,亚洲欧美日韩国产成人精品影院,亚洲国产欧美日韩精品一区二区三区,久久亚洲国产成人影院,久久国产成人亚洲精品影院老金,九九精品成人免费国产片,国产精品成人综合网,国产成人一区二区三区,国产成...

立即打開
CEO年薪1美元:看上去很美

CEO年薪1美元:看上去很美

Mina Kimes 2011年06月03日
最近的一份研究指出,那些刻意領取微薄薪水的CEO們也許另有所圖。

????如果一位CEO愿意接受1美元的年薪,此舉釋放了一個強烈的信號,表明這位CEO具有大局觀念,愿意為了公司的利益做出犧牲。當然,這個CEO可能暗地里獲得了一筆不菲的股票期權,但這些報酬取決于公司的成功。由此可見,1美元的年薪畢竟是個豪邁的姿態,意在昭示CEO們對公司前途充滿信心。

????然而,這也可能僅僅只是個煙幕彈。最近一項由吉爾伯托?洛雷羅(Gilberto Loureiro)、阿尼爾?馬奎加(Anil K. Makhija)和張丹(Dan Zhang)三位教授進行的研究表明,多數情況下,1美元的年薪只不過是個公關策略而已。這份研究報告寫道:“我們發現,有證據表明1美元的CEO年薪只不過是個策略,用來掩蓋這些CEO的尋租行為。因此,根據我們的研究結果,實行所謂1美元的CEO年薪并非像表面看來那樣是種犧牲,而是那些更富有、更自負、且具有影響力的CEO的機會主義行為?!?/p>

????開創1美元年薪先河的是克萊斯勒的前任CEO李?艾科卡(Lee Iacocca)。上世紀70年代,克萊斯勒曾一度陷入危機,只得游說美國政府以尋求援助,為此艾科卡大幅削減了自己的薪水。后來其他CEO也紛紛效仿,其中就包括溫迪快餐(Wendy's/Arby's Group)的尼爾森?佩爾茲(Nelson Peltz)、哥倫比亞廣播公司(CBS)的薩默?雷石東(Sumner Redstone),以及蘋果的史蒂夫?喬布斯、甲骨文的拉里?艾里森、思科的約翰?錢伯斯在內的一大批知名科技公司的高管們。

????近年來,更多高管加入了1美元年薪的隊伍,其中不乏谷歌的埃里克?施密特和全食超市(Whole Foods)的約翰?麥基等大牌CEO。金融危機期間,美國三大汽車廠商通用、克萊斯特和福特的CEO統統承諾自己只領1美元的薪水?;ㄆ旒瘓F的CEO潘偉迪(Vikram Pandit)在2009年和2010年也只是各領了1美元的薪水(不過他的低薪生涯很短暫,花旗集團最近為潘偉迪開出了一份多年期的薪酬方案,總價值超過2,000萬美元)。

????這些克己奉公的CEO雖然損失了部分薪水,但卻“失之工資,得之股權”,這已經不是什么秘密了。洛雷羅和該研究報告的其他兩位主筆人研究了50位只領取1美元年薪的上市公司CEO在1992年到2005年間的總體薪酬水平,發現如果把基于股權的報酬也計算在內的話,那們他們掙的錢一點也不比其他CEO少。這些CEO的正常年俸的中間值大概在61萬美元,雖然他們放棄了這筆錢,但卻獲得了價值超過200萬美元的遞增股權獎勵。

????股權報酬可能是一件好事。如果CEO們放棄了大量的工資或獎金,用來交換股權,那么他們就會把自己的財富和公司的成功聯系在一起,這會促使他們盡力追求公司的增長。不過洛雷羅等人的研究指出,盡管1美元年薪的信徒們常常拿這種“一榮俱榮”的假設說事,但是實際情況并不支持這一假說。三位作者發現,這些給CEO減薪的公司將高管的表現與其業績聯系起來的必要性并不明顯。這些公司也并沒有因此贏得發展的良機,而且也沒有歷史記錄表明他們曾用股票期權來獎勵公司高層。

????此外,“1美元CEO”們的人事變動頻繁,進一步從根本上挑戰了這一假說。一旦公司中止原有的薪酬方案,大幅削減薪酬,僅有48%的CEO接受了減薪,繼續留任。而在1993年到2001年間,上市公司CEO的總體變動率僅為9%。

????該研究的作者們認為,對于1美元年薪來說,更好的解釋是“管理權力假說”。該假說假定CEO們之所以領取1美元的薪水,是為了追求自己的利益。他們寫道,創立1美元年薪制度的企業,其公司治理往往較為薄弱。其中只有34%的此類企業有獨立的薪酬委員會,而一般上市公司有67%都成立了薪酬委員會。在“1美元CEO年薪”的企業里,權力都集中在公司高層,他們的CEO平均擁有10%的公司股權(一般上市公司的CEO僅擁有3.2%的公司股權),外部機構擁有這些公司53%的股權(而在一般上市公司里,外部機構的占股比例為61%)。

????該研究表明,只領1美元年薪的CEO比一般上市公司的CEO更闊綽,也更自信。這進一步證實了管理權力假說,因為有財有勢的領導人更傾向于按照他們自己的議事日程行事。在只領取1美元年薪的CEO里,高達30%的人都登上了福布斯全美富豪400強排行榜,而在一般上市公司的CEO里,這個比例還不到5%。1美元年薪的CEO被新聞報道稱為“樂觀”和“自信”的幾率也是一般上市公司CEO的兩倍。

????自信并不是人們關注1美元年薪CEO的唯一原因。該研究還發現,1美元年薪CEO經常需要面對一些棘手的問題,例如政府即將對他們的展開調查、企業表現不佳,或是一些個人困境等,這些問題使這群人更容易引發眾怒。在50位接受1美元年薪的CEO中,有25位存在明顯的公關危機。這也許只是個巧合,不過該研究報告的作者們卻不這么認為:“這一點兒也不奇怪,這些人選擇領取1美元的薪水就是為了掩蓋他們的既得利益?!?/p>

????如果你覺得這種觀點過于尖刻,不妨再看看這個事實:一些企業在宣布1美元CEO年薪制后的頭一年里,資產收入基本上和其他公司相當,但隨后就開始惡化。而三年后,實行1美元CEO年薪制的公司在股市上的表現已經明顯不如其他上市公司。

????該報告的發現簡直是毀滅性的——但從近期的另一份研究看來,現在還不是蓋棺定論的時候。這份由索菲亞?漢姆、邁克爾?榮格和克萊爾?王共同執筆的研究報告對領取1美元年薪的CEO們進行了研究,結果發現這些人中存在著巨大的差異。

????報告稱,盡管總體薪酬更高的CEO的確有可能在以后的日子里表現不佳,不過那些接受較低薪水的CEO也有可能獲得更高的股權收益和業績。說到底,CEO是否領取1美元的薪水并不是關鍵,最重要的還是企業的財務狀況。

????編輯注釋:本文此前的一個版本稱“福特汽車公司接受了聯邦緊急援助”,此處有誤,現已更正。

????譯者:樸成奎

????A CEO who accepts an annual salary of $1 sends a powerful message -- namely, that he or she is a team player who wants to make a sacrifice for the good of the company. True, the executive is probably receiving generous stock options on the side, but those payments depend on the corporation's success. The buck-a-year salary is a grand gesture, intended to broadcast the CEO's confidence in the future of the business.

????It may also be a smokescreen. A recent study by Professors Gilberto Loureiro, Anil K. Makhija, and Dan Zhang says that, in many cases, $1 paydays are nothing more than public relations ploys: "We find evidence consistent with the view that $1 CEO salaries are a ruse hiding the rent-seeking pursuits of CEOs adopting these pay schemes," they wrote. "Thus, rather than being the sacrificial acts they are projected to be, our findings suggest that adoptions of $1 CEO salaries are opportunistic behavior of the wealthier, more overconfident, influential CEOs."

????The $1 salary was pioneered by former Chrysler head Lee Iacocca, who slashed his pay in the late 1970s while the struggling car company lobbied the government for help. Other CEOs followed suit: Nelson Peltz of Wendy's/Arby's Group (WEN), Sumner Redstone of CBS (CBS), and a flurry of tech executives including Apple's (AAPL) Steve Jobs, Oracle's (ORCL) Larry Ellison, and Cisco's (CSCO) John Chambers.

????The idea has gained even more traction in recent years, with corporate leaders like Google's (GOOG) Eric Schmidt and Whole Foods' (WFM) John Mackey embracing it. During the financial crisis, the CEOs of automakers GM (GM), Chrysler, and Ford (F) all pledged to pay themselves a dollar. So did Citigroup (C) chief Vikram Pandit, who received a single greenback in 2009 and 2010 (his asceticism was short-lived: the bank recently awarded Pandit with a multi-year pay package worth more than $20 million.

????It's no secret that these self-abnegating chieftains often make up what they lose in salary by loading up on stock options. Loureiro and his co-authors looked at the total compensation for the fifty CEOs of publicly listed companies who made $1 or less between 1992 and 2005 and found that, when equity-based pay was included, they made just as much as their peers did. The $1 CEOs gave up a median of $610,000 in annual wages, but they gained more than $2 million in incremental options awards.

????Stock compensation can be a good thing. When CEOs forgo a large salary or bonus in exchange for equity, they align their wealth with the company's success, which should motivate them to pursue growth. According to the study, this "alignment hypothesis" is the most frequently cited rationale for the $1 salary. But it isn't supported by the facts. The authors found that the companies that cut CEO pay didn't have a demonstrable need to align executive performance with results. They also didn't have significant growth opportunities or a history of rewarding leaders with options.

????The alignment hypothesis is further undermined by the high rate of turnover amongst $1 CEOs. Once the salary plan was discontinued, only 48% of the CEOs who accepted the cut stayed in their positions. Between 1993 and 2001, total turnover amongst the CEOs of publicly traded companies was just 9%.

????The study's authors argue that the stunt salary is better explained by the "managerial power hypothesis," which posits that $1 CEOs are pursuing their own interests. The businesses that instituted $1 salaries, they wrote, had weaker corporate governance. Only 34% had independent compensation committees, compared to an average of 67%. Power at the $1 companies was concentrated at the top; their CEOs had an average ownership stake of 10% (vs. their peers' 3.2%). Outside institutions owned just 53% of the companies (vs. 61%).

????One dollar CEOs are wealthy and confident, even more so than the average executive. This further corroborates the managerial power hypothesis, the study says, because rich and brash leaders are more likely to pursue their own agendas. A whopping 30% of $1 CEOs were on the Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans, compared to an average of less than 5% among CEOs in general. They were twice as likely to be described in news reports as "optimistic" or "confident."

????Confidence alone isn't cause for concern. But the study also found that $1 CEOs frequently had issues that made them vulnerable to public outrage, like pending government inquiries, corporate underperformance, and personal dilemmas. Of the 50 CEOs who accepted a $1 salary, 25 had explicit public relations risks. That could be a coincidence -- but the authors doubt it: "It is not surprising that this group has chosen to adopt $1 salaries as camouflage for their benefits."

????If that seems cynical, consider this: In the first year after companies announced $1 CEO salaries, they achieved returns on assets that were comparable to their peers; after that, their returns deteriorated. One-dollar companies significantly underperformed their peers in the stock market after three years.

????The authors' findings are damning -- but they may not be completely conclusive, according to another recent study. This one, authored by Sophia J.W. Hamm, Michael J. Jung, and Clare Wang, looked at the different CEOs taking $1 salaries and found vast disparities within the group.

????While the executives who received higher total paydays were likely to underperform going forward, they wrote, those who actually did receive lower pay packages were likely to achieve improved stock returns and performance. In the end, the $1 salary was irrelevant; what mattered was the bottom line.

????Editor's note: A previous version of this story erroneously stated that Ford Motor Co. received a federal bailout. This has been corrected.

  • 熱讀文章
  • 熱門視頻
活動
掃碼打開財富Plus App