Don't let it get away!
Keep track of the stocks that matter to you.
Help yourself with the Fool's FREE and easy new watchlist service today.
Facebook hasn't even begun trading yet, but there is no shortage of opinions on whether the stock is worth close to $100 billion or not. Nearly every aspect of Facebook's business model has been put on clothespins for investors to scrutinize in the past week -- save for one.
Last night Facebook rectified that when it finally disclosed the financial compensation package for its executives. Even if you don't feel that Facebook is worth the valuation it has been given, I doubt anyone would argue with the idea that its executive compensation is a model for other social media companies to follow.
First of all, the base salary of the top executives is reasonable despite Facebook's expected market value. CEO Mark Zuckerberg will receive a base salary of $500,000, while COO Sheryl Sandberg and CFO David Ebersman will each receive $300,000. All three are eligible for twice-a-year bonuses of up to 45% of their salaries, and those bonuses are tied to their overall performance. Foolish colleague Alyce Lomax has long been a supporter of pay-for-performance packages, and this is a perfect example of this in action.
But let's face the facts: The real bulk of executive compensation is tied to the share ownership when Facebook finally goes public. Zuckerberg will own 534 million shares of the company (28.4%) and retains 56.9% of all voting rights. I can't say I'm a huge fan of the near dictatorship in voting rights, but I definitely like the idea of shareholder interests and Zuckerberg's wallet being inextricably linked at the hip -- I mean, it was Facebook users who generated his wealth for him in the first place.
Similarly, Sandberg, who currently owns 1.9 million shares, has the option to purchase 4.2 million additional shares at low strike prices. She also has 39 million restricted stock units that vest over time, further enforcing the pay-for-performance attitude of Facebook.
Keep in mind that while this seems logical to you and me, some executive compensation packages out there make very little sense.
Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO ) CEO John Chambers is a prime offender. Mr. Chambers took home an average of nearly $39 million over the past six years, all while his stock annualized a return of negative 1%. Dean Foods (NYSE: DF ) CEO Gregg Engles has received an average of $20 million over the past six years despite the stock's annualized return of minus 11% over that period. Even conglomerate General Electric (NYSE: GE ) CEO Jeff Immelt holds the dubious honor of taking home an average of $12 million a year while his stock fell at an annualized rate of 7% over the past six years.
In short, it's getting increasingly hard to find CEOs who will put shareholder interest first and will tie their compensation to the performance of their business. This is one move that arguably puts Facebook at or near the top of its class in social media.
Disagree with my assessment? Sound off in the comments section below.
For another company that could do right by shareholders, I invite you to get your copy of our latest special report, "The Motley Fool's Top Stock for 2012." The report lists a company dubbed by our chief investment officer as the "Costco of Latin America," and best of all, it's completely free for a limited time only!