Skip to main content

Excessive Executive pay is theft from the shareholders & it can be stopped

The dramatic increase in the gap between the highest paid employees and the average pay grade is not just bad economics and worse politics. It reflects a major break down in corporate governance.

The fact is that not only are most fund managers lousy investors- they rarely beat their benchmark, and the majority in recent years have actually lost money for their investors- they are truly appalling stewards of the investments that they make.

Fund managers have been content to allow through any pay request made by the management of the companies that they invest in. These requests come, of course, through the remuneration committees of company boards, which are largely staffed by... ex-executives. Instead of querying the increasingly large sums going to senior management, the fund managers, if they dislike their investment, will simply sell it.

The result is that executives have had little or no scrutiny of their remuneration- it is simply rubber stamped by a bunch of compliant place men. 

Fund managers fail in the fiduciary duty to their investors if they permit management to over pay themselves to this extent. If the government wishes to make a point, they could remind fund managers that they have this fiduciary duty. Meanwhile, individual investors in funds could threaten to sue fund managers that continue to vote for excessive pay packages for senior company employees.

The solution to the robbery of the shareholders by senior management is to force the agents of the investors, i.e. the fund managers, to take the issue seriously. We have the means to impose greater discipline over managements, but the cozy cabal of the City has not been forced to take action. 

Time to do so. Which individuals will lead a class action against the UK fund management industry for permitting this theft to take place?


Sarunas Skyrius said…
I saw a proposal on some blog to limit executive pay by law to 1mUSD per year, UNLESS it is put to a general shareholder vote and is thus increased. If you really really need someone who won't work for 1mUSD, vote so :)

I'm not a fan of (wink wink nudge) nudge libertarianism. Most of the days, anyway.
Jüri Saar said…
When it comes to executive pay there is one more possibility: the tax code used to favore various perks instead of pay in the eighties (and earlier), but this has been gradually reversed and instead of the perks you get the high pay today. Perks are easier to hide, deny and discover. It is more difficult to do the same with executive pay.

It would be interesting to find out what would happen to comparissons of executive pay today and thirty years ago, if we also looked at the various perks and the infuence of the tax code on higher pay.
Cicero said…
In the 1970s, particularly, there were several non cash benefits that were given instead of higher pay, in order to avoid heavy income taxes. In the UK the most popular was the "company car". Gradually non cash benefits were taxed in the same way as cash benefits, and the practice died away. This is why I used the word remuneration, which implies total compensation, not simply salary. However even if we simply consider salary- not bonus or other benefits- the increase is of the order of several thousand percent, so there is no doubt that this is a real and not an accounting or taxation issue.
Jüri Saar said…
Do you think the remuneration problem is worse in the UK than in the US?
Cicero said…
The US does have a wider median gap, but there are a couple of mitigating factors, including that Americans tend to be much more active philanthropists than in the UK.

Popular posts from this blog

Concert and Blues

Tallinn is full tonight... Big concerts on at the Song field The Weeknd and Bonnie Tyler (!). The place is buzzing and some sixty thousand concert goers have booked every bed for thirty miles around Tallinn. It should be a busy high summer, but it isn´t. Tourism is down sharply overall. Only 70 cruise ships calling this season, versus over 300 before Ukraine. Since no one goes to St Pete, demand has fallen, and of course people think that Estonia is not safe. We are tired. The economy is still under big pressure, and the fall of tourism is a significant part of that. The credit rating for Estonia has been downgraded as the government struggles with spending. The summer has been a little gloomy, and soon the long and slow autumn will drift into the dark of the year. Yesterday I met with more refugees: the usual horrible stories, the usual tears. I try to make myself immune, but I can´t. These people are wounded in spirit, carrying their grief in a terrible cradling. I try to project hop

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo

Bournemouth absence

Although I had hoped to get down to the Liberal Democrat conference in Bournemouth this year, simple pressure of work has now made that impossible. I must admit to great disappointment. The last conference before the General Election was always likely to show a few fireworks, and indeed the conference has attracted more headlines than any other over the past three years. Some of these headlines show a significant change of course in terms of economic policy. Scepticism about the size of government expenditure has given way to concern and now it is clear that reducing government expenditure will need to be the most urgent priority of the next government. So far it has been the Liberal Democrats that have made the running, and although the Conservatives are now belatedly recognising that cuts will be required they continue to fail to provide even the slightest detail as to what they think should guide their decisions in this area. This political cowardice means that we are expected to ch