Recent Comments
- dwoke on Australia or Sweden: which has had the better 2020?
- I am and will always be Not Trampis on The more things change … Stefan Zweig on the difference in mood attending the outbreak the two World Wars
- Nicholas Gruen on The more things change … Stefan Zweig on the difference in mood attending the outbreak the two World Wars
- paul frijters on The more things change … Stefan Zweig on the difference in mood attending the outbreak the two World Wars
- Nicholas Gruen on It’s Crikey time! But now it’s Crikey and Inkl time
- KT2 on On the nature of gods and inequality.
- KT2 on It’s Crikey time! But now it’s Crikey and Inkl time
- ianl on On the nature of gods and inequality.
- paul frijters on On the nature of gods and inequality.
- Nicholas Gruen on On the nature of gods and inequality.
- conrad on On the nature of gods and inequality.
- paul frijters on It’s Crikey time! But now it’s Crikey and Inkl time
- paul frijters on On the nature of gods and inequality.
- Nicholas Gruen on On the nature of gods and inequality.
- Martin English on On the nature of gods and inequality.
-
Authors
Categories
Archives
Author login and feeds
Academic
Alternative media (Australian)
Alternative media (international)
Arts
Business
Centrist
Economics and public policy
Left-leaning
Legal
Online media digests
Psephology/elections
Right-leaning
Sport
Executive pay of Australia’s top 200 companies against total shareholder return
This entry was posted in Economics and public policy. Bookmark the permalink.
This is a fascinating scatterplot. Boards may say they want executive teams to outperform their peers in value-creation, but it’s hard to see in these figures (or others).
Note that the rise in executive pay over the past 30 years is, however, fully reconcilable with Andrew Leigh’s view from 2007 – that pay increases have been a reaction to increases in firm size:
Alan Kohler in the Business Spectator article that brought this to light notes that CLSA also found a relationship between executive pay and corporate size.
Interestingly, Kohler argues that relationship should not exist – “in fact, large company CEOs are surrounded by more support staff, analysts and direct reports so arguably their job is easier”. I have my doubts about this, especially when TSR is being expressed as a relationship between profits and capital rather than in absolute terms. If Business Spectator were making higher a higher TSR than Telstra, I wouldn’t expect Alan Kohler to be making as much as David Thodey.
I’ve been away for a while, and statistics was never my greatest subject.
However, to my naive and innumerate way of thinking, this graph seems to indicate that there is little or no correlation between executive remuneration and shareholder return at all.
Also that there are a significant number of companies that make a profit, but don’t pay executives.
I think that’s the point EP.
It is often claimed that an executive’s pay reflects their value in creating wealth for shareholders. Apparently not so much.
The data do not make sense. Whoever heard of an executive working for almost nothing?
EP – The data on the firms ranking within the top 200 companies (which is why they both go to 200). If they used actual remuneration the higher (exponential) salaries would make the graph a great deal harder to interpret.
So the profitable firms on the far left aren’t paying nothing, they’re just paying the least of the 200 firms in the sample.
Ah, that makes sense.
Interesting approach plotting ranking against ranking, in order to linearize pretty much any input data you might have; however if “Top 200 Companies” means largest 200 companies, then this graph says nothing about the difference between large companies and small companies — as Alan Kohler is trying to imply.
Maybe worth expanding the sample size to actually include some small and medium companies as well.
Yes it does. The ASX200 includes everything from Rio Tinto (market cap circa $110 billion) to the Reject Shop (market cap circa $440 million). That’s plenty of spread in terms of size.
David
An old landscapers trick to get a ‘natural’ looking scatter of flowering bulbs in a lawn ,is to throw potatoes over the back of your shoulder and then plant the bulbs according to the random cluster pattern of the potatoes where they fell.
The graph looks like pretty similar result.
As to size I would guess that very large companies are quasi monopolies/duopolies, and therefore have more fat to feed pet cats with?