Additional information
by Luba Mohrman (Author)
Pay for performance has taken on new meaning for many shareholders and boards of directors. When attacks on Wall Street banks ensued after large bonuses were paid post-bailout, quite a few shareholders felt cheated because taxpayer monies were directed toward senior executives' pocketbooks rather than their own. The banks' poor form also led to a resurgence of a true pay-for-performance mentality in corporate boardrooms. Never before have boards purposed to demonstrate credible oversight with respect to pay. In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is placing more emphasis on risk oversight and the actions compensation plans motivate executives to take.
Given the increased attention to pay for performance, it is important for companies to understand that the key to successful compensation plans is not the amount of compensation. Rather, it is intent and design. Simply put: CEO pay should be designed to drive a company's business strategy and create shareholder value.
This study examined the relationship between chief executive officers' (CEOs') compensation components, which consisted of salary, bonus, stock options, other compensation, stock awards, nonequity incentive plans, deferred compensation earnings, and total compensation, and compared them with the organizational performance elements of earnings per share, debt-to-equity ratio, revenue, and pretax return on equity.
