THE salaries of some top-100 chief executives rose during the global financial crisis as their companies bled.

The salary increases came during one of the worst share market downturns in memory.

Analysis by the Australian Council of Super Investors released yesterday showed the median bonus for chief executives rose 3.5 per cent last year to $1.207 million.

"Boards have to stop treating these executives like demigods," ACSI strategist Phil Spathis told BusinessDaily yesterday.



"They have to stop placating executives who threaten to walk with big retention packages and instead align their pay with their companies' performance.

"When a board argues they fear losing key executives unless they are well remunerated, we ask 'Where are they going to go?' "

Using data collated by ISS Governance Services, formerly RiskMetrics, the research covering the ASX 100 revealed the number of chiefs receiving a bonus greater than $2 million also increased to a quarter of the total last year.

ACSI represents super funds that manage $250 billion and invest 40 per cent of it in Australian stocks.

The highest paid Australian chief, Westfield's Frank Lowy, was paid more than $30 million in 2008 and '09, including bonuses that made up almost half his pay packet.

But ACSI said that in both those years property revaluations saw Westfield report statutory losses and its security price declined from $21 in 2007 to $12.95 and $12.55 in the subsequent two years.

The head of Fortescue Metals Group, Andrew Forrest, remained the lowest paid chief on a total pay of $223,877 plus a $15,400 bonus, even though the miner's return on shareholders equity (ROE) soared 129 per cent last year.

However, Mr Forrest's equity in Fortescue was estimated at $3.7 billion based on the share price at June 30 last year.

His counterparts at Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, on the other hand, were rewarded handsomely despite their companies' ROE falling.

BHP's Marius Kloppers received a base salary of $3.8 million plus bonus and long-term incentives of more than $10 million for a total pay of $14 million.

Meanwhile, ROE at BHP plummeted from 45 per cent to 15 per cent between the end of financial years 2008 and 2009.

A BHP spokeswoman defended Mr Kloppers' pay, saying the company had "responsible remuneration practices designed to attract and retain the people we need to run our business".

She added the mining chief's 2009 bonus was about 4 per cent lower than the previous year.

At Rio, Tom Albanese collected more than $11.5 million in total, including bonus and incentives worth nearly $8 million, while the miner's ROE fell one percentage point to 15.11 per cent.

In 2009, Leighton Holdings' ROE was at its lowest level since 2004 but chief executive Wal King earned 34.2 per cent more that year than the $8.26 million he collected in 2004.

The rich get richer and the poor get the picture :(

yet another case we need a mining tax ... if the company wants to save $$ cut these CEO's pays

Have a cry all you like, but in reality none of you will do anything about it because you dont have any shares and therefor cant front the AGM.

Get over it, its not your money, its the shareholders.

Verge wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 5:20pm:

Have a cry all you like, but in reality none of you will do anything about it because you dont have any shares and therefor cant front the AGM. Get over it, its not your money, its the shareholders.

How about the workers ignore you libbos request for a pay cut ?

Anyway what you say is nonsense. The CEO can choose to ignore the shareholders request for a pay cut and their is nothing they can do about it because the shareholders vote is not binding.

That's how it is in this country. A corporate crooks paradise. The libbos had the option of changing this but they refuse to do anything about it :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 10:22pm:

Verge wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 5:20pm: Have a cry all you like, but in reality none of you will do anything about it because you dont have any shares and therefor cant front the AGM. Get over it, its not your money, its the shareholders. How about the workers ignore you libbos request for a pay cut ? Anyway what you say is nonsense. The CEO can choose to ignore the shareholders request for a pay cut and their is nothing they can do about it because the shareholders vote is not binding. That's how it is in this country. A corporate crooks paradise. The libbos had the option of changing this but they refuse to do anything about it :(

Would you mind explaining to me what the current government did or plans to do about this?  They've done 3/5's of FA about it in the last 3 years.

Swines in the trough.  Time for a real good purge all round.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 10:25pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 10:22pm: Verge wrote on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 5:20pm: Have a cry all you like, but in reality none of you will do anything about it because you dont have any shares and therefor cant front the AGM. Get over it, its not your money, its the shareholders. How about the workers ignore you libbos request for a pay cut ? Anyway what you say is nonsense. The CEO can choose to ignore the shareholders request for a pay cut and their is nothing they can do about it because the shareholders vote is not binding. That's how it is in this country. A corporate crooks paradise. The libbos had the option of changing this but they refuse to do anything about it :( Would you mind explaining to me what the current government did or plans to do about this?  They've done 3/5's of FA about it in the last 3 years. Swines in the trough.  Time for a real good purge all round.

ALP = Alternate Liberal Party ;)

Is this the salary envy thread?

Binary Ninja wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2010 at 3:27pm:

yet another case we need a mining tax ... if the company wants to save $$ cut these CEO's pays

Surely there can`t be anyone on this Earth that this makes sense for? ;D ;D

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 8:06pm:

Is this the salary envy thread?

yeh but when it comes to minimum wage earners $25 per week pay rise is way to much !!

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 24^th, 2010 at 1:01am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:06pm: Is this the salary envy thread? yeh but when it comes to minimum wage earners $25 per week pay rise is way to much !!

The cost of living is escalated by wage rises, which directly or indirectly result from union "action" (inter union member competition) while the unions bludge a living off their members. Time to wake up and smell the bludgers.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 24^th, 2010 at 6:33am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 24th, 2010 at 1:01am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:06pm: Is this the salary envy thread? yeh but when it comes to minimum wage earners $25 per week pay rise is way to much !! The cost of living is escalated by wage rises, which directly or indirectly result from union "action" (inter union member competition) while the unions bludge a living off their members. Time to wake up and smell the bludgers.

And what about the ratio of house prices to incomes which has bubbled to a record ratio of 9 to 1 !! No doubt the bank CEO's are rewarding themselves handsomely for their part in fueling the property bubble by doling out money to idiots who can't afford to pay it back simply because they are not paid enough in the first place and their measly union assisted pay rises are not much help either :(

http://www.moneymorning.com.au/images/mm20100910c.jpg

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 24^th, 2010 at 6:33am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 24th, 2010 at 1:01am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:06pm: Is this the salary envy thread? yeh but when it comes to minimum wage earners $25 per week pay rise is way to much !! The cost of living is escalated by wage rises, which directly or indirectly result from union "action" .

Yet very significant out of control and rediculous increases at the CEO upper and middle management levels have zero impact on the cost of living?

I would think that the cost passed on in the product would be the same irrespective of who gets the increase.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 24^th, 2010 at 6:33am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 24th, 2010 at 1:01am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:06pm: Is this the salary envy thread? yeh but when it comes to minimum wage earners $25 per week pay rise is way to much !! The cost of living is escalated by wage rises, which directly or indirectly result from union "action" (inter union member competition) while the unions bludge a living off their members. Time to wake up and smell the bludgers.

If this is the case then we should all stagnate our wages, live well below our means and obviously, get rid of the unions. But, pretty sure that the majority on here would object to the latter

Anneb wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 10:25am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 24th, 2010 at 6:33am: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 24th, 2010 at 1:01am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:06pm: Is this the salary envy thread? yeh but when it comes to minimum wage earners $25 per week pay rise is way to much !! The cost of living is escalated by wage rises, which directly or indirectly result from union "action" (inter union member competition) while the unions bludge a living off their members. Time to wake up and smell the bludgers. If this is the case then we should all stagnate our wages, live well below our means and obviously, get rid of the unions. But, pretty sure that the majority on here would object to the latter

In the most essential respects, real wages are declining, the cost of housing, the cost of basic domestic essentials and outgoings are rising overall.  While a normal family could once live well on one average wage, nowdays this isn`t possible.

What happens when everyone gets a wage rise?  Prices rise accordingly, and we are back where we started from, hopefully.  Who wins?  - Only the unions, who get a free ride, and overseas competitors, NOT THE WORKER!

OP "THE salaries of some top-100 chief executives rose during the global financial crisis as their companies bled."


Has the penny dropped yet?
Top execs are in highest demadd during hard times.
That`s what`s commonly termed, a "NO BRAINER".

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 12:33pm:

OP "THE salaries of some top-100 chief executives rose during the global financial crisis as their companies bled." Has the penny dropped yet? Top execs are in highest demadd during hard times. That`s what`s commonly termed, a "NO BRAINER".

And its all based on going into more and more debt.

You're right, you don't need many brains to work that out. But to be paid more for it, WTF !!

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 1:16pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 27th, 2010 at 12:33pm: OP "THE salaries of some top-100 chief executives rose during the global financial crisis as their companies bled." Has the penny dropped yet? Top execs are in highest demadd during hard times. That`s what`s commonly termed, a "NO BRAINER". And its all based on going into more and more debt. You're right, you don't need many brains to work that out. But to be paid more for it, WTF !!

We`re not talking about the ALP here.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 2:30pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 29th, 2010 at 1:16pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 27th, 2010 at 12:33pm: OP "THE salaries of some top-100 chief executives rose during the global financial crisis as their companies bled." Has the penny dropped yet? Top execs are in highest demadd during hard times. That`s what`s commonly termed, a "NO BRAINER". And its all based on going into more and more debt. You're right, you don't need many brains to work that out. But to be paid more for it, WTF !! We`re not talking about the ALP here.

Nup we're talking about banks borrowing money on the foreign markets and lending it out to punters so they can purchase over priced property in a property bubble. That doesn't take much skill does it ?

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 27^th, 2010 at 12:24pm:

Anneb wrote on Sep 27th, 2010 at 10:25am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 24th, 2010 at 6:33am: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 24th, 2010 at 1:01am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 8:06pm: Is this the salary envy thread? yeh but when it comes to minimum wage earners $25 per week pay rise is way to much !! The cost of living is escalated by wage rises, which directly or indirectly result from union "action" (inter union member competition) while the unions bludge a living off their members. Time to wake up and smell the bludgers. If this is the case then we should all stagnate our wages, live well below our means and obviously, get rid of the unions. But, pretty sure that the majority on here would object to the latter In the most essential respects, real wages are declining, the cost of housing, the cost of basic domestic essentials and outgoings are rising overall.  While a normal family could once live well on one average wage, nowdays this isn`t possible. What happens when everyone gets a wage rise?  Prices rise accordingly, and we are back where we started from, hopefully.  Who wins?  - Only the unions, who get a free ride, and overseas competitors, NOT THE WORKER!

have to agree in most respects with you on this one. Its the concept of relativity. 20 years ago a house costing $120,000 is now at $600,000, however, 20 years ago a wage would have supported this buy and today the same relative wage would support a $500,000 property investment.
I think its more the concept of the average wage that is declining, i wouldnt say wages in general. These days its more about specialty and education, if you want to earn well, you have to have a backing through education that allows you to even be considered for a job that comes with a neat income.
These days, if you havent gone to uni, or had the experience needed to push you further than an average wage is all you will be able to achieve, and the fact that more people are going to uni, is pushing the average wage down