DS Forums

 
 

'Negligible' link between executive pay and firm's performance


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27-12-2016, 20:21
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,312

The chief executives of Britain’s leading 350 companies each took home a median pay package of £1.9m in 2014, a rise of 82% on 13 years ago, research commissioned by the UK arm of the CFA Institute, the global association of investment professionals, found.

But the rise was not mirrored in the fortunes of their employers, with return on invested capital – the report’s preferred measure of performance – up by less than 1%.
Well I'm really surprised at that
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-12-2016, 20:28
Lyricalis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lost
Posts: 43,320
I remember reading about this at least a decade ago, but I guess more evidence never hurts. Perhaps this time people will start listening?
Lyricalis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 13:53
Glawster2002
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
If I remember correctly one of the other newspapers did a similar survey @ 10 years ago, The Times, perhaps, and they came to precisely the same conclusion.

I think executive pay rises should be linked to employee rises. If they can't afford to give the employees a pay rise then they can't afford to give the board a pay rise either.

The whole mantra of "having to pay the best to get the best" is a real busted flush now.
Glawster2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 14:50
sandstone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: great yarmouth
Posts: 1,084
If I remember correctly one of the other newspapers did a similar survey @ 10 years ago, The Times, perhaps, and they came to precisely the same conclusion.

I think executive pay rises should be linked to employee rises. If they can't afford to give the employees a pay rise then they can't afford to give the board a pay rise either.

The whole mantra of "having to pay the best to get the best" is a real busted flush now.
Indeed, also they shouldn't get a raise if they have lots of forced redundancies either.
sandstone is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 16:50
Lyricalis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lost
Posts: 43,320
If I remember correctly one of the other newspapers did a similar survey @ 10 years ago, The Times, perhaps, and they came to precisely the same conclusion.

I think executive pay rises should be linked to employee rises. If they can't afford to give the employees a pay rise then they can't afford to give the board a pay rise either.

The whole mantra of "having to pay the best to get the best" is a real busted flush now.
The whole belief that performance related pay improves performance is actually false as well (and that applies to everyone not just executives). In fact it's been shown many times to damage performance in the long term.
Lyricalis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 17:21
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,312
The whole belief that performance related pay improves performance is actually false as well (and that applies to everyone not just executives). In fact it's been shown many times to damage performance in the long term.
The problem with performance related pay is that it rarely measures performance only some form of simplified targets to be reached which don't relate to the complexity of the job. The only accurate performance related pay is piece work.
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 17:26
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,636
The only accurate performance related pay is piece work.
Even that's debatable. The shoddier delivery firms have sort of proven this by paying people a pittance per parcel. Output increases, and therefore so does pay, at the expense of quality. Parcels lobbed onto people's roofs or put into bins because they don't get paid unless it's "delivered"

No doubt, those same firms seem to find the cash to pay the directors handsomely
moox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 22:07
ShaunIOW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Isle of Wight
Posts: 7,811
The high executive pay in the UK is he main reason I don't think many UK companies will relocate to an EU one after Brexit, as Germany is the second biggest payer and that is 50% lower than the UK on average, I can't see the greedy gits moving and taking pay cuts.
ShaunIOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-12-2016, 23:31
jaycee331
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,171
I think executive pay rises should be linked to employee rises. If they can't afford to give the employees a pay rise then they can't afford to give the board a pay rise either.
I quite like that idea

Another could be that any company that has had to lay off staff costs their executives their bonus. I've always taken the view that whenever a company announces redundancies, it is an admission of failure right from the top. To me it is indicative of poor planning and forecasting, declining business due to poor customer service, brand damage or failing to keep a pace with competitors and offering desirable products and services.

I kid you not, I was working at a FTSE 100 company that announced huge unexpected losses one year and their share price bombed. All staff bonuses were cancelled that year. Except the CEO who got his, because his performance targets were based on customer service!!! Not the companies financial performance! Talk about a set up. Was obvious they knew a bombshell was coming, so the chairman made absolutely sure the CEO was given a performance related pay target that would still allow him to collect his £2mil in shares or whatever.

The only type of CEO I respect are those heading businesses that they personally founded. All the rest of the CEO's for hire are just pure scum to me, earning their roles through connections and the old boys club.
jaycee331 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 16:59
TeeGee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dark Satanic Mills
Posts: 4,813
I too have been saying this for years. Maybe I am a closet "expert"
TeeGee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 21:25
mRebel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19,171
I quite like that idea

Another could be that any company that has had to lay off staff costs their executives their bonus. I've always taken the view that whenever a company announces redundancies, it is an admission of failure right from the top. To me it is indicative of poor planning and forecasting, declining business due to poor customer service, brand damage or failing to keep a pace with competitors and offering desirable products and services.

I kid you not, I was working at a FTSE 100 company that announced huge unexpected losses one year and their share price bombed. All staff bonuses were cancelled that year. Except the CEO who got his, because his performance targets were based on customer service!!! Not the companies financial performance! Talk about a set up. Was obvious they knew a bombshell was coming, so the chairman made absolutely sure the CEO was given a performance related pay target that would still allow him to collect his £2mil in shares or whatever.

The only type of CEO I respect are those heading businesses that they personally founded. All the rest of the CEO's for hire are just pure scum to me, earning their roles through connections and the old boys club.
This is normal. Executives are set a number of targets, so if the company performance is bad, there are still targets that are met, so they still get a bonus in cash ore shares or both.
As a member of the Co-op I'm still fuming at an executive leaving, of her choice, after just 11 months and getting a years salary in lieu of notice, 6 months 'gardening leave' and a 'long term bonus' of another years salary. Long term bonus after 11 months!
mRebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-12-2016, 14:45
Glawster2002
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
The high executive pay in the UK is he main reason I don't think many UK companies will relocate to an EU one after Brexit, as Germany is the second biggest payer and that is 50% lower than the UK on average, I can't see the greedy gits moving and taking pay cuts.
I'm sure they would say it is justified because British companies are 50% better though...
Glawster2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:07.