James Moore: Not long-term and not much of an incentive
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.Outlook A long-term incentive scheme is the gift that keeps on giving if you're a corporate executive. When bosses – and they do this a lot at banks – say they've given up their bonuses for whatever reason, it's not always completely true.
At some point down the line they know there's a good chance that a complaisant remuneration committee will hand them a crate of free shares through the long-term incentive scheme.
Remuneration reports are often extraordinarily opaque on how much these are worth. The same goes for the performance conditions attached to them, if there are any.
That's how boards like it: they might be highly embarrassed if people realised just how much executives can get their hands on and just how weak their performance criteria are.
If somnolent City institutions don't understand the conditions (or can't be bothered to make the attempt) it also makes them easy to manipulate when performance doesn't measure up, so the executive team still gets paid.
Pirc said it believed that such schemes were neither long term, nor effective as incentives, so in future it would recommend that its subscribers oppose all new ones.
The usual gaggle of financial spin doctors will no doubt huff and puff and claim the Pirc is an "outrider" that isn't taken seriously by people with real clout in the City. The interesting thing is, however, that over the long term Pirc's been on the right side of most of the arguments about governance. Institutions with their clients' interests at heart also have an incentive to listen to what it says because it could result in better run businesses that provide better returns.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments