Director Remuneration

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.

This assignment aims to present in a clear and concise manner our viewpoint towards remuneration disclosure, considering steps to improve this matter of contention is taken voluntarily by the boards as recently stated by The Australian Financial Review.

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.”

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

Generally, under-performing companies are the prime targets of hostile takeovers, so it makes sense that aligning shareholder and executive goals is a major way to avoid that. One popular way of aligning these goals is through the use of elaborate, structured compensation plans for executives which directly tie an executive’s salary to the performance of the company, usually and specifically its stock price (Megginson & Smart, 2009). These compensation plans have become the norm for American corporations, and their effectiveness in solving the agency problem is debatable. On one hand, it should drive an executive to strive to maximize the shareholder wealth, and it also helps companies to attract and retain the best available managers. On the other hand, it serves to sometimes wildly inflate the compensation paid to these executives, either by corporations trying to stay competitive for the best talent, or through easily achievable goals and uncapped maximums. The structured plans, if done correctly, are an effective way to help insure the goal of wealth maximization, but they are also by definition agency costs. Hence, agency problems are inherent to our American corporate system.

Executive Compensation is typically structured to incentivize executives to achieve company performance consistent with increases in shareholder value. As a result, a majority of executive pay is contingent on performance. If the company or the executive fails to perform, the pay may never be received. Corporate Governance is the system of principles and processes by which a corporation is managed that defines the relationships among the board, shareholders, management and other stakeholders in a manner designed to promote long-term growth in share price. Specific to executive compensation, the Center believes that a board-centric approach to corporate governance is best and that consistent with that approach, best practices should ensure that compensation decisions are aligned with the best interests of shareholders and other

The term 'executive pay' has acquired bad connotations over the past decade or so and the recent Occupy Wall Street movement brought this issue back into public consciousness on a worldwide scale (Minder, 2013). In Switzerland, the parliament recently passed legislation that would limit executive compensation excesses under threat of fines and imprisonment and the European Parliament agreed to limit banker bonuses to twice their base salaries. Adding fuel to this fire was last month's announcement that the golden parachute for departing Novartis Chairman Daniel Vasella would include a $78 million dollar severance payment.

According to Matsumura and Shin (2005) the ratio of executive to worker pay has climbed from 42:1 in 1982 to 301:1 in 2003. This has invited a lot of criticism from the shareholders, employees and has attracted the attention of restrictive regulators. Perel (2003) tried to assess the issue by examining both the claims that CEOs are overpaid for the value they add to an organization and that CEO pay is inherently

Read the discussion case "Executive Compensation" on pages 190-192 then answer/discuss questions 1-7 that follow.

As previously discussed in this paper, it is unethical for CEOs to be paid so much when compared to other employees their respective organizations, outlearning their peers as of 2011 by a ratio of 201 to 1 since 1965 (Mishel, Bivens, Gould, and Shierholz, 2012). Appropriately,

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.

The issue of chief executive officer compensation is the subject of dilemma in the United States. This dilemma often triggers questions as to who decides what compensation is rewarded, as well as how compensation is rewarded. The government strongly resents the current pay-ration between CEOs and the average salary of American citizens. Since the financial crisis, people have shown their displeasure with the hefty compensation chief executive officers receives. But when stunning management failures and unprecedented destruction of shareholder value are brought into the light, it becomes increasingly difficult to defend current executive remuneration policies with these economic underpinnings. For example, the “Occupy Wall Street” movement began in 2011 in protest of the increasing disparity of wealth among other reasons lying within corporate America. The peak of CEO compensation came in 2001, and it is still difficult to argue whether the financial crisis of 2008 or the change in compensation strategy has slightly stagnated the exponential growth the started in the mid 1970’s.

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