Pay, perks and CEO prerogatives
It's good to be a US chief executive. Their
pay packages
are the envy of the corporate world, averaging $16 million (€13.9 million) for the S&P 500, more than double those for the UK's FTSE 100. And tucked inside are perks that mere mortals can only dream of.
Thanks to tough US disclosure rules, we know pet supplier Chewy gave boss Sumit Singh a $29.3 million wad last year that included stock, cash, $424,474 for not one but two cars and $1,007,442 of 'security services' including 'meals and incidentals' for his guards.
Meanwhile, CrowdStrike CEO George Kurtz's $35 million package covers $898,426 in personal jet usage and sponsorship of a professional race car that Kurtz drives in competitions. The 2025 proxy cheerily paints this as a cost saving because it avoids 'hiring a professional driver'.
Then there's
Warner Bros Discovery
. David Zaslav has been among America's highest paid CEOs since the company was created in a 2022 merger, and last year was no exception. He took home nearly $52 million and the gravy train included a $17,446 car allowance, $991,179 in personal security, $51,176 to cover the cost of taking personal guests to the Paris Olympics and 250 hours of personal flight time on the corporate jet worth $813,990.
READ MORE
Neither CrowdStrike nor Chewy has held its annual 'say on pay' vote yet, but Warner Bros Discovery has recently learned there are limits to what investors will tolerate. Last week, its advisory pay vote failed, with 59 per cent of shares voting against.
The fury comes after Zaslav's pay climbed 4.4 per cent, even as the company posted an $11.5 billion loss for 2024 and its bond rating was recently cut to junk. Shares are down more than 60 per cent since the merger, and it just announced plans to break itself up.
Both major proxy advisers flagged the pay package as problematic, and many investors agreed. The Warner Bros Discovery board said it took the result 'seriously' but investors in the streaming half of the business, which Zaslav will head, would do well to be wary. The directors have a history of setting bonus targets that require little effort because they fall below what the company has already achieved.
Zaslav's grouchy investors remain very much the exception. So far this year, 95 per cent of the S&P 500 companies that have held 'say on pay' votes have won approval from at least 70 per cent of shares voted. This is a tad more than prior years, according to Conference Board/Esgauge data.
Critics of American capitalism say this shows that shareholders are too quiescent and have allowed companies to become unchecked engines of financial inequality.
But the lopsided votes could also be seen as evidence that the system is doing what investors want. Detailed disclosures and vigilant proxy advisers keep shareholders informed, down to the last dollar and, except in egregious cases, they are happy to pay up.
Now even that limited accountability is under threat.
SEC
chairman Paul Atkins is asking whether the current compensation disclosures are 'cost-effective' and avoid 'an overload of immaterial information'. It appears to be a prelude to cutting back on the detail investors get about how bonuses are calculated and the costs of private jets and other perks.
Another commissioner, Hester Peirce, last week questioned the legality of 'pass through' voting, which gives fund investors the chance to participate in 'say on pay' votes, rather than being shut out of the proxy process.
Congress is seeking to rein in the influence of proxy advisers and make it harder for them to galvanise shareholders against poorly run companies. One of them, Glass Lewis, plans to encourage clients to set their own policies on pay and other proxy votes rather than rely on its recommendations.
Taken together, these moves would make it that much harder for investors both to keep track of who is getting paid what and to rebel when they think a company is overpaying or rewarding failure.
CEOs may find the proposals attractive – few relish becoming the next Marc Benioff, whose board at Salesforce redesigned his pay package and capped his private jet payments after losing a pay vote last year.
But reducing disclosure under the guise of cutting red tape carries risks. Huge payouts and perks are hard to attack if they have been fully disclosed and ratified. Things that smack of secret self-dealing would be more vulnerable.
[
John McManus: Kenny Jacobs' €374,830 salary is a soft target; the problem lies elsewhere
Opens in new window
]
Former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski is a cautionary example. Leaks about lavish parties and corporate art purchases stoked outrage and led to a prison conviction for unauthorised bonuses.
Americans may be openhanded with CEO pay but they react badly if their generosity has been abused. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
17 hours ago
- Irish Times
Trump says he may ‘have to force' US interest rate change in attack on Jay Powell
Donald Trump has called Federal Reserve chairman Jay Powell a 'numbskull' for not cutting interest rates , saying the White House may 'have to force something' if the US central bank does not reduce borrowing costs. The president on Thursday repeated his calls for the Fed to cut borrowing costs by a full percentage point – a measure Trump said would save the US hundreds of billions of dollars a year on its debt. 'We are going to spend $600 billion (€520 billion) a year because of one numbskull that sits there, [saying] 'I don't see enough reason to cut the rates',' Mr Trump told reporters, referring to Mr Powell, who he has nicknamed 'too late'. The president added: 'I may have to force something.' Mr Trump did not specify what he meant by force – and said he would not fire the Fed chairman ahead of the end of his term in May 2026. READ MORE The president's comments came less than a week before the central bank's June meeting, in which policymakers are expected to hold rates steady. The Fed has this year halted a rate-cutting cycle that began in 2024 over concerns that Trump's trade tariffs could fuel a fresh bout of inflation. At 4.25 per cent to 4.5 per cent, the Fed's benchmark target range is more than double the main European Central Bank interest rate, following several moves by euro zone rate-setters this year. Mr Powell has repeatedly said the Fed will set rates based on data, rather than Mr Trump's wishes for lower borrowing costs, including at a meeting late last month that was held at the president's request. Mr Trump's repeated attacks on Mr Powell over his reluctance to cut rates this year have sparked speculation that he could speed up the nomination process for Mr Powell's successor. Remarks last Friday from Mr Trump that he could make a decision on a potential successor 'very soon' have led to speculation among some economists that he could nominate a 'shadow Fed chair' in a bid to massage expectations of future rate cuts once his preferred candidate takes charge of the central bank. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, who is seen as one of the leading candidates to replace Mr Powell, proposed the idea of creating a shadow Fed chief in an interview in October. Stanford academic and former Fed governor Kevin Warsh, National Economic Council head Kevin Hassett and current Fed governor Christopher Waller are also considered potential candidates for the job. The 'shadow' role could, in theory, move expectations of where interest rates will be years from now, which would – if credible – lead to immediate movements in US borrowing costs. However, Fed-watchers are sceptical on whether a shadow Fed chairman could influence expectations of future rate cuts in an environment of heightened economic uncertainty. 'Markets are not going to defer to an individual who is not yet confirmed as a member of the Fed board, much less the chair,' said Doug Rediker, managing partner at International Capital Strategies. 'If you want to make sure you are upending investor confidence in an already tense treasury market, then make sure you have competing voices on what the Fed is going to do.' He added: 'The earlier Trump names someone, the more opportunity he or she has to say or do something that puts a bullseye on their head and for people to find reasons to oppose them.' – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Irish Times
19 hours ago
- Irish Times
Pay, perks and CEO prerogatives
It's good to be a US chief executive. Their pay packages are the envy of the corporate world, averaging $16 million (€13.9 million) for the S&P 500, more than double those for the UK's FTSE 100. And tucked inside are perks that mere mortals can only dream of. Thanks to tough US disclosure rules, we know pet supplier Chewy gave boss Sumit Singh a $29.3 million wad last year that included stock, cash, $424,474 for not one but two cars and $1,007,442 of 'security services' including 'meals and incidentals' for his guards. Meanwhile, CrowdStrike CEO George Kurtz's $35 million package covers $898,426 in personal jet usage and sponsorship of a professional race car that Kurtz drives in competitions. The 2025 proxy cheerily paints this as a cost saving because it avoids 'hiring a professional driver'. Then there's Warner Bros Discovery . David Zaslav has been among America's highest paid CEOs since the company was created in a 2022 merger, and last year was no exception. He took home nearly $52 million and the gravy train included a $17,446 car allowance, $991,179 in personal security, $51,176 to cover the cost of taking personal guests to the Paris Olympics and 250 hours of personal flight time on the corporate jet worth $813,990. READ MORE Neither CrowdStrike nor Chewy has held its annual 'say on pay' vote yet, but Warner Bros Discovery has recently learned there are limits to what investors will tolerate. Last week, its advisory pay vote failed, with 59 per cent of shares voting against. The fury comes after Zaslav's pay climbed 4.4 per cent, even as the company posted an $11.5 billion loss for 2024 and its bond rating was recently cut to junk. Shares are down more than 60 per cent since the merger, and it just announced plans to break itself up. Both major proxy advisers flagged the pay package as problematic, and many investors agreed. The Warner Bros Discovery board said it took the result 'seriously' but investors in the streaming half of the business, which Zaslav will head, would do well to be wary. The directors have a history of setting bonus targets that require little effort because they fall below what the company has already achieved. Zaslav's grouchy investors remain very much the exception. So far this year, 95 per cent of the S&P 500 companies that have held 'say on pay' votes have won approval from at least 70 per cent of shares voted. This is a tad more than prior years, according to Conference Board/Esgauge data. Critics of American capitalism say this shows that shareholders are too quiescent and have allowed companies to become unchecked engines of financial inequality. But the lopsided votes could also be seen as evidence that the system is doing what investors want. Detailed disclosures and vigilant proxy advisers keep shareholders informed, down to the last dollar and, except in egregious cases, they are happy to pay up. Now even that limited accountability is under threat. SEC chairman Paul Atkins is asking whether the current compensation disclosures are 'cost-effective' and avoid 'an overload of immaterial information'. It appears to be a prelude to cutting back on the detail investors get about how bonuses are calculated and the costs of private jets and other perks. Another commissioner, Hester Peirce, last week questioned the legality of 'pass through' voting, which gives fund investors the chance to participate in 'say on pay' votes, rather than being shut out of the proxy process. Congress is seeking to rein in the influence of proxy advisers and make it harder for them to galvanise shareholders against poorly run companies. One of them, Glass Lewis, plans to encourage clients to set their own policies on pay and other proxy votes rather than rely on its recommendations. Taken together, these moves would make it that much harder for investors both to keep track of who is getting paid what and to rebel when they think a company is overpaying or rewarding failure. CEOs may find the proposals attractive – few relish becoming the next Marc Benioff, whose board at Salesforce redesigned his pay package and capped his private jet payments after losing a pay vote last year. But reducing disclosure under the guise of cutting red tape carries risks. Huge payouts and perks are hard to attack if they have been fully disclosed and ratified. Things that smack of secret self-dealing would be more vulnerable. [ John McManus: Kenny Jacobs' €374,830 salary is a soft target; the problem lies elsewhere Opens in new window ] Former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski is a cautionary example. Leaks about lavish parties and corporate art purchases stoked outrage and led to a prison conviction for unauthorised bonuses. Americans may be openhanded with CEO pay but they react badly if their generosity has been abused. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on US/China trade talks: another fragile truce
This week's agreement between the United States and China to suspend some export controls has restored last month's truce in the trade war between the world's two biggest economies. But substantial tariffs remain in place on both sides and the deal, the full details of which have yet to be made public, does not appear to address the fundamental issues in the US-China trade relationship. Washington and Beijing agreed in Geneva last month to wind back most of the tit-for-tat tariffs that had reached 145 per cent for Chinese goods going to the US and 125 per cent on American exports to China. But their framework for negotiations fell apart after the US accused China of backsliding on a promise to issue export licences for rare earth minerals and powerful magnets associated with them. China has a near monopoly on these products, which are used in the production of everything from electric vehicle engines to fighter jets and drones. Unable to source the magnets elsewhere, some car manufacturers in the US had to halt production in factories and the effective export ban threatened manufacturing in other sectors. Washington retaliated by restricting the sale of jet engines and ethane, which China needs for the production of plastic. And secretary of state Marco Rubio threatened to revoke the visas of Chinese students at American universities. READ MORE This week's deal saw Beijing agree to start issuing export licences to US companies for rare earth minerals and magnets immediately and Washington agreed to drop its retaliatory measures. But China insisted on limiting the export licences to six months, so that it can choke off the supply later if the trade talks go badly. The stand-off has highlighted how supply chains can be weaponised in trade disputes, often with a more immediate and painful impact than the imposition of tariffs. The US has for years limited exports of advanced semiconductor technology to China and persuaded its allies in Europe and Japan to follow suit. As the world's leading exporter of steel, ships, machinery, textiles and many other goods, China has more of this kind of leverage at its disposal than any other country. And its chokehold on the rare earth minerals and magnets at the centre of the dispute with the US allows it to use export licences as a negotiating chip with other countries too. This strengthens Beijing's hand as it seeks to persuade other trading partners to resist pressure from the Trump administration to restrict trade with China as part of their own tariff deals with the US. Trump has said that he would decide within two weeks on the level of tariffs each country would face, a promise of more uncertainty, market turbulence and lost opportunities.
