schlimm When one compares BNSF with UPS and Deutsche Bahn, it becomes apparent that Rose's compensation is out of line. Company 2008 Revenue CEO's compensation BNSF $15.8 Bil. $15.5 mil. UPS $49.7 Bil. $5.9 mil. DB $42.8 Bil. $3.2 mil. So UPS and DB are 2 1/2 to 3 X as large, yet Rose gets 2 to 5 X as much compensation.
When one compares BNSF with UPS and Deutsche Bahn, it becomes apparent that Rose's compensation is out of line.
Company 2008 Revenue CEO's compensation
BNSF $15.8 Bil. $15.5 mil.
UPS $49.7 Bil. $5.9 mil.
DB $42.8 Bil. $3.2 mil.
So UPS and DB are 2 1/2 to 3 X as large, yet Rose gets 2 to 5 X as much compensation.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingUnless UPS and DB are North American class 1 railroads, I believe you've given us a classic illustration of comparing apples and oranges.
One can compare with other Class I's, of course. What I am giving is a comparison with members of the same industry (comparisons within an industry are commonly used, BTW) to see how revenues and compensation compare with two representatives, one a railroad/logistics company and the other a logistics company.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The Big 4 class 1's + KCS:
Company 2008 Rev. CEO comp.
#154 UP $16.3 Bil. $16.3 mil.
#160 BNSF $15.8 Bil. $15.5 mil.
#261 CSX $10.0 Bil. $11.6 mil.
#276 NS $9.4 Bil. $13.9 mil.
#963 KCS $1.7 Bil. $2.1 mil.
I presume the revenue figures are gross. Possibly a better rate of comparison would be dollars of profit.
clarkfork I presume the revenue figures are gross. Possibly a better rate of comparison would be dollars of profit.
OK, there are some differences:
Company 2008 Profit CEO's compensation
BNSF $1829 mil. $15.5 mil.
CSX $1336 mil. $11.6 mil.
NS $1464 mil. $13.9 mil.
UPS $3003 mil. $5.9 mil.
DB $1913 mil. $3.2 mil.(operates passenger as well as freight services)
Whatever metric is used, it does appear that CEO's of the Big 4 (& KCS) seem over-compensated, whether the comparison is with a related business, UPS, or a larger rail/logistics company outside the US, DB.
Additionally, I wonder how UP (substitute NS, BNSF, etc. employees and mid-management folks feel about those CEO pay packages?
schlimm clarkfork I presume the revenue figures are gross. Possibly a better rate of comparison would be dollars of profit. OK, there are some differences: Company 2008 Profit CEO's compensation BNSF $1829 mil. $15.5 mil. UP $1855 mil. $16.3 mil. CSX $1336 mil. $11.6 mil. NS $1464 mil. $13.9 mil.KCS $154 mil. $2.1 mil. UPS $3003 mil. $5.9 mil. DB $1913 mil. $3.2 mil.(operates passenger as well as freight services) Whatever metric is used, it does appear that CEO's of the Big 4 (& KCS) seem over-compensated, whether the comparison is with a related business, UPS, or a larger rail/logistics company outside the US, DB.
Look at the poor guy at KCS..having to make due with a paltry 2 mil...
Murphy SidingYou seem to be trying to concoct objective objective figures to support a subjective premise. What's to say that you're not proving that the other CEOs are underpaid?
I will ignore your use of the word concoct. Is it so hard to perceive something is off? Apparently you are saying that most everyone else is out of line. Of course, if you regard US rails as the center of the universe or at least, the Standard of the World, then you are probably right.
Exxon Mobil #2; Profits = $45 Bil.!!! CEO compensation = $32.2 mil. Boy, does Rex deserve a big raise!!
Ulrich Look at the poor guy at KCS..having to make due with a paltry 2 mil...
Yes, but his railroad is just as wide - and Fred Frailey even wrote an article about it that appeared in Trains a couple months ago !
More to the point, very roughly it would appear that Class I's CEO pay is about a little under 10 % of the profit figure - but the KCS guy gets closer to 15 % - so he's getting about half again as much of a smaller pie . . . and also has an executive train !
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr The question instead should be, ''How much do we have to pay to get or keep the man or woman who is most likely to provide the company with its best profit on operations or return ?'', and, ''Is he or she worth it when compared to the next-best candidate and that increment of value that the candidate is expected to deliver ?'' As long as that person can reliably deliver at least $1.01 (and preferably more) for every $1.00 spent, the firm ought to maximize taking advantage of that opportunity as much as possible - not trying to minimize it.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
schlimm Murphy SidingYou seem to be trying to concoct objective figures to support a subjective premise. What's to say that you're not proving that the other CEOs are underpaid? I will ignore your use of the word concoct. Is it so hard to perceive something is off? Apparently you are saying that most everyone else is out of line. Of course, if you regard US rails as the center of the universe or at least, the Standard of the World, then you are probably right. Exxon Mobil #2; Profits = $45 Bil.!!! CEO compensation = $32.2 mil. Boy, does Rex deserve a big raise!!
Murphy SidingYou seem to be trying to concoct objective figures to support a subjective premise. What's to say that you're not proving that the other CEOs are underpaid?
Murphy Siding If what you're trying to say is you think the CEOs of railroads are overpaid, I'd have to disagree. They get paid the fair market value of what the people who hired them think they are worth-no?
That is rather circular reasoning. They are paid $ X. That is what the people who hired them paid them, so-called "fair market value." So because they got paid what the board paid them, it must be right. I think Barry and several others have pointed out that CEO compensation in general is a topic in boardrooms. And corporate governance (directors) is only a little farther down the road.
schlimm...it does appear that CEO's of the Big 4 (& KCS) seem over-compensated...
I don't understand this snippet. The only comparative basis that has any objective value is in comparision with the same board, the previous one or two compensable CEO(s), and their respective performances. Comparing GM's CEO compensation package with Ford's is trying to link the two on metrics that my not have the same internallyassigned values. Even within BNSF the values may change from year to year.
It would be better, in my view, to avoid values-laden terms, like over or under, and just use more or less, which are relativistic and invite more objective comparative bases. Once we all agree that one CEO is paid more than another, and not 'overpaid', then we can objectively analyse the compensation criteria, assign comparative values to those, and go from there. Why does one corporate board value one factor more than the others do, for example?
-Crandell
Who has read the proxy statements which outline the compensation packages? I havent read UP, NS, or CSX's recently, but did read BNSF's about a year ago.
At this time, I am not going to check each of the big 4's proxies to determine their compensation packages. However, on my desk is a proxy for a quite large S&P100 company with revenues of $20b and net income of $1.7b. The company is Emerson and their fiscal year ended Sept 30th, so their annual report is ahead of the crowd.
Their proxy devotes over 22 pages to executive compensation, including an overview plus specifics to their executives.
Emerson's compensation components is as follows:
Restricted stock - typically 5-20% of total compensation with vesting period of 10 years
Performance shares - 45-55% of total compensation - based on the performance of the company over a three year term. These performance shares are based upon hitting specific performance goals such as revenue growth exceeding the GNP. The payout is in the form of company stock with cash being awarded to cover tax ramifications of the awards.
Stock options - 5-10% of total compensation. The stock options are typically a 10 year option with 1/3 of the options vesting each year over a three year period. If the stock doesnt rise, oops, no reward. Note the performance of most equities over the past decade.
Annual bonus -10-20% of total compensation. Emerson uses sales, earnings, gross profit margins, free cash flow, return on capital, and return to shareholders as the factors for establishing a bonus. For FY 2009, bonus payments declined substancially for the five named executives.
Base salary - 5-20% of total compensation. Merit salaries awarded each year based on the previous year performance. For each of the five Emerson executives, base salaries either fell or were flat.
What does all this mean? It is still a pretty good job if you can get it (make that IF YOU CAN GET IT). Competition is very tough to make it to that level. You are the leader of a company with perhaps 20,000 or even 100,000 employees.
I am compensated nearly 100% on performance. There are no guaranteed compensation levels for MP173. If and when that becomes unattractive or doesnt reward me for my services, I will look elsewhere. I am NOT an executive, nor am I waving the banner for CEO's in general. But, I do understand pay for performance and the risks involved.
I own companies such as Exxon Mobil in which Rex Tillerson's compensation level absolutely doesnt bother me. Dont get me started however on Pfizer's past CEO (cannot recall his name). It drove me to write the Board.
I dont envy what other people make. Long ago it became obvious that if money was to be my sole motivator, the infrastructure was in place for that. My sins are other than envy.
Lets see what this year's proxies bring as far as compensation. My guess is their overall levels will drop substancially, based on the criteria outlined above for Emerson.
But remember, if you really want to be CEO, it can happen. Just as it can for other desireable careers. Probably not for me at my age and place in life, but nothing is impossible.
Back to work,
Ed
selectorThe only comparative basis that has any objective value is in comparision with the same board, the previous one or two compensable CEO(s), and their respective performances. Comparing GM's CEO compensation package with Ford's is trying to link the two on metrics that my not have the same internallyassigned values. Even within BNSF the values may change from year to year. It would be better, in my view, to avoid values-laden terms, like over or under, and just use more or less, which are relativistic and invite more objective comparative bases.
The only comparative basis that has any objective value is in comparision with the same board, the previous one or two compensable CEO(s), and their respective performances. Comparing GM's CEO compensation package with Ford's is trying to link the two on metrics that my not have the same internallyassigned values. Even within BNSF the values may change from year to year.
It would be better, in my view, to avoid values-laden terms, like over or under, and just use more or less, which are relativistic and invite more objective comparative bases.
If what you say were true in the corporate world, why would magazines like Fortune and Forbes and sources like the Corporate Library bother with comparisons of CEO compensation? You don't think Exxon execs compare their pay with folks at Shell, etc.?
But I do agree it is better to use terms like "more" or "less" and let the chips fall where they will.
schlimm selector The only comparative basis that has any objective value is in comparision with the same board, the previous one or two compensable CEO(s), and their respective performances. Comparing GM's CEO compensation package with Ford's is trying to link the two on metrics that my not have the same internallyassigned values. Even within BNSF the values may change from year to year. It would be better, in my view, to avoid values-laden terms, like over or under, and just use more or less, which are relativistic and invite more objective comparative bases. If what you say were true in the corporate world, why would magazines like Fortune and Forbes and sources like the Corporate Library bother with comparisons of CEO compensation? You don't think Exxon execs compare their pay with folks at Shell, etc.? But I do agree it is better to use terms like "more" or "less" and let the chips fall where they will.
selector The only comparative basis that has any objective value is in comparision with the same board, the previous one or two compensable CEO(s), and their respective performances. Comparing GM's CEO compensation package with Ford's is trying to link the two on metrics that my not have the same internallyassigned values. Even within BNSF the values may change from year to year. It would be better, in my view, to avoid values-laden terms, like over or under, and just use more or less, which are relativistic and invite more objective comparative bases.
I find that the issue of whether there is comparison between competitors regarding their CEO's compensation packages has to be answered with an emphatic yes. The reason being that if you are in that ballpark in terms of revenue and capitalization you have to have some very attractive figures and things to back your hunt up. Getting a CEO nowadays is not as easy as it was a few years ago either----performance numbers are starting to be coming back into use again-------
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
blownout cylinderI find that the issue of whether there is comparison between competitors regarding their CEO's compensation packages has to be answered with an emphatic yes. The reason being that if you are in that ballpark in terms of revenue and capitalization you have to have some very attractive figures and things to back your hunt up. Getting a CEO nowadays is not as easy as it was a few years ago either----performance numbers are starting to be coming back into use again-------
If we are talking about railroads (are we?) then all due respect but this is utter nonsense. Salary has nothing to do with what people are worth, it pertains only to what people are willing to pay. If the salary for a railway CEO job was capped at $400,000 I can assure you that there would be an ample number of qualified bidders for the job.
RWM
Railway ManIf we are talking about railroads (are we?) then all due respect but this is utter nonsense. Salary has nothing to do with what people are worth, it pertains only to what people are willing to pay. If the salary for a railway CEO job was capped at $400,000 I can assure you that there would be an ample number of qualified bidders for the job.
Correct me if I am wrong, but dont most railroads promote from within? This does make the industry a little more organically developed, rather than going outside the industry. Most transportation companies stay within their organization, or at least their industries. You see very few outsiders coming in to run railroads, trucking companies or airlines.
So why do they pay the large salaries? It is a great question for the next annual meeting. There will be a round of them starting in April/May. If you are an owner in the company, go to the meeting, if it is in your schedule and within reasonable travelling. Be prepared, most do not last very long, so dont be late.
Remember these packages are negotiated, no one holds the board at gun point.
Don, while there might be a number of internal candidates at one time (most are in various stages of developement in their careers), the board's job should be to find the absolute best candidate out there for the position. Probably 95% of the time, CEO's job are on cruise control. If he/she has done a good job up to that point, the organization is running itself fairly well. The other 5% of the time (perhaps even less) is crucial.
Go back and read The Men Who Loved Trains. Look at the leaders in book. Examine what NS's CEO David Goode brought to the table during the Conrail merger negotiations. Hunter Harrison, a lightning rod on this forum, has instituted huge change at CN. Krebs and Rose have made very important decisions for the long term at BNSF, while UP seemed to stagnate at times.
Now, are those CEO's worth what they were paid? That is up to the investors in the company.
Interesting note, yesterday's Chicago Tribune had a huge front page article on CEO compensation and I would recommend you find it on line. The article dealt with a $600,000 salary to the CEO of a non profit housing unit in Chicago.
Compensation is that high because there are no salary caps and the ownership is therefore compelled to offer going market rates. Why else would pay be that high?
Furthermore, a good CEO doesn't need railroad experience...look at Paul Tellier..no prior railroad experience...no prior business experience even. Yet most would agree that he did a fine job...as his "Railroader of the Year" accolade would suggest. Thus, compensation has to take into account that people who are qualified for these top jobs can work in other industries as leaders, and the pay must therefore be similiar to what is offered to CEOs in other industries.
Railway ManIf we are talking about railroads (are we?) then all due respect but this is utter nonsense. Salary has nothing to do with what people are worth, it pertains only to what people are willing to pay.
And they'll pay at least that very amount that is in parity with what others in the industry are paying. Why else would one come across ads in papers or such offering competitive wages?
I don't think it is either/or. The idea is that it is frequently bellowed in the media and in board rooms--BTDT--that in order to get the best person for the job one had to pay a competitive wage. Hence my earlier point about salary/compensation inflation.
There was an idea some years ago about something of a salary cap. I wonder-------
Who would enforce the salary cap..the government? The salary cap doesn't jive with capitalism and our free market economy. and you can't effectively cap one salary without capping everyone else..or else you're going to get commission sales people who make more than their bosses three levels up etc..The amount of the compensation is really secondary to the methodology used to determine compensation. A very small base salary together with a performance component is best I think...that way everyone from axle greaser on up to CEO gets paid in accordance with how well they do.
Ulrich A very small base salary together with a performance component is best I think...that way everyone from axle greaser on up to CEO gets paid in accordance with how well they do.
Any cap would have to be done through that board---if it ever became a real issue. In my books.
I think that any kind of salary cap is going to be problematic---look what happened to the major league sports when they tried something like that---it soon became superfluous because everyone was trying to get it lifted.
As for the suggestion here, it could work--if it was actually followed and not, as what happened in some cases, seemingly reversed. There were a few cases wherein CEO's got paid more when the company actually lost money----
I tend though, to think that RR's do much better, overall, than a lot of other sectors in this regard. We don't seem to be having that issue here----
Railway Man [snip] Salary has nothing to do with what people are worth, it pertains only to what people are willing to pay. If the salary for a railway CEO job was capped at $400,000 I can assure you that there would be an ample number of qualified bidders for the job. RWM
This comment echoes what oltmannd / Don said in a few posts above to the effect of ''What if the compensation committee tried to see how little it could pay the incumbent before he would leave ?'', because there are not many other businesses where his skills would be as marketable, among other reasons.
But it seems to me that the weakness to these approaches is that they work only for the current CEO and current crop of senior level candidates for that position who are therefore not terribly mobile to other businesses. To ignore what people are worth - even and especially if that is determined only by what someone else is willing to pay, which may be the best of all and the only measure of 'worth' in a capitalistic system such as ours - is to 'sell the company short'. For the subsequent and future cohorts of potential management personnel, the response is then likely going to be along the lines of, ''If that's all they're going to pay - even for the top job, then I'm going into another line of work, such as high-tech, etc.'' - except for us railfans, of course. For example, I have no doubt that Rob Krebs would have succeeded in any business he went into - he didn't have to stay with railroading. So the willingness to pay should take a longer-term and broader view other than the current Board of Directors' attempts to minimize those salary expenses, or other misguided and counter-productive motives.
My other point is even if there are an ample number of qualified candidates, what we nevertheless want is the absolute best one - however the heck that can be determined. For an enterprise such as BNSF - which had a pre-Berkshire Hathaway acquisition total market capitalization on the order of $24 billion, based on the share price, which is what should matter the most to the Board and the shareholders - even an increment in value of as little as one-tenth of one percent = 0.1% amounts to $24 million. So if the Board's - and/ or Matt Rose's - perception is that he is at least 1/10 of 1 per cent better than the next leading contender for the position, then they are justified in paying up to that much more to assure that BNSF continues to have the benefit of his services - and not a competitor, such as UP.
Otherwise, I may not be correctly understanding the comment above.
P.S. - Another possible subjective and wacky psychological factor is perception and credibility outside the industry, such as with bankers and politicians. Even if a railroad CEO would be happy with $400,000 a year - my concern is whether he will be taken as seriously as we would want, when he has to meet with the Goldman Sachs analysts who make at least that much, or appear before a Senate hearing, etc., when he's next to a guy from another industry - say, coal or oil - who is making $4 million a year instead ? Who do you think will get the most attention, respect, deference, and be judged as the most believeable ? - PDN.
Paul_D_North_Jr For the subsequent and future cohorts of potential management personnel, the response is then likely going to be along the lines of, ''If that's all they're going to pay - even for the top job, then I'm going into another line of work, such as high-tech, etc.'' - except for us railfans, of course. For example, I have no doubt that Rob Krebs would have succeeded in any business he went into - he didn't have to stay with railroading. So the willingness to pay should take a longer-term and broader view other than the current Board of Directors' attempts to minimize those salary expenses, or other misguided and counter-productive motives.
Paul_D_North_Jrwhat we nevertheless want is the absolute best one -
schlimmWhatever metric is used, it does appear that CEO's of the Big 4 (& KCS) seem over-compensated,...
There seems to be some disagreement here over whether or not salaries are dictated by market forces. If they are not, then they are just an arbitrary number. And if that is the case, how can one make any determination as to whether the number is proper?
But regardless of whether a salary number is arbitrary or is decided by market forces, I do not see any basis for someone other than the receiver or payer to conclude that the salary number is too high. There is no point in an outsider being concerned about an executive’s salary unless that outsider wishes to be empowered through a government edict that purports to keep salaries fair. To me, that is the 600-pound-gorilla of the original poster’s question that this thread is dancing around.
If you take away the gorilla, I am not sure what the point is.
oltmanndPaul_D_North_Jr For the subsequent and future cohorts of potential management personnel, the response is then likely going to be along the lines of, ''If that's all they're going to pay - even for the top job, then I'm going into another line of work, such as high-tech, etc.'' - except for us railfans, of course. For example, I have no doubt that Rob Krebs would have succeeded in any business he went into - he didn't have to stay with railroading. So the willingness to pay should take a longer-term and broader view other than the current Board of Directors' attempts to minimize those salary expenses, or other misguided and counter-productive motives. A "carrot" theory. There is some merit in this. Paul_D_North_Jrwhat we nevertheless want is the absolute best one - If you had a time machine and could rerun history with each of the top CEO candidates running the company, you'd certainly get different results, but not necessarily in step with how you'd have ranked them going in. There is an element of luck in all of this.
More than just a little luck I think..lots of great people don't advance because of all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with capability..After all, there are only 10 top railroad CEOs in all of North America if you don't count the small roads. So if you're qualified and there are simply no openings then you're out of luck. Luck is more important than most people think...
Very interesting comments. On a slightly different tack, I was thinking that top-level executive salaries (in all industries, not limited to rails) seem to have shot up a lot starting in the early 80's or even late 70's. I know there was massive price inflation as well. Those of you who are relative old-timers or students of this sort of thing, does that jive with your memories? There are sites that give general trends but I haven't been able to check historical financial statements to get a clearer picture. And then the question remains, what caused this sea change (if there was one) how and why? And the answer isn't simply "the market" but what triggered those market forces?
The big jump in CEO compensation occured in the early 90's after a bill was passed limiting the deductability of executive compensation on anything over $1million, unless it was tied to performance.
At that point in time, there was a massive shift from cash predominent compensation to stock options, which tied compensation to stock appreciation. Those chickens came home to rest later in the decade when accounting scandals hit, all in the name of increasing profits to drive up stock prices.
This will probably always be a work in process. Today there was talk out of Washington to tax the financial industry for their use of TARP $$$ even tho most has been paid off (with interest). No mention was made about taxing the auto makers. Hmmm.
There is a massive love hate push pull between politicians and bankers/financial industry. One, they just LOVE their campaign contributions, then they turn around and strike a populist pose regarding "Wall Street Fat Cats".
My point with all this (bordering on the dreaded "political discussion") is that executive compensation is a lightning rod. One would think that at a marginal tax rate of over 50% in certain locales, those customers would be welcomed by government, but not so.
My feelings are to negotiate the best deal you can for yourself, but make sure you earn the money.
MP173At that point in time, there was a massive shift from cash predominent compensation to stock options, which tied compensation to stock appreciation.
That is certainly the case today. I found this comparison interesting, with the SEC method and another method that looks more at stock options. Both totals are high, but $133 mil.?
Bruce Wasserstein, Chief Executive Officer, Lazard Ltd Financial Services Securities
Total Lump-Sum Present Value of Pension According to SEC: $0
* The AFL-CIO Total is calculated as proposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in its initial 2006 rule making on executive compensation disclosure. On Dec. 22, 2006, the SEC amended the disclosure rules for stock options and other equity awards. Under this change, companies are required only to include the value of equity awards that vest during the fiscal year instead of the full value that are granted to executives. The SEC Total follows the approach used by the Financial Accounting Standards Board in determining the amount of options to be expensed in a company’s financial statements. In order to show the full value of equity awards granted to executives, the AFL-CIO Total includes the Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Options Awards as found in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table of the company’s proxy statement. The AFL-CIO believes this total calculation better represents the full value of compensation awarded to executives as decided by the board of directors during the fiscal year in question. The AFL-CIO Total follows the method the SEC has historically used in disclosing options granted to executives.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.