首席執行官獲天價薪酬：迪士尼董事到底是怎么想的？
Erik Sherman
2019-05-28
|
如果問迪士尼的首席執行官羅伯特·艾格2018年工作如何，他很可能回答說挺棒。從業務層面迪士尼確實很成功，新推出的流媒體服務反響熱烈，股價達到了五年來的高點。另外一件事應該也讓他高興，該公司的委托書公告稱，今年艾格的薪酬總計6560萬美元，也意味著首席執行官對員工薪酬中位數的比例高達1424:1。 很多人對高薪頗為不滿。迪士尼的聯合創始人為羅伊和沃爾特·迪斯尼兄弟，兩人的孫女或侄孫女阿比蓋爾·迪斯尼發表推文稱，薪酬比例簡直“瘋狂”。“為什么不把員工勞動果實多分一些給普通員工，而是由高層占去一大塊呢？” 阿比蓋爾·迪斯尼寫道。2018年股東顧問對高管薪酬的投票時，超過52%的人表示反對。（今年39.9%的人投了反對票，此前該公司將艾格未來的薪酬削減了數千萬美元。） 雖然艾格每年想賺到幾千萬美元的收入肯定要付出巨大努力，但他的薪酬所引發的問題還是讓人們不由得想問，首席執行官到底應該賺多少錢，為何公司董事會同意如此巨額的薪酬方案。 薪酬哲學 身為ValueEdge Advisors副主席和公司治理專家的內爾·米諾直接持有迪士尼的部分股份，盡管她對艾格的領導稱贊有加，但她在2018年和2019年均投票反對薪酬計劃。 “金額太高了，而且結構也不好。”她說。“我認為薪酬與公司其他資產支出一樣，應該看投資回報。我一直對為了挽留而支付高薪持有懷疑態度，這應該也是給股票期權的原因。”如果過于重視挽留，就把高薪變成“理所應當”，而不是根據首席執行官的未來業績預估薪酬。 倫敦商學院的金融學教授亞歷克斯·埃德曼斯認為，從長遠來看，艾格的薪酬是公平的，因為他為公司帶來了長期價值。埃德曼斯認為，批評人士可能扭曲了對薪酬的看法，尤其是在過于關注薪酬比例和工資中位數時。“他們（批評者）的心態是分大餅，把公司當成固定大小的餅，只要分給了首席執行官便犧牲了員工的利益。”他認為應該采取“大餅不斷增長的心態”，才能看到附加價值。 “重要的是，如果創造了價值，就一定要確保跟更廣闊的世界分享。”埃德曼斯表示。“我認同全員持股的概念。有人說應該把首席執行官的薪酬降下來。我卻認為應該把普通員工收入升上去。”阿比蓋爾·迪斯尼在推特上稱，公司里的許多低收入員工“全職工作，卻生活在貧困線以下。” 公司發言人提供了一份聲明稱，艾格的薪酬是“90%基于績效”，而且過去十年里公司市值大幅增長，“直接惠及持有股票的數千名名員工。”迪士尼最新公布的年度報告顯示員工人數為20.1萬名。其中多少人持有股票尚不清楚。 猜測董事會的動機 但迪士尼董事會究竟為何會同意如此巨額的薪酬方案，特別是考慮到68歲的艾格明明接近職業生涯的末尾而不是剛剛開始潛力無限？ “說起來比較復雜。” 薪酬顧問公司Farient Advisors的合伙人馬克·霍達克表示。他認為董事會賭了一把，賭的是盡管股東可能因為艾格拿高薪很生氣，但不會氣到在了解艾格的薪酬方案和對普通員工高比例之后就去拋售股票打壓股價。 霍達克認為董事會給艾格開出巨額薪酬可能有三個原因。首先是另選他人擔任首席執行官的成本。“他們考慮的主要問題可能是，讓現任首席執行官繼續任職，與尋找稍遜現任人選任職的價值對比。”如果他們找到的新人業績不如艾格，那么公司損失的價值可能遠高于新舊兩任的工資差額。 董事會的9名成員組合挺不尋常，艾格是唯一一位來自于迪士尼的代表。其他人都是獨立董事，包括4位女性和5位男性。其中有通用汽車董事長兼首席執行官瑪麗·巴拉、甲骨文聯席首席執行官薩弗拉·凱茲、耐克首席執行官馬克·帕克、萬事達卡戰略增長總裁兼副董事長邁克爾·弗勒曼，以及CVS Health執行副總裁兼CVS Caremark總裁德利卡·萊斯。除了2007年加入董事會的艾格，任職時間最長的董事是私募股權公司凱雷集團的運營主管蘇珊·阿諾德。其他成員均于2017年至2019年加入。 第二項考慮可能是首席執行官左右董事會的能力。“當然有可能董事會真心認為，是，他確實值這么多錢。”霍達克說，“但也有可能是由于首席執行官業績輝煌又長期任職，而對董事會施加巨大影響力。”有時強力的首席執行官確實會為自己爭取更高的薪酬，因為做起來并不費力。此外還有薪酬顧問的因素。根據迪士尼最新發布的委托書公告，目前其顧問公司為Frederic W. Cook & Co.。多項研究均發現，聘請薪酬顧問的公司往往給首席執行官的薪酬更高。 第三項潛在因素是董事會沒有制定完備的接任計劃。如果商業舞臺上的演員要謝幕，旁邊卻沒有新人能上場頂住，董事們也許只能被迫提升艾格的薪酬留住他，以免暴露后繼無人的尷尬。 不管怎么解釋，對一家頻頻推出大制作的電影公司來說，首席執行官拿高薪的這種行為可不怎么受觀眾歡迎。（財富中文網） 譯者：馮豐 審校：夏林 |
If you asked Disney CEO Robert Iger how 2018 went at work, he’d probably say great, given the company’s success its businesses, hot reception for the new streaming service, and reached five-year high stock price. Plus, there is the $65.6 million in compensation he received over the year, according to the company’s current proxy statement. The number meant a CEO-to-median employee pay ratio of 1,424 to 1. The compensation part has not sat well with many. Abigail Disney—granddaughter and grandniece of brothers and co-founders Roy and Walt Disney—called the pay ratio “insane” in a tweet. “What on earth would be wrong with shifting some of the profits—the fruits of these employees’ labor— to some folks other than those at the top?” Disney wrote. In the 2018 shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation, more than 52% disapproved. (This year, 39.9% voted against after the company cut tens of millions in Iger’s future pay.) But even if Iger must struggle on with still making tens of millions annually, the question of his compensation raises the question of how much CEOs should make and what could compel a company’s board of directors to agree to such a large pay package. Pay philosophy Nell Minnow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors and corporate governance expert, directly owns some shares of Disney and was one who voted against the pack packages in 2018 and 2019, although she praises Iger’s leadership. “It’s too much [money] and it’s badly structured,” she said. “I think of pay like any other asset expenditure of a company, with return on investment. I’m always very leery of retention-based pay, and I think that’s how these stock grants are justified.” A focus on retention can turn pay into a ‘given’ rather than an amount that is predicated on the CEO further improving company performance. Alex Edmans, professor of finance at the London Business School, thought that in the long view, Iger’s compensation is fair because of the long-term value he’s brought to the company. Edmans thinks that critics may have twisted view of compensation, especially when they focus on pay ratios and median salaries. “They are based on the pie-splitting mentality, that the firm is a fixed pie and anything that goes to the CEO is at the expense of workers,” Edmans said. Instead, he looks at the “pie-growing mentality,” where there is additional value. “The important thing is if you create value, what is critical is to make sure that the value is shared with the wider world,” Edmans said. “I’m a fan of giving shares to all the employees. Some say let’s bring the CEO down. I’d rather bring the workers up.” Abigail Disney claimed on Twitter that many of the lowest-paid employees of the company “worked full time and yet we’re living at or below the poverty line.” A company spokesperson provided a statement that said Iger’s compensation was “90% performance-based” and that the company’s market capitalization has grown significantly over the last ten years, “all of which directly benefits literally thousands of employees who hold our stock.” The latest Disney annual report lists a total of 201,000 employees. It isn’t clear how many own stock. Guessing the board’s motives But how or why would Disney’s board agree to such a package, especially given that the 68-year old Iger is closer to the end of his career than the start? “This is a tricky thing,” said Marc Hodak, a partner at compensation consultancy Farient Advisors. He thinks the board took the gamble that shareholders, though they might be miffed by Iger’s pay, would not be upset enough to sell and push the stock price down over Iger’s compensation or the pay ratio. Hodak sees three possible reasons the board gave Iger such a huge package. The first is the cost of having someone else as CEO. “The primary thing that they’re probably considering is the value of having their CEO in that chair versus the next best person they can get in that chair,” Hodak said. If the next best person they could hire as CEO would be less effective than Iger, the loss in value of the company could dwarf the pay difference. The makeup of the board is unusual in that of the nine members, Iger is the only one from Disney. The remaining are independent, with four women and five men. The directors include Mary Barra, chairman and CEO of General Motors; Safra Katz, a co-CEO of Oracle; Mark Parker, CEO of Nike; Michael Froman, vice chairman and president of strategic growth at Mastercard; and Derica Rice, executive vice president of CVS Health and president of CVS Caremark. Outside of Iger, the longest-serving director, having joined the board in 2007, is Susan Arnold, an operating executive of equity investment firm The Carlyle Group. All the other members were appointed between 2017 to 2019. A second issue might be the power of a CEO over a board. “It’s possible that the board is making an honest judgment of yes, that’s what he’s worth,” Hodak said. “And it’s possible that the board is rolled over by virtue of the power of his success and tenure.” A powerful CEO will sometimes negotiate for more just because he or she can. Additionally, there are the compensation consultants. Disney uses Frederic W. Cook & Co., according to the latest Disney proxy statement. Multiple studies have found that companies using a compensation consultant tend to have higher CEO pay. The third potential dynamic would be that the board doesn’t have a strong succession plan. If there isn’t a next choice ready at the wings of the business stage, the directors might have felt forced to bid up Iger’s pay to keep him in place and mask their lack of preparation. Regardless, for a company that produces blockbusters, this one did not go over well with the audience. |
