The Golden Parachute Option for CEO's

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

In the case presented both AFLAC and L.L. Bean had their own distinctive ways of utilizing their products in order to enhance the total compensation for its employees. The factor that has deterred more employees away from their current employer is that of benefit packages, and reward systems. As stated by () “compensation affects a person economically, sociologically, and psychologically. For this reason, mishandling compensation issues is likely to have a strong negative impact on employees and, ultimately, on the firm’s performance” (p.313). Many felt just a bump in pay wasn’t enough to substantiate their hard work or the efforts that the performance efforts provided to their organization. As stated by () “the right total rewards system a blend of monetary and non-monetary

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).

7. Option compensation will continue to be a critical component of compensation for executives as it simplistically aligns the executives’ pay to shareholder value in its simplest sense. I don’t believe that options compensation is the primary driver of behavior when things shift from the legal to the illegal. As with most senior executives in industry, ego is a huge driver in individual behavior. Compensation is important, but the recognition of your performance is sometimes even more important. We have created a performance driven culture without the necessary control framework for people to operate within. One minute you are doing a great job, the next you have crossed an imaginary line. The frameworks don’t do enough to quantify behavior as legal and illegal leaving inconsistent rules for organizations to operate within. How does Enron compare to the subprime mortgage debacle, or to Steve Jobs backdating options. There remains too much room for interpretation.

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.

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

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.

The second compensation package was not well designed nor did it help define what the corporate strategy would be. For a second time the compensation package focused on maximizing shareholder’s wealth and didn’t take into consideration the stakeholder’s position at all. Dunlap’s package was deeply weighted in company options ($3.75M). In fact it was weighted heavier than before. The stock grants were

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.

Those same 25 executives announcing the layoffs had just one week earlier paid themselves "retention bonuses" of $55 million" (Diekmann, 2005). These employees did not show or use ethical business conduct by making sure they themselves received pay; they are just as guilty as the top executives involved with the accounting scandals.