Support NeoGAF

[ToxicAdam]

The Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul was supposed to be a victory for those who deplore high executive pay when it is not justified by company performance. The law tries to provide shareholders with more input by requiring that public companies hold “say on pay” votes. These votes are nonbinding, but they allow shareholders to express an opinion on compensation policies.

The latest “say on pay” endeavor has turned into a costly exercise that validates almost every companies’ pay practices. FactSet Sharkrepellent found that through June 30 of this proxy season, shareholders rejected pay plans in only 39 out of 2,502 companies, including well-known companies like Talbots, Hewlett-Packard and Stanley Black & Decker.

According to the research firm Equilar, the median compensation for chief executives at 200 large companies was $10.8 million in 2010. This was a 26 percent increase from the previous year, which was preceded by a rare decline in 2008.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/efforts-to-rein-in-executive-pay-meet-with-little-success/

 

[piddledy]

Although if you asked them what they thought about other companies' compensation policies, or executive compensation in general, you'd get very different answers. (I know there's a name for this psychological concept; it's on the tip of my tongue.)

 

[ronito]

well considering that your votes are usually tied to how many shares you hold it's hardly surprising.

I got a ballot about executive pay from my company and under the CEO saw 150,000 I thought to myself "150k isn't very much for a CEO." Then I realized it wasn't his salary it was how many stocks they wanted to grant him.

 

[bodyboarder]

These votes are nonbinding

Says it all really.