Macquarie chief's pay cut to $24m as ‘millionaires' factory' rakes in $3.7b
As Macquarie reported $3.7 billion in full-year profits on Friday, the investment bank known as the 'millionaires' factory' for its bumper pay packets also revealed how much it had paid its top executives.
The results came days after the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) said it had imposed extra licence conditions on the Sydney-based bank after 'multiple and significant' compliance failures in its futures and its derivatives trading areas.
Macquarie's annual report said the board had taken into account 'risk and regulatory matters' when setting pay, particularly ASIC's licence conditions, and this had been reflected in awarding executives including Wikramanayake and the chief executive of Macquarie Bank Limited (MBL), Stuart Green, a lower profit share.
Wikramanayake's pay for the full year dropped to $24 million, from $25.3 million the previous year, as the profit share awarded to the CEO dropped 5 per cent. Despite the lower profit share for Green, his overall pay edged up from $5.1 million to $5.2 million.
Loading
The chair of Macquarie's board remuneration committee, Jillian Broadbent, said the board had considered both financial factors – including the bank's higher profits, return on equity and dividends – and non-financial factors, when setting pay.
'The board takes MBL's obligations as a licensed entity seriously and acknowledges there are areas where we can further improve compliance,' Broadbent said.
The report said that among the group's most senior executives, total comparable key management personnel awarded profit share had increased 3 per cent to $82.3 million. Wikramanayake last year topped The Australian Financial Review 's list of the country's highest-paid chief executives.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
9 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Helicopter parent? Yep. Hypocrite? For sure. Why more and more of us are tracking our kids
I slipped into the Apple Store furtively, not quite sure what I was doing was right. My child would soon be walking to school on her own, I said. And I wanted to track her. The shop assistant met my query with total approval. As though what I was seeking – to digitally surveille my own kid – was perfectly normal. So I bought the AirTag, which would nestle into her school backpack and assure me that she had arrived at school safely. Electronic stalking of children by their parents is increasingly common. And it's a controversial topic. Is it a valid and respectful way to ensure our children's safety? Or is it an invasion of privacy which is contributing to the anxiety epidemic among kids who have only ever known a world dominated by the smartphone? The phenomenon brings to mind comedian Tina Fey's quip about using Photoshop to digitally alter images: 'it is appalling and a tragic reflection on the moral decay of our society … unless I need it, in which case, everybody be cool'. Whether it's right or wrong, a bias towards surveillance is clearly the prevailing parental sentiment – this week the California-based family tracking app Life360 reported its half-yearly earnings, which showed record revenue growth. The business is worth $9.5 billion, and is expanding into the tracking of ageing relatives and family pets. In Australia, use of Life360 has surged from 1.9 million monthly active users in 2023 to 2.7 million in 2024. 'We're seeing the rise of what we call the anxiety economy – a shift where families are making more values-based decisions and prioritising peace of mind in how they spend,' said the company's newly announced chief executive, Lauren Antonoff. 'I think of us as the antidote for the anxiety. We're not telling people that there's danger around every corner, but we know that people think about this stuff.' The company recently released an advertisement that went viral, which satirised the very parental anxiety it monetises. The ad featured a mother singing a Disney-style song to her teenage daughter called I think of you (dying) in which the mother voices her catastrophic thoughts about the fatal disasters that could befall her child while she's out of sight. They include getting stuck in a mine, being kidnapped by bandits and bleeding out on the street.
The Age
9 minutes ago
- The Age
The problem with taking advice from ‘finfluencers'
For better or worse, now when people go looking for life advice or want to find answers to burning questions, the place we increasingly turn to is social media. And sure, there are a lot of areas in our lives where this can be great. Suggestions on how to use up half a can of chickpeas or learning how to braid your hair is one thing. But when it comes to things like our health and finances, the risks associated with getting advice from unqualified influencers are exponentially higher. That's one of the reasons that I was happy to see that the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions recently took part in a global crackdown on financial influencers, also known as 'finfluencers', along with regulators from the United Kingdom, Italy, Hong Kong, Canada and the United Arab Emirates. Following the crackdown, ASIC commissioner Alan Kirkland explained: 'It's important that consumers separate fun from fact when it comes to influencer content. Popularity doesn't equal credibility.' In other words, a finfluencer might have 100,000 people eager to listen to what they have to say, but that doesn't mean they have the qualifications, expertise or a legal right to be saying it in the first place. In the UK alone, the regulator issued 650 requests for content to be removed from social media, 50 takedown requests to websites being operated by influencers, and seven cease and desist letters. The regulators also invited four influencers in for interviews, and made three arrests. In Australia, though, the fallout was much smaller, with ASIC issuing just 18 warning notices to financial influencers suspected of providing unlicensed financial advice and/or unlawfully spruiking high-risk financial products. Loading As tempting as it might be to think that our markedly smaller numbers are a sign of Australian finfluencers being better, more honest people than those in other nations, that's not quite it. The main reason for our A+ performance is a thing called INFO 269, which are guidelines ASIC issued in 2022 specifically outlining the rules and regulations for social media influencers offering financial advice. In addition to breaking down the legal standards influencers are required to meet before discussing or promoting stocks, financial products or investment funds, the guidelines also make the consequences of breaking any rules crystal clear: up to five years in jail, or fines of over $1 million. These threats aren't idle, either. In 2021, ASIC successfully filed a lawsuit against Tyson Scholz, an Australian finfluencer who dubbed himself the 'ASX Wolf'. At the time, Scholz was offering stock tips via paid online subscriber groups to his Instagram followers, which sat at well over 100,000 people. At the time, though, Scholz did not hold a valid financial services licence, meaning his advice specifically on what stocks to buy was against the law. By 2023, he was facing bankruptcy over a $450,000 court-imposed debt from the regulator. And it's not just finance influencers who are being closely watched and regulated, either. In 2022, the Therapeutic Goods Administration announced restrictions on how influencers post about products such as vitamins, protein powders, supplements, sunscreen, medical devices and medicines. These changes mean influencers must clearly disclose if they are in partnership with a brand, and they also cannot share their personal experience with therapeutic products.
The Age
9 minutes ago
- The Age
Helicopter parent? Yep. Hypocrite? For sure. Why more and more of us are tracking our kids
I slipped into the Apple Store furtively, not quite sure what I was doing was right. My child would soon be walking to school on her own, I said. And I wanted to track her. The shop assistant met my query with total approval. As though what I was seeking – to digitally surveille my own kid – was perfectly normal. So I bought the AirTag, which would nestle into her school backpack and assure me that she had arrived at school safely. Electronic stalking of children by their parents is increasingly common. And it's a controversial topic. Is it a valid and respectful way to ensure our children's safety? Or is it an invasion of privacy which is contributing to the anxiety epidemic among kids who have only ever known a world dominated by the smartphone? The phenomenon brings to mind comedian Tina Fey's quip about using Photoshop to digitally alter images: 'it is appalling and a tragic reflection on the moral decay of our society … unless I need it, in which case, everybody be cool'. Whether it's right or wrong, a bias towards surveillance is clearly the prevailing parental sentiment – this week the California-based family tracking app Life360 reported its half-yearly earnings, which showed record revenue growth. The business is worth $9.5 billion, and is expanding into the tracking of ageing relatives and family pets. In Australia, use of Life360 has surged from 1.9 million monthly active users in 2023 to 2.7 million in 2024. 'We're seeing the rise of what we call the anxiety economy – a shift where families are making more values-based decisions and prioritising peace of mind in how they spend,' said the company's newly announced chief executive, Lauren Antonoff. 'I think of us as the antidote for the anxiety. We're not telling people that there's danger around every corner, but we know that people think about this stuff.' The company recently released an advertisement that went viral, which satirised the very parental anxiety it monetises. The ad featured a mother singing a Disney-style song to her teenage daughter called I think of you (dying) in which the mother voices her catastrophic thoughts about the fatal disasters that could befall her child while she's out of sight. They include getting stuck in a mine, being kidnapped by bandits and bleeding out on the street.
