In this piece, Felix Salmon of Portfolio.com discusses his rather unique perspective on how to curb CEO pay. Though it doesn't seem particularily inspired, it adds to the discussion:
"John Cassidy has got me thinking on executive pay. Cassidy is angry at the sums paid
to CEOs, and he's urging us all to "go ahead and get mad" in an attempt
to curb the worst excesses. It's not the biggest issue facing corporate
America right now, but that's no reason not to address it.
Cassidy zeroes in on CEOs' contracts as a large part of the problem:
they basically make it impossible for CEOs to be fired, which means
that when they're replaced they generally leave with an extremely
generous departure package.
Cassidy uses Stan O'Neal as his Exhibit A: he was allowed to leave
with $130 million in unvested options, because the board couldn't fire
him for cause. I find this example not entirely compelling, because
those options were essentially past pay. The board might have had
reason to want to unpay him some of that money, but clawing back
previously-awarded compensation is a pretty drastic thing to do.
Here's my bright idea: rather than awarding options, boards should
extend enormous low-interest or even interest-free loans to their CEOs,
on the condition that all the money be used to buy the company's stock.
The fiction of options, of course, is that they have no value if
they're awarded with a strike price where the market price for the
stock is - that's how companies find it so easy to award so many of
them. My idea also costs the company very little, but it does give the
CEO much more downside exposure than any options grant does.
If Stan O'Neal had received an interest-free loan to buy Merrill
stock on an annual basis, people wouldn't worry so much about how much
he got paid each year or how difficult his contract made it to fire
him. When he left, he'd have to repay the loan, and the value of that
stock wouldn't come close to covering the amount of money he needed to
do that.
Of course, it wouldn't work out like that. As Cassidy notes, boards
have been well and truly captured by their CEOs, and so they'd probably
end up just forgiving the loan instead. But at least that way, when
they were hauled up before Congress, they couldn't say, as the head of
Merrill's compensation committee did, that they had no choice in the
matter."