7 réponses à ce sujet

[KT Chong]

Article:

Lavish CEO Pay Has Virtually Nothing To Do With How Well A Company Performs

The Pay-for-Performance Myth

 

 

[Inquisitor Recon]

And how exactly is this news?

[giveamanafish...]

Not to defend over-paid CEOs, but I wouldn't put a lot of faith in this study.  Mostly because the sampling method is obscure.

 

1) Is this a study of US companies or does it include European and other countries? CEOs pay does vary in different regimes.Or, phew... the variation in pay may be affected by factors that are not accounted for in the study. It may be for instance, that the top left area, (better perfomance, lower pay) may represent other jurisdictions with lower standards of pay. This would shift the regression curve lower to the right and at more of a positive slopel

 

2) Is the study restricted to top earning execs? If so the diagram may only be showing us a cluster at the top of a regression curve and the curve shown may be a distortion. The true curve may be more of a 45 degree angle showing more of a postive relationship between CEO pay and return to shares. (Think of the diagram as just showing the top right corner of the actual distribution).

 

Don't know. Can't tell. Don't bet the farm.

[It's Vexion]

One study from a single, biased source is irrelevant.

[KT Chong]

One study from a single, biased source is irrelevant.

The study was initially published on Bloomberg Business Week, but Think Progress article provides more details.

 

Here is the link to the second source that is very conservatively and pro-business:  The Pay-for-Performance Myth

[xAmilli0n]

While my own personal observations tend to  agree with the conclusion, my personal experience with research has taught me how easy it is to manipulate data to make a point.  I'll have to look into it before making a conclusion, but still, its interesting to see.

[Ridwan]

Isn't the pay difference in Europe up to 30-1 while in the U.S. it's 400-1 for CEO's?

[It's Vexion]

The study was initially published on Bloomberg Business Week, but Think Progress article provides more details.

 

Here is the link to the second source that is very conservatively and pro-business:  The Pay-for-Performance Myth

 

I will reassert my point. The study was conducted by a biased group -- their painfully obvious selection bias being only the top CEOs -- with data manipulated to convey a certain agenda. One study means absolutely nothing. I demand multiple studies, ones conducted professionally and properly, from multiple sources to make a conclusion. Case in point, this "study" is irrelevant.