We use cookies to support features like login and allow trusted media partners to analyse aggregated site usage.
To dismiss this message and allow cookies to be used, please click "Continue".

Continue

Features

Twitter board

Follow us
  • My week on Twitter 🎉: 2 Mentions, 3.3K Mention Reach, 5 Likes, 6 Retweets, 7.76K Retweet Reach. See yours with… https://t.co/IZfviidt4H16 hours ago
  • Friday View: Trustees feel the heat over climate change - bankers' pensions back in black - TPR suspends trustee -… https://t.co/kUKa8QUF9w3 days ago
  • Increased regulatory oversight will be risk-based, TPR keyperson will meet schemes deemed riskier several times a y… https://t.co/wUiKPGESaU5 days ago
  • Lesley Titcomb, TPR chief executive says change is on its way, the regulator will increase oversight between valuat… https://t.co/Wu8Pv6TfqS5 days ago
  • Join us and @AonRetirementUK on the 4th of July at the luxurious Victorian Bath House featuring educational presen… https://t.co/r1abr8Qls06 days ago
  • DWP wants trustees to feel the heat over climate change https://t.co/bs25DvyWGF #ESG #climatechange https://t.co/dZEXB0g8a46 days ago
  • My week on Twitter 🎉: 3 New Followers. See yours with https://t.co/mCw3VcMQGw https://t.co/3kEHNr3xyz7 days ago
  • Friday View: Heathrow's £325 million buy-in - Auto enrolment for the gig economy - Brunel opts for ACS structure -… https://t.co/vsnML1Vzb510 days ago
  • Pimlico Plumbers- Could gig economy workers be auto enrolled? https://t.co/qgrlWxMUW8 #gigeconomy #autoenrolment… https://t.co/wnDH18iPxG10 days ago
  • RT @eVestment: Workers in the #UK are open to increasing their retirement savings and tend to place greater emphasis on workplace #pensions…11 days ago
  • The June issue of portfolio institutional is now out: Featuring our take on #carillion and lessons for trustees as… https://t.co/yC2PNgoaPr12 days ago
  • RT @PensionsSion: Aon's very own John Belgrove shares his views in this piece. Worth reading... https://t.co/VYEJWjAU3z12 days ago
  • My week on Twitter 🎉: 2 Mentions, 3.29K Mention Reach, 2 Retweets, 3.27K Retweet Reach. See yours with… https://t.co/MeoES7Ch3L14 days ago
  • Friday View: South Yorkshire hedges pension risk- Recruitment execs face prison over pension scam - Johnston Press… https://t.co/9fV8Z48WtF17 days ago
  • RT @cfjescott: A recent piece of mine on the @CMAgovUK investigation into investment consultants in @portfolio_inst #investment https://t.c…19 days ago
  • Our ESG Roundtable: Better Long-term outcomes? Available to download now https://t.co/o7T8kWSwWY https://t.co/oHs4VlRK9E21 days ago
  • Active vs Passive : In 2016 investors withdrew around $285bn from active funds and pumped almost $429bn into passiv… https://t.co/tjpxhTxW5Z21 days ago
  • RT @WhtstheDiehlio: .@AitkenRL spoke with @graniteshares CEO Will Rhind about the ongoing active vs. passive debate. Check out their though…21 days ago
  • Green is the new black. A record sum is expected to be raised under the green bond banner this year, but is it doom… https://t.co/JYP8k0ZfZk23 days ago
  • Our Cover Story! Property: Solid Returns - Low gilt yields are forcing schemes to pile into bricks and mortar. Mark… https://t.co/9nyjFp0Z4R23 days ago

Governance/SRI

Is bigger really better?

Is bigger really better?

Mark Dunne
Friday 15th December 2017

The link between executive pay and company performance is widely debated, but, thanks to new research, is the era of unjustifiably high pay packets in the boardroom coming to an end. Mark Dunne takes a look.

“There are pay plans that seem to be working, but that is a minority.”

Ric Marshall, MSCI

A company that sells products for children has found itself at the centre of an adult debate. Toys R Us became the latest high street retail chain to lose the fight against online competition when it collapsed into administration in September. The story has remained in the headlines thanks to the company asking the courts for permission to pay its executives bonuses that could see them share up to $32m between them if Christmas sales targets are achieved. This request has fanned the flames of the debate on executive pay.

For investors looking for sustainable growth, the pay of those sitting around a boardroom table matching the performance of their company is a hot topic. The question many shareholders ponder is does setting high salaries or dangling large bonuses in front of executives produce better performing companies? And if not, does an underperforming company handing over a large proportion of cash to its directors create a less sustainable business?

Toys R Us is a case in point. It sought the protection of the courts after losing $1.8bn over five years. However, while standing on the brink of administration it shelled-out $8.2m to various executives to stop them jumping ship. This was followed by the request to share millions of dollars among 17 executives if sales targets are met.

Many might find it difficult to justify such rewards for people who were at the helm of the company when it crashed into administration. But for Ric Marshall, MSCI’s executive director of ESG research, offering bonuses to the directors of a failing company is not his main concern.

“Part of the problem here is that they are asking for an extraordinary amount in the face of what could only be a short-term solution to a bigger problem,” he says.

“To agree to pay-out a huge amount because they managed to turn it around for one season makes no sense from an investor perspective.”

Marshall believes that these bonuses could only benefit short-term traders looking for a quick bump in the stock. “For most institutional investors that is not how they work anymore,” he says. “They want to invest in a company that is going to last.”

He acknowledges the challenges bricks and mortar-based retailers face, believing that the board needs to find a strategy that will create sustainable value for decades.

“It may need to partner with someone, they may need to go online or they may need to think about what is beyond online,” he adds. “That is where the big bonuses should be in my view.”

AN EFFECT WITHOUT A CAUSE  

Marshall believes his views stand on strong foundations. In October he published a report into the relationship between the remuneration packages of chief executives of US companies and the performance of their businesses. Its conclusion was an eye opener: the size of a CEO’s pay-packet does not reflect long-term shareholder returns.

The study – Out of Whack: US CEO Pay and Long-term Investment Returns – found that CEO pay in 61% of the 423 MSCI USA Index constituents was poorly aligned with the company’s total shareholder return (TSR) between 2006 and 2015.

Amongst the most poorly aligned companies, 23 underpaid their boss for superior stock performance, relative to their sector peers, while 18 overpaid for below-average stock returns. “I’m always sensitive to talk about cause and effect, but clearly they are not well linked [here],” Marshall said.

In around a third – or 163 – of the 423 companies sampled, the pay collected by the CEOs was generally well aligned with TSR performance. “There are pay plans that seem to be working, but that is a minority,” Marshall says.

The report highlighted that there is a stronger alignment between pay and performance in the short-term, but this evaporates when taking a longer-term view over 10 years.

Marshall says that three years is the typical testing and vesting period for most long-term incentive plans (LTIP). “The problem is that from a long-term investor perspective they are holding these positions for longer than three years, so longer-term that connection is lost and you end up with a random effect,” he adds.

Page: 1 2 3
0

Leave your comment

View our comments policy

Please login or register with us to leave a comment. It's completely free!

Friday View

Friday View

How investor action helps cut CO2 emissions