For all those who missed the table compiled by Patterson Associates and published in the paper edition of The Evening Standard on 22 February 2012, here it is:
Value added to the company per £1 in chief executive pay, 2006 - 2010:
Source: Patterson Associates
The table shows the relationship between the notion of "the top City talent" and the skills and abilities to make/lose money for the investors/shareholders. No wonder pension funds, saving rates, endowments' returns are what they are. Any surprise?
Value added to the company per £1 in chief executive pay, 2006 - 2010:
SAB Miller: | £21,950 |
Reckitt Benckiser: | £11,958 |
Diageo: | £9,199 |
Rolls-Royce: | £5,182 |
Tesco: | £1,028 |
BAE Systems: | -£558 |
Legal & General: | -£3,495 |
Barclays Bank: | -£10,787 |
Royal Bank of Scotland: | -£34,275 |
The table shows the relationship between the notion of "the top City talent" and the skills and abilities to make/lose money for the investors/shareholders. No wonder pension funds, saving rates, endowments' returns are what they are. Any surprise?
For all those who follow "the City top talents" views on the current financial crisis and their depth of understanding, like Mr John Varley analytical view on this crisis (for example published on this blog) the figures in this table should look as expected.
It is likely that curbing City pay would give it a competitive advantage because now top pay in the City appears to attract top talent, but of the wrong sort.
The answer seems to be to increase the chief executives pay substantially at RBS. An Extra Zero on the end should do it. Then the loss per pound spent on his pay would be smaller.
ReplyDeleteYes Chris - I had a similar thought - you know it makes sense!!!
ReplyDeleteHi Chris and RetiredDave
ReplyDelete...shhhhhh... wait how long it will take to work that out for the banks' directors. If you use this measure if you are on the red (losses or depreciation of value, etc) the more you earn the less money you lose for a pound earned. But surely "City top talent" cannot really work out that:-)
Best, Greg
This is a problem that (in mathematical terms) only exits in the positive numbers domain. The larger the profits you make for your company the higher the bonus/pay... and that's ok. That table becomes incorrect/irrelevant to the "Value added to the company per £1 in chief executive pay" proposition when the chief executive is making losses. The important word here is "added". Your head will hurt as soon as you start relating losses to this proposition. You can not! Losses simply do not make any sense here.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that "loss" does not exist in bankers' remuneration policies either. Let's wait for a bank director's comment here... but I fear the director's still dealing with his headache (assuming he/she started thinking about it)!
wow..it's fantastic blog. i like this post. it's contains really nice information that enhance my knowledge...
ReplyDeleteHuman Resource Management
Impressive Thanks for the post. Usually, I never comment on blogs but your article is so convincing that I never stop myself to say something about it. You’re doing a great job Man, Keep it up. This Blog is interesting and please check out for more information Trolley Bay Kits in Australia.
ReplyDelete