The denizens of corporate America could sorely use tougher consequences for poor performance. Thankfully, more meaningful repercussions for operational failure may be on their way. Say goodbye to "golden parachutes" and their promise of a soft landing. Inept executives could soon enter the decidedly Darwinian world of "clawbacks."
For shareholders, parachutes have their perils
Too many companies currently maintain a perverse incentive system in which top brass not only can cash in while they're at the helm, but also profit mightily if they screw up -- or even if they're let go.
The business world has no shortage of golden parachute horror stories. (Well, they're horrifying for shareholders, at least.) Before Bank of America
Golden parachutes can even obstruct a struggling company's ability to procure a new leader. Back in 2005, former Blockbuster head John Antioco pretty much had shareholders over a barrel, reluctant to oust him for fear of paying a $54 million severance package upon his departure. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
As Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett once put it: "Getting fired can produce a particularly bountiful payday for a CEO. He can 'earn' more in that single day, while cleaning out his desk, than an American worker earns in a lifetime of cleaning toilets. Today, in the executive suite, the all-too-prevalent rule is nothing succeeds like failure."
Time to toughen up?
Thankfully, this compensation quandary has a common-sense solution with a deliciously aggressive name: the "clawback." If executives really screw up, their former companies can "claw back" the executives' undeserved gains.
The current financial regulatory reform bill contains a requirement for clawback provisions in executive contracts, among other corporate governance initiatives. But refreshingly, many firms haven't waited for Uncle Sam -- they've adopted such practices voluntarily. According to compensation research firm Equilar, 73% of Fortune 100 firms have now added clawback provisions to their executive pay policies, a huge increase from a mere 16% in 2006.
Interestingly, some major Wall Street firms are even making those provisions more vicious -- at least in theory. J.P. Morgan Chase
Newer, occasionally harsher elements include J.P. Morgan's decision to allow clawbacks to relate to any employee who receives stock compensation. The company will also take action against employees who take too much risk, or fail to sound an alert when they discover others' excessive risk.
Elsewhere, Bank of America is changing its existing clawback provision to include high-ranking executives. Morgan Stanley's including soured trades as a clawback trigger. And Goldman Sachs is using restricted stock to pay out bonuses, since that makes future clawbacks easier to execute.
Truth and consequences
However, some critics doubt that corporations will actually be able to use these tough-sounding provisions. Clawbacks are difficult to enforce, especially if the recipient has already spent -- and paid taxes on -- the money. For shareholders' sakes, let's hope companies can find ways to give these contingencies a bit more bite.
When corporations start heading south, their managers' inability (or lack of will) to retrieve undeserved gains from overpaid CEOs only adds insult to shareholders' injury. Although companies could better serve investors by reining in excessive pay in the first place, clawbacks at least ensure that executives' irresponsible or unwise actions come with consequences in the long run.
The judicious use of clawback provisions could add a much-needed dose of "tooth and claw" to our increasingly complacement corporate world. In a truly free market, achievement would trump entitlement, and CEOs who couldn't lead their companies effectively would earn only a swift kick out the door.
If top executives know that grave, painful consequences await them should the fruit of their labors prove rotten, perhaps they won't make so many terrible mistakes in the first place.
