FTSE 100 bosses rake in a record £550m haul
Dilnot and three other senior executives hit the jackpot after a controversial share-based bonus scheme agreed five years ago paid out in full.
Their bonanza stands out in our annual survey of FTSE 100 boardroom pay that showed the total taken home by top bosses exceeded £500million for the first time.
They netted an average of £5.5million each in 2024, up 11 per cent on the previous year – and more than twice the pace of average earnings growth.
The payouts have prompted a surge in protests by shareholders at firms where the awards are deemed excessive.
The biggest revolt came at Melrose where almost two-thirds of them recently rejected the pay deal in the most serious shareholder rebellion seen so far this year (see table below).
Melrose said it took the snub 'very seriously' and would 'consider the feedback received'. 'The board has set a new remuneration policy, fully aligned with FTSE 100 peers', a spokesperson added.
It's not just at Melrose that share owners are kicking up a fuss over ballooning boardroom pay.
The number of significant shareholder protests has more than doubled so far this year compared with a year ago, with 11 FTSE 100 companies seeing revolts of more than 20 per cent, according to research firm Indigo Governance.
Most of the pushbacks were over executive pay.
At Centrica 40 per cent of investors voted against the British Gas owner's pay report (see table).
Chief executive Chris O'Shea, who took home £4.3 million, said last year it was 'impossible to justify' his pay while customers were struggling to pay soaring energy bills.
Companies are obliged to report back to shareholders within six months if more than a fifth of share owners oppose a pay plan under rules to curb so-called 'fat cat' pay introduced when Theresa May was Prime Minister.
The idea was that 'naming and shaming' firms would curb executive excess.
Instead, boardroom pay has continued its inexorable climb. For some this is still not enough as they are looking to increase the maximum payouts that bosses can earn. For example, Tadeu Marroco at tobacco giant BAT could see his pay treble to £18 million if performance targets are hit, while Emma Walmsley at drugs giant GlaxoSmithKline could double hers to £22million.
London-listed companies increasingly compare themselves with their US peers, where rewards are bigger and tolerance of sky-high bonuses higher.
What that argument conveniently overlooks is that many US companies are better run and make more profit than their UK counterparts.
And crucially, many chief executives of US companies combine the role with that of chairman, meaning they have more responsibility – and more pay.
Money transfer firm Wise recently followed in the footsteps of plant hire giant Ashtead, gambling group Flutter and Tarmac-owner CRH in moving their main stock market listing to New York to secure higher valuations. Even drugs giant AstraZeneca and oil titan Shell have flirted with the idea, though the London market received a boost last week when miner Glencore abandoned plans to leave the City.
Bernadette Young, director of Indigo Governance, says the trend of London-listed firms to look enviously across the pond is 'undoubtedly a concern for the economy and British business'. But she adds: 'Excessive levels of executive pay can be hard to justify at a time when lower-paid colleagues within a business may be struggling with the cost of living.'
Melrose completed a dubious hat-trick by also coming top of the pay gap league, which measures the difference between what a boss earns and what their firm pays a typical worker.
Astonishingly, Dilnot was paid 1,112 times more than the £53,000 received by the average Melrose employee (see left).
It means he made more in a few hours than the rest of his workforce is typically paid all year.
On average the High Pay Centre think-tank reckons top chief executives are paid 113 times the median full-time worker's pay of £37,430.
Some of the biggest pay gulfs are in retail, a sector where low wages are common and the cost-of-living squeeze is keenly felt.
Next, M&S and JD Sports were targeted by a coalition of investors managing over £1 trillion in assets at their annual meetings this year.
Led by campaign group ShareAction, the firms were urged to disclose how many of their staff and contract workers were paid below the real living wage of £12.60 an hour.
In each case a significant minority of share owners voted in favour of the fair pay resolution. Ruan Opie-Meres of ShareAction said: 'All three companies have signalled a willingness to improve their transparency and continue to talk.'
Additional research provided by Anne Ashworth and Simon Kupfer
GSK boss Emma Walmsley is still highest paid female
Despite suffering a £2 million pay drop, GlaxoSmithKline's Emma Walmsley is again the highest-paid FTSE 100 female boss.
But the drug giant's chief executive could be in line to double her pay to almost £22 million under a deal to align it more with US peers such as Moderna and Merck.
Walmsley has led GSK since 2017 and the group, which is known for its cancer drugs and vaccines, employs 65,000 staff.
This mother-of-four is also on the board of tech giant Microsoft and was made a Dame in 2020 for her contribution to the pharmaceutical industry.
At number two in the pay stakes is Aviva's Amanda Blanc. She has been at the helm of the insurance giant since 2020, having recently led the takeover of Direct Line.
She also sits on the board of BP and played a key role in the recent appointment of its new chairman.
Blanc's pay has attracted criticism but nothing compares to the row over water bosses' pay.
The two biggest suppliers are run by women – Liv Garfield at Severn Trent, who got £3.3 million, and Louise Beardmore of United Utilities, who got £1.7 million.
In one of its last acts before being scrapped, regulator Ofwat slapped bonus bans on six suppliers, including United, because of their pollution record.
It means Beardmore will not receive a £417,000 bonus that she was awarded, and which is included in our pay figures.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
27 minutes ago
- Times
‘Try before you buy': the new property trend loved by the super-rich
'Madame,' Marcel Proust wrote to his noisy upstairs neighbour in the summer of 1915, 'I had ordered these flowers for you and I am in despair that they are coming on a day when… I feel so ill that I would like to ask you for silence… causing them to lose all their fragrance… and bristle with nasty thorns.' For many of us the ills of close-quartered London living are just as prosaic as they were for the French writer over a century ago, delicately navigating the upstairs harpist's playing and her dentist husband's drill, as he flattered them into a peace that would let him finish In Search of Lost Time, his masterpiece. However, a new trend might hold the answer, for the uber-wealthy at least. Prime and super-prime real estate agents — broadly defined as those selling properties over £5 million and £10 million respectively — are seeing a rise in high and ultra-high-net-worth individuals negotiating the right to 'try before you buy' — renting a luxury home before taking the purchasing plunge. Francesca Fox, the director of lettings at Sotheby's International Realty, says the trend started last year but has accelerated 'like wildfire' in 2025, driven mainly by international clients looking to relocate to London but increasingly concerned by high property purchase costs in the UK, potential changes to the non-dom rules, international wars and the whims of their own governments' attitudes to taxation and business. With such slings and arrows, it makes sense to keep their roots shallow, for now. It's not just Sotheby's that has spotted this trend — Knight Frank agrees it's on the rise. Tom Smith, the head of super-prime lettings, says that in the last fifteen months four properties have sold to their former tenants, with two more looking to buy having tried the approach. That might not sound like much, but this is a very small, niche market. Tom says that about 10 to 15 per cent of his clients are having these conversations now, whereas, 15 months ago, it 'just wasn't happening'. The deals can be structured in a few ways — a simple gentleman's agreement, a right of first refusal where a keen renter can buy if the owner decides to sell, or a purchase right built into a tenancy agreement, often with an agreed price or terms, but sometimes with the final price set once the tenant 'triggers' their option. As can be imagined when you're spending many millions, things are pretty bespoke — despite the growth in popularity, there's lots of flexibility in how these agreements are structured. Fox estimates that 80 to 90 per cent of the homes on her books were originally listed as sale only, but now she is offering them to rent. Tenants tend to test-drive their homes for no more than 24 months before deciding to buy, usually after 6 to 12 months. The majority of homes are rented furnished — if people are uncertain about long-term plans they don't want to invest in blinds, bookends and artworks. Although Fox says several super-prime homes have recently sold with the furniture included too, and those sellers have themselves gone on to rent fully furnished homes while they decide whether to buy a new place or relocate. Flexibility is the name of the game in today's market. • Read more expert advice on property, interiors and home improvement Psychologically this desire to try before we buy makes sense. We put far more effort into assessing risk — and therein avoiding loss — than we do into trying to gain something, says the consumer psychologist Dr Helen Watts. The type of person we are matters too. 'Some people are very high on what's called an external locus of control. And this means that if something goes wrong they find it much easier to say, well, it wasn't really my fault, it's to do with the environment,' she explains. 'But others have a high internal locus of control, where they feel that everything that goes wrong or right is to do with themselves.' It's these people, Watts thinks, who feel the pain of a loss more personally and are thus more likely to give a product — or a £20 million townhouse — a renting whirl first. And what of the properties themselves? Buyers are usually looking for six to eight bedrooms, Fox says. A lot of properties have pools, cinemas and private gardens. The wellness craze is driving an interest in spa facilities too — cold water pool plunges, saunas and, increasingly, hammam spas. The latest must-have is a private driveway because of the high rates of car theft, though some are mitigating that risk by simply hiring chauffeurs. One property on offer from Sotheby's is an eight-bed, nine-bath, 8,825 sq ft home on Sheldon Avenue in Highgate, north London. If a triple-height reception hall with a sweeping staircase and two galleried landings is your thing, it's available to rent on a short let basis for £25,000 a week. There's also a two-storey orangery and a pool. Another property currently looking for a tenant — and hopefully one who will ultimately buy — is 1 Hanover Terrace. With 6,730 sq ft of living space it's a touch larger than the average London home's 850 sq ft. Plus, there are six bedrooms and nine bathrooms, a cinema, gym, sauna, double garage and a separate mews house for staff — or all the friends who'll try to come and stay with you when you're living in Regent's Park. Its owner — the Addison Lee founder, Sir John Griffin — moved in in 2013. 'Living there is very peaceful. The view of the lake is mesmerising.' And has he had any problems with noisy neighbours? 'None whatsoever. If anyone misbehaves, I am sure that Damian Hirst [a neighbour] could place them in a tank.' Approaching his eighties and in search of a quieter life in the countryside, Griffin listed the mansion for sale at £29 million in 2022. It failed to sell and can now be rented for £75,000 a month. To top it off it was designed by John Nash in 1811, who also has Buckingham Palace on his CV. There are some potential downsides to all this flexibility. 'From a psychological point of view it can be very draining,' says Watts, highlighting how easily we now return everything from a cashmere jumper to a floor lamp — many of Ikea's items now have a full 365-day returns policy. 'We are in this perpetual state of questioning 'do I still want to own this?' and that can be quite wearing for consumers.' And what might have become of Proust if he had rented first, ditched his apartment at the first pluck of a harp string and spent more time writing. In Search of Lost Time, Volume Two perhaps?
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Labour can't let this Thames Water torture run on
There'd be no politics without juicy questions. So, how about this one: would it be better for Sir Keir Starmer & co to plunge Thames Water into the special administration regime (Sar) now? Or postpone that treat until just before the next election? Maybe that sounds hypothetical. But it's still the sort of puzzler that should be bubbling up in ministers' minds, despite the rescue deal being advanced by Thames's senior creditors. Yes, the A-class crew with £13 billion of the £16 billion senior debt are trying to put together a takeover that avoids all need for a Sar. And they say they are making progress over a fix for a business drowning in £17.7 billion of net debts and regulatory gearing of 84.4 per cent, rather more than the 'notional' 60 per cent favoured by Ofwat, the hapless regulator being axed after the Cunliffe review. Yet, even if a deal gets done, it'll only work if it's watertight: brimful of the sorts of pledges Daniel Kretinsky was forced into with his bid for Royal Mail. Ministers can't allow a creditor-friendly fudge that melts just as voters go to the polls. And that risk has only gone up since rival bidder KKR threw in the towel in June. It has left the creditors' bid the only game in town: 'a beauty contest judged by the ugliest contestant', as one observer put it. True, any deal outside of a Sar would require approval from 75 per cent of Thames's A-class creditors. Yet, two things would give you more faith in a non-Sar solution. First, if there was tension in the bid process overseen by the Thames chairman Sir Adrian Montague. And, second, if two of the key players driving the creditors' bid weren't Elliott and Silver Point: two hedge funds that bought in late to Thames's distressed debt and want a quick turn. Neither look ideal owners for a business that its present boss Chris Weston says 'will take at least a decade' to fix. Thames was duffed up last month by MPs on the environment committee, with its chairman, Alistair Carmichael, pointing to a lack of 'transparency' over the bid process and telling Montague: 'It is certainly not clear to me just in whose interests you are all working.' Montague defended himself, saying that KKR's bid was 'by far the strongest'; that it had demanded 'exclusivity', despite Ofwat's reservations over having one bidder; and that, since KKR pulled out, the creditors were 'making reasonable progress with their proposition'. Yet, there's plenty in this process that's odd. Despite granting KKR exclusivity, Thames also agreed to pay for all its due diligence, not typical in bids. Once it had walked out, too, Thames gave that research and a 290-page KKR report to the creditors. What happened next? Well, one of the losing bidders — CKI Infrastructure — is said to have told Montague that with KKR out of the frame it wanted back in for its own offer. It also asked to see KKR's due diligence. Montague's response? To tell CKI to talk to the creditors, with him admitting to MPs that 'we facilitated meetings'. The creditors span 100-plus institutions but a committee of 15 is leading their bid. They include the two hedge funds, plus Apollo, Pimco, Royal Bank of Canada and Assured Guaranty. CKI, which owns UK gas and electricity distribution networks as well as Northumbrian Water, is said to have met the two hedge funds, Apollo and Pimco. Their response to its plan to put in a bid? Well, apparently, to tell CKI to get lost, only in far fruitier language. The creditors deny that they dropped any F-bombs. Or that their key motivation with any bid is keeping the haircut on their debt to the minimum, even if they'd balk at the sort of waterboarding CKI is believed to think necessary of up to 50 per cent. The creditors would also say that CKI refused to share its plan; that it didn't want them co-investing with fresh equity; and that they'd worked jointly on some KKR due diligence anyway. There's a chance, too, that the creditors deliver a viable bid that the government and new regulatory regime approves. But their sighting shot looked a try-on: £3 billion of fresh equity and £2.25 billion of new debt, with a mere £3.2 billion haircut on their loans and all lower-ranking debt zeroed. Plus, being let off £1 billion of fines for past efforts on the pollution front. Whatever Cunliffe's calls for pragmatism to avoid a 'doom loop', there is an obvious riposte to that: why not cut another £1 billion off their debt? The creditors would also say that, with all debt holders given a pro-rata chance to participate in new equity, no hedge fund would hold a stake as big as 10 per cent. And a new board, under chairman Mike McTighe, would ensure orderly sell-downs of equity. The creditors also hope for a deal by the end of next month. The Treasury is keen to avoid a Sar, too, given that it would add to Rachel Reeves's problems. But the regime exists for a reason. Better to take the pain now and impose a buzzcut on the squealing creditors than let them string everyone along, not least Thames's 16 million customers, with a self-serving deal. Cut the debt via a Sar and there are credible long-term owners waiting in the wings, not least CKI. The government does have a choice. It needs to tell the creditors that if there's no workable deal by October, it's pulling the plug. Better a Sar than endless water torture. Orsted becalmed Life had stopped being a breeze for Orsted long before Donald Trump took power. But no question he's made things worse: he's the key reason for a $9.4 billion rights issue that sent its shares down 30 per cent. Halting construction of Equinor's Empire Wind project off New York spooked investors in Orsted's Sunrise Wind scheme, leaving it unable to sell down its stake. Trump has made his dislike of 'big, ugly windmills' clear, claiming: 'They kill the birds, they kill the whales.' There's no evidence for his latter claim. But Sunrise's do seem to be killing off Orsted investors.
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
House of Lords under fire for dropping rule that once caught out cricket legend and historian
Campaigners have criticised a change to the rules around declarations of interest in the House of Lords as a "retrograde step" which will lead to a "significant loss of transparency". Since 2000, peers have had to register a list of "non-financial interests" - which includes declaring unpaid but often important roles like being a director, trustee, or chair of a company, think tank or charity. But that requirement was dropped in April despite staff concerns. Tom Brake, director of Unlock Democracy, and a former Liberal Democrat MP, wants to see the decision reversed. "It's a retrograde step," he said. "I think we've got a significant loss of transparency and accountability and that is bad news for the public. "More than 25 years ago, the Committee on Standards in Public Life identified that there was a need for peers to register non-financial interests because that could influence their decisions. I'm confused as to what's happened in the last 25 years that now means this requirement can be scrapped. "This process seems to be all about making matters simpler for peers, rather than what the code of conduct is supposed to do, which is to boost the public's confidence." Westminster Accounts: Search for your MP Rules were too 'burdensome', say peers The change was part of an overhaul of the code of conduct which aimed to "shorten and clarify" the rules for peers. The House of Lords Conduct Committee argued that updating non-financial interests was "disproportionately burdensome" with "minor and inadvertent errors" causing "large numbers of complaints". As a result, the register of Lords interests shrunk in size from 432 pages to 275. MPs have a different code of conduct, which requires them to declare any formal unpaid positions or other non-financial interests which may be an influence. A source told Sky News there is real concern among some Lords' staff about the implications of the change. Non-financial interest declarations have previously highlighted cases where a peer's involvement in a think tank or lobbying group overlapped with a paid role. 4:23 Cricket legend among peers to breach code There are also examples where a peer's non-financial interest declaration has prompted an investigation - revealing a financial interest which should have been declared instead. In 2023, Lord Skidelsky was found to have breached the code after registering his role as chair of a charity's trustees as a non-financial interest. The Commissioner for Standards investigated after questions were raised about the charity, the Centre for Global Studies. He concluded that the charity - which was funded by two Russian businessmen - only existed to support Lord Skidelsky's work, and had paid his staff's salaries for over 12 years. In 2021, Lord Botham - the England cricket legend - was found to have breached the code after registering a non-financial interest as an unpaid company director. The company's accounts subsequently revealed he and his wife had benefitted from a director's loan of nearly £200,000. It was considered a minor breach and he apologised. 'Follow the money' Lord Eric Pickles, the former chair of the anti-corruption watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, believes focusing on financial interests makes the register more transparent. "My view is always to follow the money. Everything else on a register is camouflage," he said. "Restricting the register to financial reward will give peers little wriggle room. I know this is counterintuitive, but the less there is on the register, the more scrutiny there will be on the crucial things." 'I was shocked' The SNP want the House of Lords to be scrapped, and has no peers of its own. Deputy Westminster leader Pete Wishart MP is deeply concerned by the changes. "I was actually quite horrified and quite shocked," he said. "This is an institution that's got no democratic accountability, it's a job for life. If anything, members of the House of Lords should be regulated and judged by a higher standard than us in the House of Commons - and what's happened is exactly the opposite." Public confidence in the Lords is already at a low ebb after the PPE controversy surrounding Baroness Michelle Mone, who took a leave of absence in 2022. The government has pledged to reform the House of Lords and is currently trying to push through a bill abolishing the 92 remaining hereditary peers, which will return to the House of Commons in September. But just before recess the bill was amended in the Lords so that they can remain as members until retirement or death. It's a change which is unlikely to be supported by MPs. A spokesperson for the House of Lords said: "Maintaining public confidence in the House of Lords is a key objective of the code of conduct. To ensure that, the code includes rigorous rules requiring the registration and declaration of all relevant financial interests held by members of the House of Lords. "Public confidence relies, above all, on transparency over the financial interests that may influence members' conduct. This change helps ensure the rules regarding registration of interests are understandable, enforceable and focused on the key areas of public concern. "Members may still declare non-financial interests in debate, where they consider them directly relevant, to inform the House and wider public. "The Conduct Committee is appointed to review the code of conduct, and it will continue to keep all issues under review. During its review of the code of conduct, the committee considered written evidence from both Unlock Democracy and Transparency International UK, among others."
