A Research On The Former Post Shareholder Value Consequences Of Ceo Pay Essay

In “The Overpaid CEO” Susan Homberg and Mark Schmitt bring to attention how CEO pay in America is ridiculous in numbers as opposed to other parts of the world. Looking back, in the nineteen hundreds CEO pay was relativity average. As businesses and companies began to expand there was a demand for higher pay. Between 1978-2012 CEO pay increased by 875%! Many rules and regulations were put in to place to limit the pay of a CEO, such as the Securities Exchange Act that I will explain later on, regardless CEO pay kept getting higher and higher as many loopholes were found. Bonuses pay a large part in the salaries of CEOS’, as an effect CEOS’ tend to partake in risky behavior in order to score those big paychecks.

This paper will discuss the reasons why CEOs are not being overpaid. It will apply the utilitarian ethical principle to many a few aspects to CEO compensation and whether or not it is justifiable for such pay. The paper will look at whether or not their performance is justifiable for the pay because they play such a big role in the livelihood of the company along with the principle agency theory and how it is being addressed for the benefit of the shareholders and others involved with the company, the supply and demand of the CEOs, and the paper will describe the comparison of other professions to help link the idea of CEOs being fairly compensated.

Compensation systems can take on many forms, all of which have positives and negatives related to it. However, certain components are noted to be determinants of solid compensation plans. One agreement of a solid compensation system is the use of incentives. “Clearly a successful companies set objectives that will provide incentives to increase profitability” (Needles & Powers, 2011). Incentive bonuses should be measures that the company finds important to long-term growth. According to Needles & Powers (2011) the most successful companies long term focused on profitability measures. For large for-profit firms, compensation programs should offer stock options. The interweaving between the market value of a company’s stock and company’s performance both motivate and increase compensation to employees As the market value of the stock goes up, the difference between the option price and the market price grows, which increases the amount of compensation” (Needles & Powers, 2011). Conclusively, a compensation plan should serve all stakeholders, be simple, group employees properly, reflect company culture and values, and be flexible (Davis & Hardy, 1999; The Basics of a Compensation Program).

The CEO’s compensation should be set on how well the firm performs and should be awarded based on the performance of the stocks in the long run. It is easier to measure performance by the growth rate in the profits that have been reported since intrinsic value cannot be fully

This research intends to explore innovation at an individual level, but in a context, where the roles and functions of an organization appear eminent either as a promoter or an inhibitor of innovation.

The economic downfall of 2008 illustrates the impact of unbridled corporate pay structures on our economy. Securities fraud, committed as a result of incentive packages offered to executives to create quick profits, had a detrimental effect on the overall economy. As observed during the Bank and Loan bust of 1989, CEOs take greater risks when offered stock options in their compensation packages. The 2008 Financial crisis, sparked by subprime mortgage market and hedge funds, was driven by banking executives making short term risks that served detrimental to stockholders in the long run. Furthermore, many compensation packages offered Golden Parachute clauses with no claw backs to both performing and underperforming executives.

However, there have been many cases where the CEO and executive officers receive outrageous compensation even when the companies suffer. Overall, there is a wide disconnect between the incentive of the executives and the financial performance of their company, which needs to be fixed. By passing regulations and rules such as the Dodd-Frank Act, there is hope of shedding light on the connection between the company’s performance and the executives pay. Although it will provide a clear insight, it will not be able to set a strict regulated compensation or define what an executive should earn. Instead regulations will allow for more transparency for the shareholders regarding corporate governance issues such as executive pay. Along with that, it will force companies to take accountability for their actions. If they do poorly, then the executives should be paid less, and vice versa. Overall, there should be a direct alignment between executive pay and the company’s

While these citizen protests and legislative actions could be an overreaction to a few isolated cases of executive compensation excess, the data suggests otherwise. According to the AFL-CIO (2013), executive pay has increased dramatically over the past several decades compared to worker compensation. In 1982, the pay ratio between executives and workers was 42:1, but by 2012 it had increased to 354:1. This 8.4-fold differential in compensation suggests that the productivity of executives has also increased 8.4-fold relative to productivity of workers. If executive pay is positively correlated with a firm's bottom line, then higher pay should predict success. Unfortunately, researchers have found the opposite to be true.

Literature includes CEO cash compensation as the proxy for the CEO’s level of risk aversion (Rogers, 2002; Nam et al., 2003; Coles et al., 2006). CEOs with higher cash compensation are more likely to become more risk avers. CEO’s with high cash compensation will seek to avoid risk. I measure cash compensation as the natural logarithm of the salary and the natural logarithm bonus. Following existing literature (e.g., Guay, 1999; Rajgopal and Shevlin, 2002) the sensitivity of CEO wealth to stock price is also included as an additional control variables for CEO risk aversion in the risk-taking incentive model.

In 1965, the average pay of a CEO in a company was about 20 times (20X) the pay of the average worker in the company. In 2012, the average CEO increased to about 379X the pay of the average worker. In 2012, Apple CEO Tim Cook earned 6258X the pay of the average worker at Apple in 2012

It was reasonable for a CEO’s compensation to increase as the company expanded and became a larger entity, and the newly-granted shares and increasing stock options further aligned the CEO’s personal interests with those of the company and shareholders. In this sense, the second compensation package was also well-structured and not excessive. Seeing Sunbeam’s revenue rising and stock price climbing steeply upwards, Sunbeam’s shareholders and directors were fully convinced by Dunlap’s leadership, so they might perceive the increase in compensation amount necessary to retain and better motivate Dunlap to enhance the company’s value. Nonetheless, they neglected the fact that the increased portion of the equity-based compensation also further motivated the CEO’s dangerous behaviors pertaining to improper earnings management.

This report explores the issue of the pay that top executives make, and the reasons why they do. It also suggests improvements that can be made to make the system better. High Pay Seems Small When Compared To Company Profits Many companies pull in profits that are extremely high. When an employee of such a companies salary is compared to the amount of profit that the company earns, it starts to seem reasonable. It only makes sense that if the employee is directly responsible for the success of their company, then they deserve to get their payback. It seems ironic, but many salaries even look small once compared with a companies profits. Top Executives Are Under A Lot Of Pressure Being the CEO of a

Given the effect a CEO can have on a company's success, we can understand why their compensation packages

Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R.I. (2007). Do Financial Incentives drive company performance? Harvard Business School

Bessant and Tidd (2007) are of the opinion that innovation is the translation of conceptualised ideas into commercially profitable