Corrosive pay?
Discussion
Why on earth do we need a High Pay Commission to tell us that Chief Execs get paid lots of money? Has this not always been the case?
It is the politics of envy and an excuse to demonise a very small proportion of society who in the main work hard, generate wealth, take risks and provide employment.
You can argue in these times of economic uncertainty that it could be insensitive to take large salaries and bonusses. The counter argument is always that you need to pay the market rate to secure the best people to deliver the best to the shareholders which are generally everyone with a pension of one form or another.
I have no time for rewarding failure so would suggest the High Pay Commission look at the settlements given to failed public servants.
It is the politics of envy and an excuse to demonise a very small proportion of society who in the main work hard, generate wealth, take risks and provide employment.
You can argue in these times of economic uncertainty that it could be insensitive to take large salaries and bonusses. The counter argument is always that you need to pay the market rate to secure the best people to deliver the best to the shareholders which are generally everyone with a pension of one form or another.
I have no time for rewarding failure so would suggest the High Pay Commission look at the settlements given to failed public servants.
Rather than look at the price of success they should look at the price of failure.
I have no issue with private companies paying whatever is deemed appropriate to the CEO.
I have a huge issue when that CEO screws the company beyond recognition yet still gets handed a pile of cash and a gold-plated pension just to f
k off somewhere else.
I have no issue with private companies paying whatever is deemed appropriate to the CEO.
I have a huge issue when that CEO screws the company beyond recognition yet still gets handed a pile of cash and a gold-plated pension just to f
k off somewhere else.Private companies can pay their execs whatever they like as far as I'm concerned.
It's interesting to note though that executive pay at FTSE companies has increased by 4000% over the last 30 years. I wonder if most peoples personal or defined contribution pension funds have increased by 4000% in the same period?
Exec remuneration of public companies is our business because we actually pay for it. But do we or those we employ on our behalf to manage and monitor these investments actually hold the board or remuneration committees to account? I suspect in most cases the answer is no. I know that when I receive my voting pack from the Nationwide Building Society that it just sits in my study for a few months before going through the shredder sometime after the AGM. We're basically just letting the lunatics run the asylum.
It's interesting to note though that executive pay at FTSE companies has increased by 4000% over the last 30 years. I wonder if most peoples personal or defined contribution pension funds have increased by 4000% in the same period?
Exec remuneration of public companies is our business because we actually pay for it. But do we or those we employ on our behalf to manage and monitor these investments actually hold the board or remuneration committees to account? I suspect in most cases the answer is no. I know that when I receive my voting pack from the Nationwide Building Society that it just sits in my study for a few months before going through the shredder sometime after the AGM. We're basically just letting the lunatics run the asylum.
lauda said:
Private companies can pay their execs whatever they like as far as I'm concerned.
It's interesting to note though that executive pay at FTSE companies has increased by 4000% over the last 30 years. I wonder if most peoples personal or defined contribution pension funds have increased by 4000% in the same period?
Exec remuneration of public companies is our business because we actually pay for it. But do we or those we employ on our behalf to manage and monitor these investments actually hold the board or remuneration committees to account? I suspect in most cases the answer is no. I know that when I receive my voting pack from the Nationwide Building Society that it just sits in my study for a few months before going through the shredder sometime after the AGM. We're basically just letting the lunatics run the asylum.
It's sort of true.It's interesting to note though that executive pay at FTSE companies has increased by 4000% over the last 30 years. I wonder if most peoples personal or defined contribution pension funds have increased by 4000% in the same period?
Exec remuneration of public companies is our business because we actually pay for it. But do we or those we employ on our behalf to manage and monitor these investments actually hold the board or remuneration committees to account? I suspect in most cases the answer is no. I know that when I receive my voting pack from the Nationwide Building Society that it just sits in my study for a few months before going through the shredder sometime after the AGM. We're basically just letting the lunatics run the asylum.
The use of lobbying firms by large private corporations does push some into the public area though.
It does cause resentment though.
A couple of yars ago, the boss of a major world wide IT company asked his staff to take a 5% pay cut.
He said he himself had taken a 20% pay cut of his base salary, which was roughly $850,000 a year.
Except he forgot to mention that his perks, bonuses and share options would not be included in this cut.
Those came to an additional $40 million dollars a year.
He was later 'resigned' from the company when it came to pass he had been misusing company property etc etc.
All the while, the majority of his employees suffered lack of bonuses, no pay rises, and even redundancies. He recieved a substantial pay off.
What was more gauling for employees was the fact that the company had no need of making these cutbacks at the time, he was using the economic noise from he media to disguise these cuts as necessary, when the reality was the company was cash rich, buying/taking over many other major companies and even buying its own shares back from the stock market.
There was plenty of resentment from the tens of thousands of employees.
A couple of yars ago, the boss of a major world wide IT company asked his staff to take a 5% pay cut.
He said he himself had taken a 20% pay cut of his base salary, which was roughly $850,000 a year.
Except he forgot to mention that his perks, bonuses and share options would not be included in this cut.
Those came to an additional $40 million dollars a year.
He was later 'resigned' from the company when it came to pass he had been misusing company property etc etc.
All the while, the majority of his employees suffered lack of bonuses, no pay rises, and even redundancies. He recieved a substantial pay off.
What was more gauling for employees was the fact that the company had no need of making these cutbacks at the time, he was using the economic noise from he media to disguise these cuts as necessary, when the reality was the company was cash rich, buying/taking over many other major companies and even buying its own shares back from the stock market.
There was plenty of resentment from the tens of thousands of employees.
I brought this up afew weeks ago.
As someone above said - private companies can do what they want.
Listed companies seem to be paying substantial packages to people who are not delivering value for money to the shareholders.
I cannot see how it makes sense if a CEO makes millions with no real link to company performance. Even if there was a link, we see CEOs blame market conditions when things are going bad, but when things go well it is down to good leadership and management. Which one is it?
Isn't most voting power at AGMs held by pension and insurance fund managers? I am not convinced they have the same motivation to keep boards honest as an individual shareholder. I expect a fund will make a return whether the equities they invest in rise or fall.
As someone above said - private companies can do what they want.
Listed companies seem to be paying substantial packages to people who are not delivering value for money to the shareholders.
I cannot see how it makes sense if a CEO makes millions with no real link to company performance. Even if there was a link, we see CEOs blame market conditions when things are going bad, but when things go well it is down to good leadership and management. Which one is it?
Isn't most voting power at AGMs held by pension and insurance fund managers? I am not convinced they have the same motivation to keep boards honest as an individual shareholder. I expect a fund will make a return whether the equities they invest in rise or fall.
Corsair7 said:
It does cause resentment though.
A couple of yars ago, the boss of a major world wide IT company asked his staff to take a 5% pay cut.
He said he himself had taken a 20% pay cut of his base salary, which was roughly $850,000 a year.
Except he forgot to mention that his perks, bonuses and share options would not be included in this cut.
Those came to an additional $40 million dollars a year.
He was later 'resigned' from the company when it came to pass he had been misusing company property etc etc.
All the while, the majority of his employees suffered lack of bonuses, no pay rises, and even redundancies. He recieved a substantial pay off.
What was more gauling for employees was the fact that the company had no need of making these cutbacks at the time, he was using the economic noise from he media to disguise these cuts as necessary, when the reality was the company was cash rich, buying/taking over many other major companies and even buying its own shares back from the stock market.
There was plenty of resentment from the tens of thousands of employees.
Hah, I wonder who you could be talking about mate! A couple of yars ago, the boss of a major world wide IT company asked his staff to take a 5% pay cut.
He said he himself had taken a 20% pay cut of his base salary, which was roughly $850,000 a year.
Except he forgot to mention that his perks, bonuses and share options would not be included in this cut.
Those came to an additional $40 million dollars a year.
He was later 'resigned' from the company when it came to pass he had been misusing company property etc etc.
All the while, the majority of his employees suffered lack of bonuses, no pay rises, and even redundancies. He recieved a substantial pay off.
What was more gauling for employees was the fact that the company had no need of making these cutbacks at the time, he was using the economic noise from he media to disguise these cuts as necessary, when the reality was the company was cash rich, buying/taking over many other major companies and even buying its own shares back from the stock market.
There was plenty of resentment from the tens of thousands of employees.
As above. Noone is forced to invest in these companies, nor to buy their products (in most private sector positions anyway). Worry about getting more relevant issues in order – the benefits system for example where it's not "a lot for something" but "something for nothing" or even "something for negative".
Murcielago_Boy said:
If shareholders are too thick to bring corporate management into line then let them suffer....Who cares what management is paid in a private company?
.
Ah, but shareholders (or shareholdings) are control by people working for financial institutions. It's helpful for them to say "Finance Director of company X earns $$$, and I do an even more important/difficult/skillful job, so should be rewarded with $$$$"..
Sticks. said:
johnfm said:
Isn't most voting power at AGMs held by pension and insurance fund managers?
Murcielago_Boy said:
If shareholders are too thick to bring corporate management into line then let them suffer....
I didn't say it.Murcielago_Boy said:
...Who cares what management is paid in a private company?
It's not our problem (until you own shares in said companies).
Or you are obliged to buy stuff off them at inflated prices because they are a monopoly such as a regional water supply company.It's not our problem (until you own shares in said companies).
Or youy are obliged to buy stuff off them at inflated prices because thaey are part of a cartel, such as energy suppliers
0a said:
I have this debate with my father about various companies he invests in. If the pay issue is so big... don't invest there (though I understand this might be different for pension funds etc).
Yes, and things like distribution bonds - which are the sort of investment average man might use to spread risk.Murcielago_Boy said:
If shareholders are too thick to bring corporate management into line then let them suffer....Who cares what management is paid in a private company?
It's not our problem (until you own shares in said companies).
Its the fortunate position of the majority shareholders 'being in bed' with the Board of said Companies. Until this cosy relationship is resolved nothing will change. As for a private company, yup who cares.It's not our problem (until you own shares in said companies).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff