Bosses profit at shareholders' expense
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE BIG pay increases enjoyed by Britain's bosses in the second half of the 1980s bore little relation to company performance, writes John Willcock. Instead, the greatest rewards went to those who went on takeover binges and derecognised unions, according to research published yesterday.
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), an independent body, took two years to survey 169 companies. Top directors' pay rose by 77 per cent in real terms between 1985 and 1990. Average earnings in the same companies rose 17 per cent.
The survey found that:
Top pay is related to the growth in sales by the company, but only weakly to returns for shareholders, the real owners of the business.
Directors' pay grew faster in firms which grew by acquisition rather than by organic growth, and in firms which borrowed heavily and derecognised unions.
From 1985 to 1987, during the corporate boom, directors' pay grew at nearly 15 per cent and shareholder returns by 27.
But between 1988 and 1990 directors' pay went on growing at the same rate while shareholder returns fell to less than 6 per cent.
The institute commented: 'This would imply that either managerial skills were becoming increasingly valued by shareholders or that top executives were increasingly able to influence their own pay levels . . . It seems perverse that top directors are rewarded for organising takeovers, benefit again from any increase in sales associated with such a takeover but are isolated from any costs in terms of shareholders' returns.'
Directors' rolling contracts, page 15
View from City Road, page 17
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments