FT社评：高管巨额薪酬公平吗？

What can a person do that is worth a third of a billion dollars? A retirement announcement from Kenneth Chenault, chief executive of American Express, prompts the question. This month he said he would leave the company next year, after 17 years as chief. His compensation as CEO to date runs to $370m in shares and cash, an average of $22m a year.

一个人做什么事情能价值3亿多美元?美国运通(American Express)首席执行官陈纳德(Ken Chenault)上月发表的退休声明引发了这一问题。陈纳德表示，他在担任17年首席执行官之后将于明年退休。他担任首席执行官获得的股票和现金薪酬至今总计达到3.7亿美元，平均一年2200万美元。

The sum is all the more stunning in that it is not unusual for someone running a big company (American Express’s market capitalisation is over $80bn). The average S&P 500 CEO earned more than $10m in 2016. These vast sums raise questions of fairness. Is it possible that one person in a very large organisation can generate that much value? Can we tell if they do?

更令人震惊的是，这种薪酬对大公司老总来说并不罕见——美国运通的市值超过800亿美元。标普500(S&P 500)公司首席执行官在2016年的平均收入为逾1000万美元。这些庞大的收入数字令人质疑公平性。一家超大型机构中的某一个人有可能创造那么大的价值吗?我们能分辨出他们创造没创造价值吗?

American Express is a private company. What it pays its employees is for its board to decide and its shareholders to approve. Regulating upper limits on pay is a poor fit with a liberal society. But as with any price, it is worth asking whether companies, and the wider society, are getting value.

美国运通是一家私人公司。其员工薪酬方案由董事会决定并由股东批准。规定薪资上限与自由社会不符。但不管薪酬多高，都有必要问问公司以及更广泛的社会是否获得了价值。

The best argument in favour of high pay is that even a small movement in the value of a large company can be very significant. If the head of a $100bn company increases its value by 1 per cent a year, then she is creating $1bn in value. At $10m a year, she is a bargain.

支持高薪的最佳理由是，大公司的价值即便小幅上升那也可能非常可观。如果一家1000亿美元公司的老总每年将其价值提升1%，那她就创造了10亿美元的价值。如果她的薪酬是1000万美元，那请她就很划算。

The argument has two problems. First, it is hard to see where the argument stops. Apple’s value is approaching $1tn. Should Tim Cook, then, be paid $10bn a year? If not, why not? (he took home $9m last year). In a world increasingly dominated by huge companies, the argument from corporate size justifies sums that would make the steeliest capitalist blanch.

这种观点有两个问题。首先，很难看到这种观点的边界在哪里。苹果(Apple)的价值接近1万亿美元。那么就得每年给蒂姆•库克(Tim Cook) 100亿美元?如果不给这么多，又是为什么呢?(他去年的薪资是900万美元。)在一个日益由大公司主导的世界里，这种用企业规模支持的观点将会导致出现让最坚定的资本家都会为之色变的薪酬。

Second, it is very hard to isolate the contribution of CEO skill when setting pay. Links to share performance means CEO pay will depend on market cycles. Benchmarking stock performance against peers helps, but only within limits. American Express shares, for example, have handily outperformed the broader financial sector over Mr Chenault’s tenure. But that is largely down to the fact that it is not a bank (bank shares were hammered in the crisis). American Express shares have badly underperformed those of the credit card networks MasterCard and Visa. But its business model is very different from theirs. Benchmarking will always leave room for judgment.

其次，在设定薪酬的时候很难理清首席执行官技能的贡献。与股票表现挂钩意味着首席执行官薪酬将取决于市场周期。将股票表现与同业比较会有所帮助，但帮助有限。例如，美国运通股票在陈纳德任职期间的表现轻易地超过了金融板块。但这在很大程度上得益于它不是一家银行的事实——银行股在危机期间暴跌。美国运通股票表现远逊于万事达(MasterCard)和Visa等信用卡网络公司。但美国运通的商业模式与它们截然不同。基准比较总是会留下判断的空间。

Using profit metrics instead of share performance, similarly, exposes CEO pay to the whims of input prices, exchange rates and technological advancements.

类似地，使用利润指标而非股票表现会让首席执行官薪酬受到投入价格、汇率和技术进步的影响。

A final problem is that — again because at large companies even huge pay packages are small relative to total company value — shareholders have a limited incentive to push back on pay. Board members, too, have little reason make a fuss about a high-pay culture that has also served them well.

最后一个问题是，股东抵制高薪的动力有限——这同样是因为，在大公司即使是巨额薪酬与公司总体价值相比也相对较小。董事会成员也几乎没有理由对同样让他们受益的高薪文化大惊小怪。

None of this is to argue that CEO skill is not important, or that it is completely invisible. Nor is it to argue that pay is totally arbitrary. The components of sensible pay structure are increasingly well understood: pay the boss largely in stock that must be held for many years. De-emphasise options and short term performance incentives. Do all of this transparently. This should increase fairness and improve corporate performance. But it does not ensure that CEO pay fully corresponds to value creation.

这些并不是说首席执行官技能不重要或者完全不可见，也不是说薪酬是完全随意的。对合理的薪酬结构有越来越大的共识：向首席执行官支付以股票为主的薪酬，他们必须持有多年。不以期权和短期业绩激励为重点。薪酬安排透明公开。这应该会增加公平性和提高企业业绩。但它不会确保首席执行官薪酬完全与价值创造相匹配。

The lesson is that while proper incentives and full transparency are important, an element of judgment and a sense of proportion will always be required on the part of boards. There is such a thing as too much. Rules, guidelines and procedures cannot absolve us from recognising it when we see it.

教训在于，尽管正确的激励和完全透明很重要，但董事会总是必须做出主观判断和有一种比例感。确实存在过高的薪酬。即使有规则、指引和程序，我们在看到过高薪酬的时候还是会直接认定它过高。