首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
In 1965, America’s big companies had a hell of a year. The stock market was booming. Sales were rising briskly, profit margins w
In 1965, America’s big companies had a hell of a year. The stock market was booming. Sales were rising briskly, profit margins w
admin
2015-01-10
87
问题
In 1965, America’s big companies had a hell of a year. The stock market was booming. Sales were rising briskly, profit margins were fat, and corporate profits as a percentage of GDP were at an all-time high. Almost half a century later, some things look much the same: big American companies have had a hell of a year, with the stock market soaring, margins strong, and profits hitting a new all-time high. But there’s one very noticeable difference. In 1965, CEOs at big companies earned on average about 20 times as much as their typical employee. These days, CEOs earn about 270 times as much.
That huge gap between the top and the middle is the result of a boom in executive compensation, which rose 876 per cent between 1978 and 2011. In response, we’ve had a host of regulatory reforms designed to curb executive pay. The latest of these is a rule, unveiled by the SEC last month, requiring companies to disclose the ratio of the CEO’s pay to that of the median worker. The idea is that, once the disparity is made public, companies will be less likely to award outsized pay packages.
Faith in disclosure has been crucial to the regulation of executive pay since the 1930s. More recently, rules have made companies detail the size and the structure of compensation packages and have enforced transparency about the kinds of comparisons they rely on to determine salaries. The result is that shareholders today know far more about CEO compensation than ever before. There’s only one problem: even as companies are disclosing more and more, executive pay keeps going up and up.
This isn’ t a coincidence: the drive for transparency has actually helped fuel the spiralling salaries. For one thing, it gives executives a good idea of how much they can get away with asking for. A more crucial reason, though, has to do with the way boards of directors set salaries. As Charles Elson and Craig Ferrere write, boards at most companies use what’ s called " peer benchmarking. " They look at the CEO salaries at peer-group firms, and then peg their CEO’s pay to the 50th, 75th, or 90th percentile of the peer group—never lower. This leads to the so-called Lake Wobegon effect: every CEO gets treated as above average. "Relying on peer-group comparisons, the way boards do, mathematically guarantees that pay is going to go up," Elson told me.
On top of this, peer-group comparisons aren’ t always honest: boards can be too cozy with CEOs and may tweak the comparisons to justify overpaying. A recent study shows that boards tend to include as peers companies that are bigger than they are and that pay CEOs more. The system is skewed by so-called "leapfroggers," the few CEOs in a given year who, whether by innate brilliance or by dumb luck, end up earning astronomical salaries. Those big paydays reset the baseline expectations for everyone else.
This isn’t just an American problem. Nor is it primarily a case of boards being helplessly in thrall to a company’ s executives. Boards are far more independent of management than they used to be, and it’s notable that a CEO hired from outside a company—typically gets 20 to 25 per cent more than an inside candidate. The real issues are subtler, though no less insidious. Some boards remain convinced of what Elson calls "superstar theory": they think that CEOs can work their magic anywhere, and must be overpaid to stay. In addition, Elson said, "if you pay below average, it makes it look as if you’d hired a below-average CEO, and what board wants that?"
Transparent pricing has perverse effects in other fields. In a host of recent cases, public disclosure of the prices that hospitals charge for various procedures has ended up driving prices up rather than down. And the psychological causes in both situations seem similar. We tend to be uneasy about bargaining in situations where the stakes are very high: do you want the guy doing your neurosurgery, or running your company, to be offering discounts? Better, in the event that something goes wrong, to be able to tell yourself that you spent all you could. And overspending is always easier when you’ re spending someone else’ s money. Corporate board members are disbursing shareholder funds; most patients have insurance to foot the bill.
Sunlight is supposed to be the best disinfectant. But there’ s something naive about the new SEC rule, which presumes that full disclosure will embarrass companies enough to restrain executive pay. As Elson told me, "People who can ask to be paid a hundred million dollars are beyond embarrassment. " More important, as long as the system for setting pay is broken, more disclosure makes things worse instead of better. We don’t need more information. We need boards of directors to step up and set pay themselves, instead of outsourcing the job to their peers. The rest of us don’ t get to live in Lake Wobegon. CEOs shouldn’t, either.
Which of the following can be concluded from the last paragraph?
选项
A、With Lake Wobegon effect, CEOs will always receive salaries above average.
B、Neither workers nor company CEOs should live in Lake Wobegon.
C、Boards of directors should take measures to standardize CEOs’ pay.
D、More information about transparent pricing will not lead to embarrassment.
答案
C
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/fxSO777K
本试题收录于:
NAETI高级口译笔试题库外语翻译证书(NAETI)分类
0
NAETI高级口译笔试
外语翻译证书(NAETI)
相关试题推荐
Thetravelersrecommencedtheirjourneyshortlyaftertheterroristattackwasdeclaredover.
Itiswellknownthatteenageboystendtodobetter【C1】________maththangirls,thatmalehighschoolstudentsaremorelikely
Foreveryone’ssake,whichmattersthatEuropeansgaugetheirwelcometoChinawisely.
Thisexplainswhendrivingthroughthecountrysideyoucanseeonesideofafenceisasbareasaboardandtheotherwithfoot
中美两国建交以来,人民之间的交往不断扩大。两国已缔结了33对友好省州和123对姊妹城市。去年,到中国旅游的美国人多达131万人次。中国赴美探亲、求学、经商的有44万人次。中国有超过18万人曾在美国留学,目前在读的留学生有六万余人。而在中国学习的美国留学生
实行改革开放以来,中国进入了发展最快、进步最大、变化最深刻的历史时期。1979年至2003年,中国经济年均增长9.4%,居民消费水平年均提高7%,进出口总额年均增长16%,成为世界上发展最快的国家之一。2003年,拥有13亿人口的中国,人均国内生产总值第一
A、Tolimitlanddevelopmentaroundthepark.B、ToestablishanewparkinMontana.C、Toinfluencenationallegislation.D、Toset
Listentothefollowingpassage.WriteashortEnglishsummaryofaround150-200wordsofwhatyouhaveheard.Youwillhearthe
Listentothefollowingpassage.WriteinEnglishashortsummaryofaround150-200wordsofwhatyouhaveheard.YouWillhear
A、Aschoolteacher.B、AclerktothecurrentChiefJustice.C、Anappealscourtjudge.D、Aextremistzealot.C
随机试题
设D为由直线y=x与圆x2+(y—1)2=1围成,且在直线y=x下方的平面区域,求xdxdy.
许多国有中小企业不断被私营企业并购,将来一定会影响公有制的主体地位。()
慢性肾功能衰竭晚期常出现的危急情况是()。
急性白血病可出现()。
在下列贸易术语中,应该由买方办理出口手续的是()。
全面结算会员期货公司调整非结算会员结算准备金最低余额的,应当在( )结算前向期货交易所和期货保证金安全存管监控机构报告。
股票上市是指经核准同意股票在证券交易所挂牌交易,股份有限公司申请其股票上市必须符合以下哪些条件?( )
简某与赵某一直不合.一日两人相遇,又因言语冲突而发展到相互斗殴,被派出所双双拘留。因简某的表兄在派出所当民警,所以派出所将简某与赵某二人斗殴的责任归到赵某身上,并根据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》,对赵某作出拘留7日的决定,而第二天就将简某释放。赵某对派
王某潜入某工厂仓库盗窃,将仓库货物(价值2万元)扔到院墙外,准备一会儿翻墙出去再捡,偶尔经过此处的刘某发现该货物无人看管,遂将其拿走,据为已有。10分钟后,王某来到院墙外,发现货物已无踪影。对于王某、刘某行为定性,下列哪一选项是正确的?()
【21】【29】
最新回复
(
0
)