I’m no expert on stock options or executive compensation. So
maybe you should stop reading, and I should stop writing. But here I go anyway…Target
Corporation’s latest executive pay plans were revealed yesterday in its proxy
filing with the SEC.
The CEO didn’t get an incentive bonus. Makes sense…Target
hasn’t been hitting its financial performance targets. Some other top
executives received bonuses for strategic initiatives. I have no basis for
doubting that these are valuable strategic initiatives, so this makes sense,
too.
But I became more confused when the Star Tribune reported the
following in today's paper:
Target's
board decided to offer more stock options to executives to help keep pay levels
up since the company's recently lowered growth targets for the coming year
would likely mean financial and performance goals previously used to trigger
bonuses won't be reached in coming years.
So…executives are given incentive pay in order to push their
performance. And when those performance targets are not met, the natural
consequence is to not receive rewards. Hopefully my personnel economics students
can tell you that that’s a fundamental principle of incentives. But what Target’s
board seems to have done is to add more stock options so that executives don’t
miss out on payouts when the performance targets aren’t hit.
My first reaction was that this seems to be a confused
understanding of incentives. It’s not really an incentive if there aren’t
consequences for failure (alternatively, a lack of rewards for a lack of
performance). So is executive compensation really just a game to give
executives lots of pay, and the talk about incentives and performance is just a
nice public relations spin?
I’m not sure. So I looked up Target’s proxy statement online.
In that document, the compensation committee explained that Target has now
committed over $8 billion in store and customer-experience investments. These
are likely to reduce profitability in the short run, thus making long-term
incentive performance targets unlikely to be achieved. So to make up for the
presumed lack of long-term incentive plan payouts, additional price-vested
stock options were granted.
The principle here seems to make more sense than I initially
thought. Those investments are likely important, and it’s important that they
be done well. But why not change the performance targets to reflect new realities?
And more puzzling (to me, the admitted non-expert on executive pay), why the continued
obsession with stock options? Wall St. is notoriously short-term focused. If these store investments are meant to have long-term payoffs, why magnify the linkage
between compensation and stock options? And doesn’t this just further reinforce
the incentive for executives to buy back shares rather than invest in the
business? This latter phenomena is a major issue with our increasingly financialized world.
Admittedly, designing effective incentive systems are harder in practice than in theory (that's why I teach the theory!). But new approaches beyond stock options seem to be needed.
Why the continued obsession with stock options?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure, Professor Budd. I am looking at the ages of management at Target Corporation--it's in the proxy report. Is it hard to teach old dogs new tricks?
If these store investments are meant to have long-term payoffs, why magnify the linkage between compensation and stock options?
Golden handcuffs exist because someone has to do it. Very few have the experience to run Fortune 500 companies.
And doesn’t this just further reinforce the incentive for executives to buy back shares rather than invest in the business? This latter phenomena is a major issue with our increasingly financialized world.
Absolutely!
The first two elements of financialization provide a framework for thinking about this matter.
First, the shareholder-value movement forces executives to keep the game going. I cannot blame them.
Second, increased emphasis on pursuing profits through financial transactions rather than the production and delivery of goods and services incentivizes executives to buy back shares rather than invest in the business.
--
To get to the humanity of the matter I turn to Nicholas Kristof at the New York Times. I recently attended his talk at the University of Minnesota. If you listen to people long enough they will generally tell you what's up. Five minutes to the end of his hour-long lecture he calls it the empathy gap--the divide between Main Street and Wall Street. It's not that the people at the top don't care about everyone else, he surmises; They simply aren't aware of the plight ordinary Americans face.
My advice to young people? Don't be a victim. Do something about it.
Mark Schroepfer
Real Estate Salesperson
Candidate for MA-HRIR degree
University of Minnesota
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete