Let the CEO Pay Cuts Continue

It's hard to believe after so many years of business as usual, but something akin to accountability in the top brass of corporate America might be in the offing. Some high-profile chief executive officers are experiencing slimmer paychecks due to performance issues.

It's a good time to ponder this, because once spring has sprung, most companies will hold their annual meetings -- and tally up shareholders' say-on-pay votes.

Smaller take-home
According to The Wall Street Journal, for the second year running, Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS  ) CEO James Gorman is expected to get hit with a pay cut, given the firm's slow turnaround. Gorman's rumored pay figure will be a total $6 million in 2012, down from $10.5 million in 2011

 and $14 million in 2010.

This isn't the first time a Wall Street bigwig has taken a financial hit recently. JPMorgan Chase's (NYSE: JPM  )  Jamie Dimon's 2012 pay was slashed in half to $11.5 million after the infamous London Whale $6 billion trading loss apparently blindsided the chief executive.

Pay cuts of some kind, whether voluntarily undertaken or implemented by boards of directors, are also slashing through the executive compensation at other companies in other industries, both here and abroad.

Chesapeake Energy's (NYSE: CHK  ) controversial CEO Aubrey McClendon recently voluntarily gave up his bonus, although many Chesapeake shareholders could find that gesture "too little, too late" given years of hefty pay and shady dealings.

Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis'  (NYSE: NVS  ) CEO received a 16% pay cut last year, a proactive move given an upcoming vote in Switzerland. The Swiss will vote on a rule that would make companies implement any restrictions shareholders set on executive compensation. This referendum could also ban practices like golden handshakes and golden parachutes for executive hires.

Will CEOs ever really pay?
Such pay cuts are a step in the right direction; the thought of losing something financially surely warns chief executives that performance does matter, and directors who are meting them out have surely caught on that shareholders have wised up to CEO pay's reality disconnect in recent years.

For many years, regardless of corporate performance or macroeconomic conditions, it seemed as if chief executives were a protected class of employees whose pay always went up.

Of course, an even better incentive for responsibility and accountability would be clawbacks, through which companies can demand money back from chief executives from missteps over the years.

In October, corporate governance expert Paul Hodgson penned an op-ed for Bloomberg. He pointed out that despite the clear problems banks caused to shareholders and taxpayers before and during the financial crisis, no clawbacks of the responsible executives' pay ever materialized. Plenty of more recent scandals at financial companies, including Barclays' LIBOR manipulation, should be fair game for taking back money earned in nefarious ways, too.

Although some related executives (rightly) lost their jobs, that's nothing compared to what many stashed in their bank accounts while the getting was good for ill-gotten gains.

However, in another one of those rare steps in the right direction, another Swiss firm, Credit Suisse (NYSE: CS  ) , has announced that part of its 2012 cash bonuses for top-ranking executives are subject to three-year clawback rules.

Could 2013 finally bring a reality check in CEO pay?
Given some of the scandals in corporate governance and corporate behavior in 2012, it's tempting to think lessons are hard learned in corporate America. However, 2013 may mark a turning point, since there were some significant shareholder revolts last year. (Think Citigroup.)

Meanwhile, some companies are pondering the issue of CEO pay given the upcoming proxy season and the certainty that activist investors will continue to rail about pay versus performance. In November, compensation governance consultant Pearl Meyer & Partners released survey results showing significant numbers of the 167 respondents aiming for "moderation" in their company's compensation programs, and even cutting or freezing CEO pay.

Hopefully chief executive officers will experience a much-needed reality check when it comes to aligning their pay to performance -- and remember that moderation is a virtue. Even though the cuts are fairly cosmetic, they still send a message that all is not well, and that serious accountability is required for that leadership role (that's why CEOs make the big bucks in the first place, although so many have shirked the whole "accountability" element in recent years).

So let the pay cuts continue, even if clawbacks would be better in many cases.

More expert advice from The Motley Fool
The best investing approach is to choose great companies and stick with them for the long term. In our free report "
3 Stocks That Will Help You Retire Rich," we name stocks that could help you build long-term wealth and retire well, along with some winning wealth-building strategies that every investor should be aware of. Click here now to keep reading.

Check back at Fool.com for more of Alyce Lomax's columns on environmental, social, and governance issues.


Read/Post Comments (7) | Recommend This Article (17)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On January 25, 2013, at 4:26 PM, stan8331 wrote:

    The problem I see is pay cuts alone may actually increase bad behavior in some cases. Without some sort of clawback provision to offer a disincentive to taking short-term profits at the long-term detriment of the company, CEO's who don't intend to stay with a company for the long haul have little reason to put the company's long-term health ahead of their personal short-term needs.

  • Report this Comment On January 26, 2013, at 1:07 PM, WileyCyote wrote:

    I am not only interested in seeng some of these guys pay cut, I am interested in seeing some of them

    * Summarily FIRED

    * Going to A REAL JAIL for a very LONG time.

    Good luck with those ideas!.

    Keep on Truckin'

    Wileycyote

  • Report this Comment On January 27, 2013, at 8:34 AM, gskinner75006 wrote:

    For public companies, I would also like to see most of the value of a bonus be given in restricted stock with long term vesting periods.

  • Report this Comment On January 31, 2013, at 4:48 PM, name7865 wrote:

    "CEO James Gorman is expected to get hit with a pay cut, given the firm's slow turnaround. Gorman's rumored pay figure will be a total $6 million in 2012"

    So he gets $6 MILLION for failure?

    If he got $600,000 - a tenth of what he actually gets - he'd still be grossly overpaid. Think about it.

  • Report this Comment On February 01, 2013, at 2:55 PM, DJDynamicNC wrote:

    I agree 100% with the article and every comment on it.

  • Report this Comment On February 01, 2013, at 2:55 PM, DJDynamicNC wrote:

    ^^^ So far anyway :lol:

  • Report this Comment On February 08, 2013, at 6:24 AM, broadmoor wrote:

    "Of course, an even better incentive for responsibility and accountability would be clawbacks, through which companies can demand money back from chief executives from missteps over the years."

    Were this to occur (the northeast has a better chance of avoiding snow today), is it possible to imagine the righteous protestations citing the sanctity and inviolability of contracts? Does it inspire any amusement that these folks do not similarly object when past agreements with labor unions are being discussed?

    It is tangential, but related, that management cites the free market system as the most just, and best possible, controlling influence in matters financial, and labor calls for imposed restrictions and regulations--except in sports contracts, where the opposite is the case.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2216507, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/27/2014 12:37:11 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement