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?
Labels:

Comments

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.
2:01 pm
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.
12:53 am
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.
11:48 am
Jüri Saar said…
Do you think the remuneration problem is worse in the UK than in the US?
3:44 pm
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.
5:18 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...
Post a Comment
Read more

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...
20 comments
Read more

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...
14 comments
Read more