Seems this is the wrong way to go. Given the adverse condition facing the company results would have been even worse without such competent leadership. Therefore perhaps an increase would have been in order. The time to decrease the compensation is when earnings are soaring as that is most likely when the environment is easy to navigate. These BOD's just don't seem to get with the facts facing the leadership. The way it is being run is good times equal good pay, bad times equals bad pay. Just ignores reality that pay should be based on measurable results consistent with the environmental conditions.
1. "Watson's salary rose 6% to $1.8 million, but his stock award dropped 18% to $5.8 million, the value of his stock option grant fell 6% to $9.2 million and his incentive award fell 8% to $3.2 million, Chevron said Thursday in its annual proxy."..so his salary wasn't cut - it increased 6%, way more than the increase of the average chevron employee
2. question for somebody who's knowledgeable, please: how do they know today the value of the stock options ? First they need to vest (over 3 years), then the stock needs to be at a higher level than it is today for the options to be in the money...so they could become worth anything from zero to infinity...how come $9.2 million ? thanx for any clarification
The issue with basing bonuses on earnings is that earnings can be massaged.
For example (totally different industry and company size) Diamond Foods top exec. massaged the company's earnings (presumably) so that their earnings based bonuses would be large. Worked for a few years and, well, both are no longer at DMND and DMND was on the ropes for awhile.
, The question is, compared to what? As an example, using your idea, if a ballplayer has a bad year, his salary should be increased and if the team does well his salary should be decreased. It just doesn't work that way.