Comments on: Paying caviar to get monkeys: Our overvalued CEOs http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/01/13/paying-caviar-to-get-monkeys-our-overvalued-ceos/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:54:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Andrew http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/01/13/paying-caviar-to-get-monkeys-our-overvalued-ceos/#comment-830 Andrew Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-830 The business case for paying someone $xx million dollars can't rest on international benchmarks or whether they are doing a difficult job. It can only be justified if that person is actually making the company at least that much better off, and their skills cannot be bought for less. I don't believe that these people would suddenly run off to mining jobs if their pay was halved, and I don't see a lot of reason why a competent manager earning 500K would make the company less profitable than the current crew. The most insulting justification for CEO pay is that their job is 'high risk". Unless they are criminal, and frequently not even then, the worst that can happen to them is to be sacked with the equivalent of two lottery winnings to live on. The worker outsourced on contract at $10 per hour because that is the minimum their labour is worth is the one with a high risk life, and the same business case can be applied to CEOs. The business case for paying someone $xx million dollars can’t rest on international benchmarks or whether they are doing a difficult job. It can only be justified if that person is actually making the company at least that much better off, and their skills cannot be bought for less. I don’t believe that these people would suddenly run off to mining jobs if their pay was halved, and I don’t see a lot of reason why a competent manager earning 500K would make the company less profitable than the current crew. The most insulting justification for CEO pay is that their job is ‘high risk”. Unless they are criminal, and frequently not even then, the worst that can happen to them is to be sacked with the equivalent of two lottery winnings to live on. The worker outsourced on contract at $10 per hour because that is the minimum their labour is worth is the one with a high risk life, and the same business case can be applied to CEOs.

]]> By: Kevin Charles Herbert http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/01/13/paying-caviar-to-get-monkeys-our-overvalued-ceos/#comment-831 Kevin Charles Herbert Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-831 <br /><br />Andrew: your points are well made.<br /><br />Nice work Adam: I'm keeping all of your articles as a reference for my on-going personal war against these greedy, self-serving twats.<br /><br />Talk about an exclusive men's club ( I'm sorry Gail...one woman does not a trend make). Andrew: your points are well made.

Nice work Adam: I’m keeping all of your articles as a reference for my on-going personal war against these greedy, self-serving twats.

Talk about an exclusive men’s club ( I’m sorry Gail…one woman does not a trend make).

]]> By: Bohemian http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/01/13/paying-caviar-to-get-monkeys-our-overvalued-ceos/#comment-832 Bohemian Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-832 OK, I am going to say it. If you look at the top 200 companies on the ASX and their largest shareholders, the names that keep coming up on the register company after company after company are:<br /><br />JP Morgan Nominees<br />Citigroup Nominees<br />HSBC Nominees<br />UBS et al Nominees<br />HKBA Nominees<br /><br />Getting it yet?<br /><br />Now these major shareholders are entitled to appoint representatives to the board of these top Australian companies, although the model works everywhere in the world..<br />These board members are influential in that they dominate the share registry and, if they sell out, could crash the share price of these companie as we experienced recently with the hedge funds pulling up digs and going home..<br /><br />There is a reason that these overseas investors tend to vote for high remuneration packages for CEO's.<br />Before the late 1980's, CEO's of Australian companies were paid far less than persons who owned their own SME's but over the last 20 years that has all changed. CEO's have an enormous amount to lose if they incur the wrath of their boards whereas before then, the quantum was nowhere near as great and board wrath carried somewhat less of a sting.<br /><br />Maybe - just maybe that is why boards keep approving these remunerartion packages. Got me!<br /><br /><br /> OK, I am going to say it. If you look at the top 200 companies on the ASX and their largest shareholders, the names that keep coming up on the register company after company after company are:

JP Morgan Nominees
Citigroup Nominees
HSBC Nominees
UBS et al Nominees
HKBA Nominees

Getting it yet?

Now these major shareholders are entitled to appoint representatives to the board of these top Australian companies, although the model works everywhere in the world..
These board members are influential in that they dominate the share registry and, if they sell out, could crash the share price of these companie as we experienced recently with the hedge funds pulling up digs and going home..

There is a reason that these overseas investors tend to vote for high remuneration packages for CEO’s.
Before the late 1980’s, CEO’s of Australian companies were paid far less than persons who owned their own SME’s but over the last 20 years that has all changed. CEO’s have an enormous amount to lose if they incur the wrath of their boards whereas before then, the quantum was nowhere near as great and board wrath carried somewhat less of a sting.

Maybe - just maybe that is why boards keep approving these remunerartion packages. Got me!

]]> By: Kevin Charles Herbert http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/01/13/paying-caviar-to-get-monkeys-our-overvalued-ceos/#comment-833 Kevin Charles Herbert Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-833 <br /><br />Andrew: your points are well made.<br /><br />Nice work Adam: I'm keeping all of your articles as a reference for my on-going personal war against these greedy, self-serving twats.<br /><br />Talk about an exclusive men's club ( I'm sorry Gail...one woman does not a trend make). Andrew: your points are well made.

Nice work Adam: I’m keeping all of your articles as a reference for my on-going personal war against these greedy, self-serving twats.

Talk about an exclusive men’s club ( I’m sorry Gail…one woman does not a trend make).

]]>