1、分析：华尔街高管薪酬为何如此之高银行家的薪酬一直受到满怀妒意的关注。如果你想在引文词典中找到对银行家价值的正面评价，恐怕穷尽一生也找不到。自从全球金融危机在 2008 年爆发以来，这种关注和抱怨就不断加剧。随着大部分经济体正在逐渐走出衰退，这场争论也变得更加激烈：一些人声称，所谓的薪酬通胀预示着华尔街的鲁莽行为再次抬头，而正是这种轻率之举导致房地产市场在 2008 年轰然塌陷，它还说明监管不力大部分人都认为严格监管是一件“好事”。我认为，无论是过去，还是现在，银行家的薪酬一直都很合理。大多数批评者的衡量标准并不正确，或者说他们根本就没有审视衡量标准。比如，英国保诚集团首席执行官谭天忠上周二离职
2、的消息，导致该公司市值缩水了接近 20 亿美元。为什么?因为许多人认为谭天忠在这个位置上做得十分出色，保诚集团的股价缩水恰好证明了他的价值。而谭天忠离职后加入瑞士信贷的消息一经披露，该公司的股价即刻上涨了 7%。谭天忠的薪酬待遇并未公布，不过据说他前任的薪酬为 9100 万美元。相比之下，谭天忠 2013 年在保诚集团的薪酬仅为 1300 万美元。我们可以推断，对于保诚集团而言，由于难以提供足以媲美瑞士信贷有可能开出的薪酬，任何想要挽留他的想法都会变得难以启齿。这里还有另外一个因素。一位备受尊敬的首席执行官的酬劳，总是与股价表现挂钩的。为一家市场估值偏低，或是一家 CEO 认为自己能做出重大贡
3、献的企业工作，也是很有诱惑力的，这一点不容忽视。在谭天忠的案例中，他或许认为自己在保诚集团的使命已经完成。非常令人好奇的是，宣布跳槽前，瑞士信贷是否为他开出了与股价挂钩的薪酬基准。从根本上来说，市场是由信仰和认知所决定的。想想这个简单的等式：“认知-现实=企业价值。”如果市场对公司的估值一下子降低了 20 亿美元，那么高管的“价值”显然是其薪酬的好多倍。在谭天忠的案例中，股价的下跌幅度甚至是他薪酬的 15 倍。对持有股票的股东来说，首席执行官突然变得极具价值。我们很容易发现是什么促成了嫉妒和批评的声音。从外行的角度看，数百万美元的薪酬总是显得过多。而找个令人感动的参照物(人们经常以护士、救火队
4、员或警官的薪水作为比较对象)非常容易。但这种第一印象的“分析”没有考虑到任何有意义的参照环境。为了带领公司进军新市场，首席执行官已经采取了什么措施?分析家如何评价公司的股票?在他们的任职期内，股价表现如何?在他们上任前，股价又表现如何?在我的公司，我们十分关注个人的投资回报率，并在公司资产负债表上单列出高管的影响力，以评价他或她是否适合从事目前的工作。这是一种有用且有益的方式，可以消除情绪因素，用十分务实的方式来评估一个人的价值。银行、基金会和其他金融机构的首席执行官要面对来自具备竞争力的同事、董事会、股东和媒体的强大压力。在一位极其专业的首席执行官的带领下，一家实力强劲的金融部门能够影响广泛
5、的经济活动、带动投资、推动税收收入，进而促进公共部门投资。在这场关于高管酬劳的大辩论中，另一个被忽略的因素是市场就是市场。在过去，高管招聘的范围通常局限在一国之内。而如今，各大公司都在全球各地物色人才。就像主要金融市场一样，寻找和安置人才也在承受着巨大的竞争压力。一切事物、一切人都是有价的在这样一个“没有钱是万万不能的”世界上，任何试图抑制高管财富的做法都是行不通的。如果我们给薪酬设置上限，或采取其他方式对高管薪酬加以限制，那就会给我们自己的金融机构带来危险，那些全球领先的金融机构，将会由二流甚至三流的高管来掌舵，这会衍生许多风险，进而为整个经济带来严重后果。在我看来，我们最好还是撤回镜头，从
6、更广的范围看看这些金融高管对他们公司的贡献，而不是孤立地揪住他们的薪酬不放。高管离职导致股价降低的案例还有许多。约翰邦德先生在2006 年 6 月离开了汇丰银行控股公司，自那以后，该公司在亚洲经济繁荣的情况下，股价依旧下跌了 50%，在一次又一次危机中艰难前行。而在华尔街和伦敦以外，也有其他的例子。英国顶级零售商特易购自从德高望重的特里利亚离职后，也遭遇了股价跳水。安吉拉阿伦茨在 2014 年离开了博柏利，导致该公司市值猛跌 8.05 亿美元。哈利特格林在 2014 年离开了航空公司托马斯库克，也致使公司市值缩水了 5.41 亿美元。因此要给招聘人员、监管人员、股东和评论员提个醒：“减少高管薪
7、酬支出，并不意味着你的收益就会多一点。”审校：任文科 Bankers compensation have always been the subject of envious scrutiny. Search the Dictionary of Quotations for something positive on the value of bankers and youll probably search forever.This scrutiny and caterwauling has, if anything, intensified since the global financi
8、al crisis started in 2008. As most economies emerge from recession, the debate is compounded by the assertion that so-called inflated pay packages are symptomatic of a return to the recklessness that caused the 2008 housing market crash in the first place and a lack of regulatory rigor, which most w
9、ould contend would be a good thing.My argument is that bankers are fairly rewarded and always have been. The critics are mostly looking at the wrong metrics or not looking at metrics at all. On Tuesday, for instance, the CEO of Prudential Insurance left the business, wiping nearly $2 billion off the
10、 share price. Why? TidjaneThiam is perceived by many to have done an outstanding job at the helm, and the fall in the value of Prudential is testament to the regard in which he is held. Thiam has left Prudential for Credit Suisse , whose share price soared 7% in the wake of the announcement. Thiams
11、compensation package has not yet been disclosed, but his predecessors package was reportedly $91 million. By comparison, Thiams package at Prudential was $13 million in 2013. We can assume that any thoughts that Prudential had of talking him round were hampered by the difficulty they would face in a
12、ttempting to match (and disclosing) what Credit Suisse must have offered.There is another factor at play here. A highly regarded CEO has his or her remuneration linked to share price performance. The allure of working for a business that the markets are undervaluing or one where the CEO believes a s
13、ignificant contribution can be made cannot be ignored. In Thiams case, he might well have calculated that his work at Prudential had been done. It would be intriguing to learn whether the benchmark for share price-based remuneration was set prior to the announcement.Markets, fundamentally, are all a
14、bout faith and perceptions. Consider this simple equation: Perception minus reality equals enterprise value. If the market discounts the value of the business by $2 billion, clearly the chief executives value is a huge multiple of his pay package. In Thiams case, the share price fall was a 15 time m
15、ultiple of his package. Suddenly, to shareholders that hold his stock, he or she starts to look like outstanding value for money.It is easy to see what fuels the voices of envy and criticism. From a laypersons perspective a multi-million dollar package is always going to look excessive. Finding an e
16、motive comparator (the equivalent number of nurses, firemen or police officers is an established trope) is easy to do. But what this first flush analysis misses is any useful context. What has he or she done to lead the business into new markets? How do analysts rate the stock? How has the share pri
17、ce performed under his or her tenure? How did it perform prior to his or her arrival?In my business, we look closely at an individuals return on investment, separating out the impact of an executive from the corporate balance sheet to assess his or her appropriateness for a role. It is a useful and
18、salutary exercise, stripping away the emotion and assessing an individual in a very pragmatic way.Chief executives of banks, funds and other financial institutions are under intense pressure from their competitive peers, their Boards, their shareholders and the media. A strong financial sector, led
19、by an expert CEO, creates ripples in the wider economy, enabling investment, driving taxation receipts that enable public sector investment and more.The other missing component in the debate about executive remuneration is that markets are markets. It used to be that most recruitment for executive r
20、oles took place within borders. Headhunting now takes place on a global savannah. Finding and placing talent is subject to the same intense competitive pressures that pulsate through the major markets. Everything and everyone has a price and any containment strategy related to executive wealth is an
21、 unhelpful intrusion by God into the world of Mammon. If we allow caps or other restrictive mechanisms to intrude too sharply into the subject of executive pay, we run the risk that our financial institutions, the boiler rooms of many of the worlds leading economies, will be run by second or third-d
22、ivision saints with all the incumbent risk that that creates and with all the wider consequences for the economy as a whole.Better, in my view, to draw back the lens and look at the contribution of financial executives to their businesses more widely than remain fixated on the ambit of their pay in
23、isolation.There are many other examples of post-departure share price decline. Sir John Bonds exited HSBC holdings in June 2006 and since then the share price has declined 50%, despite an Asian boom and has limped from crisis to crisis. Outside Wall Street and London, there are other examples. Tesco
24、, the UKs leading retailer, has seen its share price plummet since the departure of the highly-regarded Terry Leahy. Angela Ahrendts left Burberry in 2014, wiping $805 million off Burberrys value. Harriet Green left Thomas Cook in 2014, the impact of which knocked $541 million off the firms value.A
25、cautionary note to recruiters, regulators, shareholders and commentators: less does not equal more.Martin Armstrong is Chairman of Armstrong International, a financial services executive search firm. He advises corporations on cultural and talent-related issues and is career advisor to many leading
26、CEOs and politicians.相关文章：谷歌为阻止高管离职出大招：不接项目照样可领工资谷歌一位高管称：“相比起人们离开后创建了下一个Facebook(这样的对手)，留下他们需要付出的代价微不足道。”1据 Business Insider 网站报道，谷歌在公司内部采用了一套非正式的“替补席”体系，以留住“宝贵的工程师和产品专家”，即便他们并没有在为某个项目努力工作。文章引用匿名人士的消息，阐述了这套谷歌挽留顶尖优秀人才的策略。这家搜索巨头会向没有参与任何项目的高管支付薪酬，文章写道：“这家互联网公司对宝贵的工程师与产品专家的痴迷，以及避免他们流向对手的竞争本能，意味着有些高管可能数月
27、甚至数年没有接大项目，但工资照领，等待公司的再次召唤。据报道，谷歌公司内部设有一些咨询类职位，可以为包括 CEO拉里佩奇在内的其他同事提供建议，。报道称：“一方面，谷歌要开拓新市场，另一方面，越来越多的网络竞争对手渴望得到有经验的互联网业务专家，而谷歌必须保持竞争优势，替补体系就是谷歌的一项非常有效但极少被提起的战略。”文章引用了谷歌高管的采访。一位高管说：“这种做法可以避免人才流出。帮助我们留住企业积存下来的知识，以防未来任何时候需要用起。而且，相比起人们离开后创建了下一个 Facebook(这样的对手)，留下他们需要付出的代价微不足道。”文章发现，替补体系并非“专为高管而设”。有匿名人士透
28、露，事实上，公司的工程师和其他员工均有机会享受长达八个月的假期，“一边领着薪水，一边考虑未来的发展方向。”(财富中文网)译者：刘进龙/汪皓 Google reportedly uses an informal bench system to keep “prized engineers and product gurus” at the company, even when theyre not actively working on a project, Business Insider revealed Thursday. The article cited anonymous sourc
29、es who shed light on the companys tactics to retain top talent.The search giant pays executives even when theyre not working on a project, the article said:“The internet companys obsession with prized engineers and product gurus, and its competitive instinct to keep them away from rivals, mean certa
30、in executives can essentially rotate out of an active role for months or even years at a time, often getting paid to wait until the organization needs them again.There are also reportedly positions set up to advise others within the company, including CEO Larry Page. Business Insider added:“The benc
31、h system is an effective but little-discussed strategic tactic in Googles playbook as the company looks to expand into new markets and keep an edge over a growing crop of web challengers that are all desperate for seasoned internet business experts.The article cited interviews with Google executives
32、. One told Business Insider: “It helps keep people off the market. It helps keep the institutional knowledge if you need them back for any reason. And it costs Google so little to retain these people rather than to have them leave and start the next Facebook.”And the bench system isnt even “reserved for high-level executives,” the article found. In fact, it appears that engineers and others may have the opportunity to take as much as eight months off to “figure out his next move, all while getting paid,” an anonymous source told Business Insider.贝利八方，诚通天下文章发布：贝通网
