Search Helium

Home > Business > Business Issues

Should there be a maximum limit that businesses can pay their CEO?

Results so far:

Yes
52% 477 votes Total: 920 votes
No
48% 443 votes

Yes

by Elizabeth M Young

Created on: January 04, 2010

Excessive executive pay has been on the minds of many working Americans for decades, ever since the multi-million annual contracts, filled with stock bonuses, excessive perks and what amounts to corruption ofthe corporate charters became out of line during the 1980s.  Putting salt in the wound was the incompetence of the overpaid and overcompensated executives in keeping the corporations in good financial and other shape. The trail of business failures and financial disasters that some executives left behind as they moved from corporation to corporation was infuriating to many.

In the latest scandal involving AIG, and long before, concerning executive bonuses, it is clear that these bonuses were contracted for just before the TARP funds were given to them. Looking at the individuals who were hired and who were given those contracts, it was clear that the individuals were essentially extorting these contracts by threatening to work for competing energy firms, as energy investment was a huge part of AIG's money grab in the first decade of the 2000s.  Now, fortunately, the administration's pay overseer is ensuring that these excessive bonuses are neither offered nor contracted for as part of the extortion going on in firms that have still not repaid TARP monies.

But how would it be possible to make such restrictions apply to other private corporations? By implementing tests to see if taxpayer funds, government contracts, or our essential utilities and economic infrastructures are involved. If so, then caps on executive pay so that it is not in excess of 200 times the lowest salary would be in order. There is definitely no way that taxpayer funds, our electric, sewer, garbage, prison, and gas bills, or our schools, military and institutions, and roads, for example, should be subjected to victimization through rising costs that stem from such executive greed, revolving doors, logrolling, cronyism and extortion, especially when the executives are not even that competent!

If the boards of private companies want to change their corporate charters to divert funds to themselves and to their cronies; and to drive the businesses into the ground by diverting essential funds to a useless and greedy CEO pay and compensation circuit, then they will simply be extincted businesses that failed to exercise the capability to stay in business. Someone else will come along to provide the service, with probably better results.

But when our national debt, our government mandated and required utilities and infrastructures, and the collapse of our economy is at stake, then the government has every right to reign in excessive executive compensation and to even take the firms into receivership until the leadership comes to their senses.


Learn more about this author, Elizabeth M Young.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

No

by Dr Raph Azrin

Created on: September 11, 2009   Last Updated: September 14, 2009

The CEO is the key person in a corporation based on the ideals of the American Way. The basis of the financial crisis prior to 2009 substantiate the fact that the industry did not learn it's lessons from the Dot Com bust and the 1997 Economic Crisis. In fact, a corporation by definition is a private company with public liabilities with options to issue stocks and bonds to the public whereas an LLC is between it's shareholders and the board.

A Company's CEO derives his income from many means, by an allowance or fixed gratitude stipulated in his employment contract or with some gratuity at the end of the year based on the company's performance and other stock options. I worked in many fields across the globe and though the systems differ, the method of calculation are the same: Pay is subjected to Performance, Returns and Forecasting. As a CEO of a start up, the CEO is the boss and he may be a shareholder of the company. Normally he also owns the majority share in the company unless he took on investors which he has to answer to.

The Chief Executive Officer (aka the boss) have to answer to the Board of Directors which governs the company and vote on key appointments of the company, CEO, CTO, CFO COO as they are responsible and answerable to the board so that the board can vote on the decisions that can affect the future performance of the company such as Net Present Values of assets, projects and other matters for it actually comes down to their paychecks. By far there should be no limit to what they should pay the company's chief of staff, unless it is in the best interest of the company such as banks and co-operatives as the members are the shareholders and sometimes, the employees.

In retrospect, if the pay is capped, there is no incentive for the CEO to outperform his predecessor or his own previous records as there are no extra bonus for him. Same thing would happen to a commission earner if the maximum pay is USD100,000 a month even though they are bringing back sales worth twice as that,which would mean they will try to balloon the sales to next month to show they are doing their job and eventually the company suffers.

As for a bank, the Islamic Banking system promises a percentage return ratio instead of a fixed interest rate. Just as a co-operative, the saver is the investor, allowing the bank to use his money to invest into many means and then take a cut, normally 60% of the returns and the rest is returned to the investors on a daily basis or such an agreement (aqad). However, if the bank's greedy bosses are capped of their interest, they won't take more risks or be more lazy and at the end of the day, the job is not done with due diligence and the institution will fail. Eventually the investors loose faith and the money flow dries up. Same as in technologies and medical sciences. Will the researcher commit his weekends to find the cure for the problem if he is not given a cut in the sales or patents?

As much as I love to cap the bosses income, there is a Malay Proverb saying that the bigger the pot, the more the rice is being burnt. In other words, the more the income , the more expenses they will incur to further enhance their own skills like networking, education, retraining and such more. Even at the current prices, a university degree will cost anything over $250,000 and a graduate school Masters will cost nearly a million dollars. So the income is deemed 100 times the cost of the education, which is a fair deal.The cost of retraining and research over the next 20 years is about twice of that.

Another thing we need to think about is , will Bill Gates commit to so much development if is is just paid $20million a year as compared to his wealth of $20 Billion now? Don't think so. Same as you, will you work harder if you are given an incentive?

But eventually, the biggest payout goes to the fat bosses at the board, as they earn on dividends and such interests. I am definitely working 18 hours a day and weekends too as I do want to make that big payout as opposed to my just meager paycheck at the end of the month.

Learn more about this author, Dr Raph Azrin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.


CONNECT WITH US

Read
our blog
Helum for writers

Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills

Join our active writing community
Helium Content Source for Publishers

Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all

Get custom content today!

INFORMATION


Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA