![](20100615_SmartMoney_files/image002.gif)
![SmartMoney](20100615_SmartMoney_files/image003.gif)
Given Say on Pay, Shareholders Say No
Are CEOs in for
a pay cut? One little-discussed provision of the financial reform bill will
make it mandatory for companies to submit executive pay packages to
shareholders for approval. Already, some investors have their scissors out.
This spring, for the first time ever, three large U.S. companies failed to
achieve majority shareholder support in “say on pay” votes approving their
executive pay packages: Motorola,
KeyCorp, and
Occidental Petroleum.
The votes were non-binding, so the companies technically weren’t required to
do anything. However, to maintain good relations — and to protect board
members in the next round of voting — the companies would be well served by
responding to investor input, says Amy Borrus, the deputy director of the
Council of Institutional Investors.
The say on pay issue is increasingly important now because both the Senate
and the House versions of financial reform legislation would make these
non-binding votes mandatory for all companies – meaning that as early as
next year, thousands of U.S. companies could be scrambling to deal with this
new mood of shareholder discontent.
Giving shareholders input on compensation is a relatively new phenomenon,
says Michael Littenberg, a partner at the law firm Schulte, Roth & Zabel who
focuses on corporate governance issues. Over the past few years, SEC rules
have increased disclosure requirements around executive pay, and a small but
growing number of companies have also asked for shareholder approval of pay
policies. This year, about 120 public companies had these advisory votes,
Littenberg says.
The message from the voters hasn’t always been positive.
American Express, for
example, saw support for its pay policy fall from 71.9% in 2009 to 62% this
year, and Wells Fargo’s
majority support fell from 92.8% to 72%, Borrus says. A spokeswoman for
Wells Fargo said the bank continues to review its pay policies, but hasn’t
made any changes following this vote. American Express declined to comment.
Companies that overcompensate their executives relative to peers can see a
stock-price boost when say on pay proposals are announced, according to
research by Jay Cai, an assistant professor at Drexel University’s LeBow
College of Business. Yet, in the past, activist shareholders’ say on pay
demands haven’t targeted firms that truly overpay their top brass, Cai says.
Labor unions in particular seem to simply target large companies, where CEOs
are highly paid, but not necessarily overpaid relative to peers, Cai says.
At Occidental, the problem appeared to be that shareholders had protested
pay for some time, but those concerns have not been fully addressed, says
Borrus. The company’s chief executive officer, Ray Irani, received $31.4
million in 2009, making him one of the highest-paid CEOs in the country. His
compensation is 15% higher, for example, than Rex Tillerson at Exxon and
more than double that of James Mulva at ConocoPhillips
What’s more, according to Borrus, there is a notable gap between Irani’s pay
and that of the executives just under him: Occidental’s CFO made $13.5
million in 2009, while the other three executives whose pay is disclosed
made between $2.8 and $3.6 million each. Big internal pay gaps are bad for
morale, Borrus says, and can spur investor discontent. “Dr. Irani’s
compensation reflects his outstanding leadership in managing Occidental,” a
spokesman for the company said. The spokesman adds that the compensation
committee is working with investors and independent compensation consultants
to come up with recommendations.
Shareholders reviewing executive compensation policies need to get beyond
the sticker shock of big numbers, “and also look at the how and why that
companies disclose, about why they pay people what they do,” says Littenberg
of Schulte, Roth & Zabel. The three companies whose pay packages were
rejected did tell shareholders that they aimed to tie executive pay to
performance.
To see if that rhetoric matches reality, shareholders should look for
companies to put a large portion of the CEO’s pay “at risk” based on
performance – and then look for multiple, specific, not easily manipulated
performance metrics that actually require the company to outperform peers
before executives receive bonuses, Borrus says. At Motorola, for example,
“the financial performance has not been stellar,” and yet CEO Sanjay Jha’s
compensation has risen, she says. A spokeswoman for Motorola said that Jha’s
base pay has been cut 25% from what was specified in his contract, and 95%
of his compensation is in the form of equity awards.
The head of the KeyCorp board’s compensation committee, Edward Campbell,
told shareholders that the company takes the advisory vote “very seriously”
and will “promptly” change the compensation program once it has exited the
TARP program, which restricts its ability to link pay to performance.
Post-employment pay is another area for shareholders to watch, Borrus says.
Guaranteeing severance to executives who are fired for poor performance,
offering change-of-control payments so generous they incentivize selling the
company, and guaranteeing continued benefits to retired executives are all
bad signs, she says.
Investors shouldn’t worry that executives whose pay is reduced or redesigned
due to shareholder protest will leave the company, Borrus says. “It does
happen but not nearly as often as senior executives would like you to
think,” she says. A report from the TARP bailout pay czar found that 84% of
executives affected by 2009 restrictions on pay remain in their positions.
![](20100615_SmartMoney_files/image004.gif)
SMARTMONEY ®, smSmallBiz ™, SmartMoney.com ™, and smSmallBiz.com ™ are
trademarks and service marks of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. The layout and
"look and feel" of the smartmoney.com and smSmallbiz.com web sites are
copyrighted materials of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. © 2010 Dow Jones &
Company, Inc. |
|