America's 8 Most Overpaid CEOs: 24/7 Wall St.

From 24/7 Wall St: It's that time of year again, when proxies are released and many business publications run lists of the highest paid CEOs at America's large public companies. The compensation figures are extraordinarily high, sometimes ranging into the tens of millions of dollars. At 24/7 Wall St., we wanted to see whether those CEOs are worth what they were paid. We looked at the compensation of CEOs at the 100 public companies that paid their chief executives the most during calendar 2010. Based on how well the companies they run performed for shareholders, several CEOs are clearly not worth their pay.

24/7 Wall St. obtained the list of companies with the 100 highest paid CEOs from GMI, an independent governance ratings firm. The CEOs' total compensation includes base salary, perks, cash bonuses, equity awards and any increase in pensions and other retirement benefits. We then looked at the stock performance of these companies during 2010. We got the stock performance data from Capital IQ. Our list is comprised of those companies whose CEOs were among the highest paid during 2010, yet their stocks performed the worst and had the largest price drops that same year. We excluded chief executives who are no longer with their company, like Mark Hurd of Hewlett-Packard, who might have otherwise made the list.

Once again, this list makes it clear that shareholders who cannot effectively vote to have management removed are saddled not only with those ineffectual executives, but also with their pay packages. The notion of "pay for performance" is still not applied systematically among America’s largest public companies. There is no sign that the SEC or any other regulator is likely to change the method by which CEOs at public companies are compensated, so next year, there will be another 24/7 Wall St. Most Overpaid CEOs.

Here at the eight most overpaid CEOs, according to 24/7 Wall St.:

RATE IT!   |  

VOTE

Way Too Much

About Right

CURRENT TOP 5 PICK YOUR OWN TOP 5

USERS WHO VOTED

NEW! CREATE YOUR OWN SLIDESHOW

Comments

[OWSoros]

11:09 PM on 10/26/2011

A team acquires a $20 million dollar starting player hoping to better the organization. If they limited themselves to a $100,000 a year guy, the other teams would trounce them. A CEO is the captain and starting player, competing against the other team's best people.

They can't put a junior college part time player into the Mavs starting line up just to make things more fair for little guys like us that want to play for the big bucks. And they can't pay the water guy anything close to the top scorer, unless he proves he can become the top scorer.

[Peter Combs]

06:42 PM on 10/23/2011

The list is silly, I usually expect more from 24/7...

On the one hand we complain about a lack of moral compass by corporations while at the same time build a tax system which specifically stimulates ONLY short term gains which push or collapse stock values. When you examine the growth and great success of large privately owned businesses which are not constrained by the whims of impatient stock holders the difference is amazing. Apple has enjoyed massive success for two reasons alone...great design and incredibly cheap labor costs in manufacturing, its a unique situation.

The companies listed here are historically among the best run business in the country...they ahve ups and downs..as we all know, the economy is a mess..thyese companies are all large US based employers....we should be encouraging them.

[kinnycut]

10:13 PM on 10/22/2011

Now you know why Wall Street needs to be occupied.

[Nina Buckler Eckhoff]

10:45 PM on 10/24/2011

Why? So that we have less business than we have now? Know what that would accomplish? Long breadlines like the Great Depression.

[Chimoch]

02:40 PM on 11/02/2011

Less business? Those CEO's are making hundreds of times over the average workers pay, and laying off people. Wages are stagnated here in America, while they increase their salaries, from all the profits. If they took the profits and employed more people with higher worker salaries, more people would have disposable incomes to boost the economy. All it does now is benefit those at the top of the corporate structure.

[glassblower]

01:12 PM on 10/22/2011

Well......that just goes to show you that having a lot of money has no relationship, whatsoever, with having good taste in neckties!

[aceempress]

12:47 PM on 11/05/2011

Having lots of money has nothing to do with "class" either.

[Flight]

12:44 PM on 10/22/2011

The thing is..these buffoons are clueless with regard to most of the jobs that actually makes the companies money. In other words, they'd be hard-pressed to really do something worthwhile.

[Nina Buckler Eckhoff]

10:46 PM on 10/24/2011

Really? You know these people personally? Could you please be specific when sharing the factual examples that you've amassed with your knowledge and data?

[OWSoros]

11:21 PM on 10/26/2011

These guys didn't get to where they are today overnight. They absolutely know what jobs make their companies money. I find it interesting that nobody pays a bit of attention to the years and years of sacrifices, training and 24/7 work it took to get where they are. People only pay attention when it starts to look easy to us outsiders.

I know what a few of them go through everyday after they've "made it to the top" and assuming I magically had the qualifications to do their job, you still couldn't pay me enough to dedicate my life to it the way they have to.

[mtrav]

11:48 AM on 10/22/2011

where is verizon's seidenberg, he pulled down 17.2 million plus who knows what else.

[HoyaHoyaSaxa]

11:07 AM on 10/22/2011

If the $20M/year CEO took a more modest $1M/year salary, that money could pay for 380 new employees at $50,000/year (still 20x less than the CEO). Thus 380 new employees could grow the business and actually produce more. Instead that money goes to pay for her getaway house and staff in the Cayman Islands.

[bump00000]

01:13 PM on 10/22/2011

got to have an escape route.

[Nina Buckler Eckhoff]

10:33 PM on 10/24/2011

You are assuming that the company needs more employees. If they don't - then this would be a waste of money. Employees do not grow a business; customers do - in response to a product or service that is offered by a company. No customers? No company.

[d1957]

09:32 PM on 10/26/2011

No job, no money. No money, no consumerism. No consumerism, no production. No production, no job. It's a vicious circle.

If more people were hired, there would be more consumers and more demand for product which would increase production and more jobs.

[knewsreply]

09:26 AM on 10/22/2011

Did taxpayers subsidize any or all of these companies? Are the employees of each of these companies given a large bonus for their hard work?

[mtrav]

11:49 AM on 10/22/2011

Nope.

[bump00000]

01:14 PM on 10/22/2011

Did these companies get large tax reductions? Did the CEO's pay their fair share of tax on the income they made?

[Nina Buckler Eckhoff]

10:34 PM on 10/24/2011

And what is "fair share?" You know they use accountants, don't you... and accountants have a duty to uphold the legal constraints of the tax code.

[readDanQuinn]

08:43 AM on 10/22/2011

This story reminds me of the business plan I came up with in college. I wanted to run a full page ad in the WSJ letting corporations know that I was available to run them into bankruptcy for a mere $500k per year. That would represent a huge savings over what corporations were paying inept CEOs to perform the same task. I never saved up enough to run the ad :(

[mikedavid1]

08:35 AM on 10/22/2011

Crazy salaries...for these guys, movie stars, atheletes, movie moguls...you name it...these salaries however, are paid by companies...if we don't like it, we just don't buy their products or go to see their games or movies. In the public sector however....when the government shamefully overspends on unnecessary programs or throws half a trillion on the table to support a bankrupt (Solyndra) company...we, the taxpayer pay, like it or not...so keep things in perspective.

[Raccoon1]

09:57 AM on 10/22/2011

"are paid by companies.­..if we don't like it, we just don't buy their products"

........and put the employees out of work while the CEO gets another bonus for 'increasing productivity' (also known as layoffs).

[Antifascist-08]

06:23 AM on 10/24/2011

yep, just let the market work itself out, or, let the market put everyone out of work.

[Nina Buckler Eckhoff]

10:36 PM on 10/24/2011

One does not necessarily increase productivity by laying off staff (have you ever tried to be more productive when doing two jobs instead of just one?); one does, however, increase cash flow.

[rkeeeballs]

07:55 AM on 10/22/2011

How would you feel if your annual pay was equivalent to winning the lottery.....EVERY YEAR !!

[Raccoon1]

09:57 AM on 10/22/2011

Every month, in some cases.

[lipps]

03:20 AM on 10/23/2011

No one here complains about musicians, athletes or actors for some reason... Why is that?

[Nina Buckler Eckhoff]

10:38 PM on 10/24/2011

However, these CEOs did not win the lottery. Most of them are not born to money; they earn it through a long difficult climb up the corporate ladder. They work REALLY hard and they have a tremendous amount of responsibility. There is a big difference.

[munki]

07:38 AM on 10/22/2011

This is what makes absolutely no sense...
What did they do to deserve it?
Shareholders should re-assess...

[Nina Buckler Eckhoff]

10:39 PM on 10/24/2011

Most of you folks appear to know nothing about business.

[abbienormal]

07:34 AM on 10/22/2011

Johnson & Johnson is circling the drain due to quality problems and recalls of various products including children's medication. Their CEO should be fired, not compensated.

[mhsden]

07:32 AM on 10/22/2011

I cant think of any job that warrents that kind of pay : /

[munki]

07:39 AM on 10/22/2011

Absolutely... Unless they contributed to make unprecedented profit for the company...

[Antifascist-08]

06:25 AM on 10/24/2011

Even that is deceiving. They can produce profits by simply cutting back on expenses, i.e. employees, which is what they have been doing. So you see, that is hardly a measure of success.

it isn't about success any more. it is just a cynical game they play, with no one to stop them.

[wwhatever747]

07:16 AM on 10/22/2011

Thee CEOs don't look satisfied, just bored of money but still want more and more.

[munki]

07:39 AM on 10/22/2011

And play golf

[Nina Buckler Eckhoff]

10:48 PM on 10/24/2011

Your assumptions are fantastic. And ridiculous.