top job, set your sites, be prepared to sacrifice one hell of a lot and spend the next 25 years working your arse off.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Because there'd be outrage if the Government employed capable Civil Servants rewarded for their ability.So, head of MOD procurement paid £3 million anually and bringing projects in on time and on budget, the usual suspects would complain bitterly whilst ignoring the efficiency and saving to the public purse.
Or if that one is a bit to American and you think that's only yank world here is one much closer to home and perhaps a better example, Terry Leahy CEO of Tesco which is probably the uk'smost succesful company
[edit]Early life
Leahy was born and grew up in in a pre-fab maisonette on a council estate in the Belle Vale district of Liverpool, the third of four brothers.[4][5] He attended St. Edward's College[2] which was, at the time, a Catholic direct grant grammar school.[6] Leahy had worked briefly stacking shelves and washing floors in the Wandsworth branch of Tesco in school holidays, travelling to London because he could not find work in Liverpool.[7] He was the only one of his brothers who didn't leave school at the age of sixteen[7] and graduated from UMIST with an Upper Second Class honours in Management Sciences in 1977.[8]
[edit]Career
Following his then girlfriend to London, he applied to become a product manager for Turkey Foil but was turned down. He applied for a job at Tesco, but lost out to another candidate. After that candidate was quickly reassigned upwards, Leahy returned to Tesco in 1979 as a marketing executive.[2]
Tesco was a resolute market follower of the two leading brands, Marks & Spencer as the then world's most profitable retailer, and Sainsburys as the world's most profitable food retailer. Leahy concluded that Tesco should stop following a strategy of catch-up and start leading through market knowledge, which led to his success in devising and implementing the Tesco Clubcard loyalty program and also successfully monitoring the shopping habits, movements, and political opinions of Clubcard holders.[citation needed]
Leahy was appointed to the board in 1992, and in 1995 Tesco became the UK's biggest retailer. Leahy became chief executive in 1997,[2] on the retirement of mentor Lord MacLaurin who wanted to appoint a successor to lead international expansion and increased market share. Tesco has stretched its lead as the UK's largest retailer since then and has grown significantly internationally, while Leahy continues to visit a Tesco store somewhere every week, normally on a Friday.
Following Tesco's announcement of £2 billion in profits in April 2005, Leahy hit back against protests that the company was "too successful".
On 8 June 2010, Tesco announced that Leahy was to retire as chief executive in March 2011.[9].
I rest my case.
[edit]Early life
Leahy was born and grew up in in a pre-fab maisonette on a council estate in the Belle Vale district of Liverpool, the third of four brothers.[4][5] He attended St. Edward's College[2] which was, at the time, a Catholic direct grant grammar school.[6] Leahy had worked briefly stacking shelves and washing floors in the Wandsworth branch of Tesco in school holidays, travelling to London because he could not find work in Liverpool.[7] He was the only one of his brothers who didn't leave school at the age of sixteen[7] and graduated from UMIST with an Upper Second Class honours in Management Sciences in 1977.[8]
[edit]Career
Following his then girlfriend to London, he applied to become a product manager for Turkey Foil but was turned down. He applied for a job at Tesco, but lost out to another candidate. After that candidate was quickly reassigned upwards, Leahy returned to Tesco in 1979 as a marketing executive.[2]
Tesco was a resolute market follower of the two leading brands, Marks & Spencer as the then world's most profitable retailer, and Sainsburys as the world's most profitable food retailer. Leahy concluded that Tesco should stop following a strategy of catch-up and start leading through market knowledge, which led to his success in devising and implementing the Tesco Clubcard loyalty program and also successfully monitoring the shopping habits, movements, and political opinions of Clubcard holders.[citation needed]
Leahy was appointed to the board in 1992, and in 1995 Tesco became the UK's biggest retailer. Leahy became chief executive in 1997,[2] on the retirement of mentor Lord MacLaurin who wanted to appoint a successor to lead international expansion and increased market share. Tesco has stretched its lead as the UK's largest retailer since then and has grown significantly internationally, while Leahy continues to visit a Tesco store somewhere every week, normally on a Friday.
Following Tesco's announcement of £2 billion in profits in April 2005, Leahy hit back against protests that the company was "too successful".
On 8 June 2010, Tesco announced that Leahy was to retire as chief executive in March 2011.[9].
I rest my case.
Randy Winkman said:
Heads of Government Departments get paid about £150-200k. Why doesn't the Government raise the salaries to £2m, then they'd get top talent and sort our problems out? It would cost the country about £40m per annum, but that's nothing compared with the overall budget.
Unfortunately it would take a lot more than the guy at the top being paid top dollar, the problems in the public sector run a lot deeper than this. The problems in the sector more often than not stem from wild government policy decisions that are constantly changing, often we the public are as much to blame. Every time there is some stupid headline in the daily wail or dumb asses campaign in the sun based on sensationalist journalism our great unwashed swell up and demand change, our political leaders mostly fold to this upswell of ignorance and proceed to completely fk up another government department and in the process enforce more uneccasery buerocracy.In a perfect world we would run the departments in the same way as private companies, unfortunately this will never happen.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff