The Shareholder ForumTM


"Say on Pay" Proposals

Forum Home Page

"Say on Pay" Home Page

Program Reference


For the referenced legislative proposal, see

For other reactions to the legislative proposal, see


Financial Times, June 11, 2009 column


FT Home


Finance & governance


Executive compensation

Published: June 10 2009 22:32 | Last updated: June 11 2009 09:20


Good grief. Is that plain old common sense hovering over Washington DC? Yes, and it is the lesser-spotted populist genus – a rare specimen indeed. The US Treasury’s latest thoughts on reforming executive compensation acknowledge that this issue is broader than banking. Out go caps on pay and prescriptive restrictions. Instead, we have broad principles for public companies on performance-based pay and managing risk, plus the prospect of legislation on compensation committees and a greater say for shareholders.

This is refreshing stuff after the counterproductive hysteria earlier this year. The sting in the tail is the appointment of a “special master” with powers to reject pay plans from companies receiving exceptional assistance from the government. Harsher oversight here was inevitable. That the pay autocrat – sorry, tsar – should examine the top 100 salaried employees at seven companies, however, takes this outside influence deep into companies’ hierarchy, well beyond the executive suite. Bog-standard recipients of federal aid must live with rules – such as limits on bonus size – added to the stimulus bill. But at least they maintain some flexibility to raise salaries while rushing to get out from under Uncle Sam’s thumb.

The administration, then, has plumped for a sensible if pretty incontrovertible approach. Who, for example, would argue against aligning pay with sound risk management? The dim view of egregiously large severance packages and retirement perks is welcome. But remember that independent pay committees and shareholder votes on packages are norms elsewhere, including the UK, and failed to mitigate the crisis. It is fiendishly difficult to structure compensation in advance that accounts, say, for the uncertain time horizon and payback of risk. Creative thinking, then, plus a greater willingness by shareholders to exercise their powers of protest will be needed to prevent this bird emerging as a dead duck.

© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2009.




This Forum program is open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests relating to shareholder advisory voting on executive compensation, referred to by activists as "Say on Pay." As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the Forum's purpose is to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant is expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

The organization of this Forum program was supported by Sibson Consulting to address issues relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices, rather than investor decisions relating to only a single company. The Forum may therefore invite program support of several companies that can provide both expertise and examples of performance leadership relating to the issues being addressed.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.