Ceo’s and Upper Management’s Acceptance of over Compensation Are Unethical During Times of Financial Struggle Within Organizations

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.

CEO compensation has been a heated debate for many years recently, and it can be argued

Executive Compensation. I’m in agreement with Thomas Piketty that the one cause of rising inequality in the United States “the rise of supersalaries” for top executives (Piketty & Goldhammer, 2014, p. 298). The average American estimates CEO to worker pay ratio at about 30-to-1, which is more than 4 times what they believe to be ideal. The career review site Glassdoor reported from 2014 data that the average pay ratio of CEO to median worker was 204-to-1 and that at the top of the list, four CEOs earn more than 1,000 times the salary of their median worker with the very top pay ratio of 1,951-to-1. In some cases a CEO makes in one-hour what it takes the average employee six-months to earn. In comparison, the Washington Post reported for the

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).

Chris Cox the ex-security exchange commission chief, with his inability to enforce the rules, especially in the Madoff scandal, as if he did have the power to go after investment banks like Lehman Brothers, which was a product of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act and Merrill Lynch for better disclosure, he simply chose to turn a blind eye to it. Interesting enough, the American consumer was fifth on this list, and that is because of the constant borrowing and living above the means of their income. So once the bubble burst, we realize that we had less money to backup all bills as stated within the article. The money we owed per individual increased to more than 130% of income in 2007, up from about 60% in 1982. As we continue through this article, we see Hank Paulson’s name, he was the treasury secretary in 2006, and Joe Cassano, the founding member of AIG financial products unit, which used the credit default swap (CDS) for companies to pay their debts was at the center of the downfall of AIG and as stated before costing the American public billions of dollars in bailouts. Ian McCarthy as the CEO of Beazer homes was exposed in the Charlotte Observer in 2007 for aggressive sale tactics, which included lying about borrower qualification in gaining loans

Executive pay – excessive pay for top executives is one problem that will not go away. It is a response to public concern about pay rises that are unrelated to effort, plus a number of high-profile cases of failed executives getting pay-offs of up to US $100 million and others having stock options backdated to give them a share of earlier capital gains. This at least tells shareholders exactly what their top executives are earning.

In 2007, the U.S. economy experienced one of the greatest downturns since the Depression era, and furthered by the collapse on a global scale. The bubble burst on the housing market and the house of cards called the mortgage industry tumbled down, no longer able to sustain charade of success. This caused the collapse of some of the largest financial institutions, once thought to be immortal. This rippled into a massive tightening of the belts of many companies, as they found themselves without lines of credit, lack of business, and the daisy-chain collapse of their support networks. Who paid the final price? Companies cut costs through pay cuts, layoffs, and closings. While this may have saved jobs for many, the feeling of loss and

Take severance packages for example. When the average employee in no longer benefitting the company, chances are they will be let go. Besides a final paycheck for hours worked and the possibility of unemployment collection, they do not receive anything else from the company. When a CEO is no longer performing up to standards, they are forced to resign but walk away with much more than a final paycheck. Chuck Prince of Citigroup was shown the door after the company lost $64 billion in market value, yet he left with $68 million and a cash bonus of $12.5 million (Nickels, McHugh & McHugh, 2010). Not only are CEOs paid a substantial amount more for their work, they are paid a substantial amount more to leave the company all together. In 2009, President Obama and Congress put limits on executive compensation of firms receiving money under the federal government bailout programs. The payout to CEOs leaving their companies was limited to $500,000 but it wasn’t for all companies across the board. This new limit only applied to companies who had borrowed money from the government during periods of economic downfall and hadn’t yet paid it back. Despite the decrease in monetary payout, CEOs were still allowed a decent portion of restricted stock which amounted for a fairly large payout when the stock could be sold a few years down the line.

Stock options are another main concern and are based upon the performance of a company. A lot of companies are in a low return and low compensation which then caused bad business and it’s about 400 times that amount. I believe the government is trying to tighten down on excessive executive compensation with implementing salary caps. Executives are unrealistic with common life and way of living therefore; they do not take any consideration with the underdogs of the company or the world. The economy does have hope but it’s a long way from being stabilized once again.

Federal governance in executive pay is essential to a stable and healthy economy. I offer that the issue of Federal governance in executive pay is bigger than equity in compensation. “Taxpayers and politicians and others disapprove of these levels of compensation precisely because the leaders of these firms, in the words of Treasury Department officials, nearly caused the financial system worldwide to collapse.”

The financial crisis of 2007-2008 that caused the stock market to drop significantly worldwide as well as led many people to unemployment, foreclosures, and evictions still resonates in today’s economy. All sorts of investigations are still in the process to find and bring to justice the culprits of such a large-scale collapse of the market. Some of them have lasted several years and only recently came to an end. Not that long ago settlements between the government and the biggest U.S. banks such as J.P. Morgan and Bank of America have occurred. They agreed to pay $13 and $17 billion to the government respectively. A tremendous portion of the penalty came from the companies that the banks purchased during the recession. Controversy around

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

Executives and those responsible for misdeeds should have been subject to significant clawbacks of compensation. If the reason they misbehaved and took inappropriate risks was to raise compensation, losing that compensation would be an appropriate punishment.