美国高管的财政悬崖解决方案损人利己

    董事会到底该给CEO付多少薪酬？一项最新研究对CEO的薪酬构成和数额提出了质疑，这些质疑必须获得回应和解答——而且要快。

    美国政策研究所（Institute for Policy Studies，IPS）本月早些时候发布的一份分析报告显示，美国商界一些CEO正在推动的、旨在解决美国政府财政悬崖问题的解决债务运动（Fix the Debt）将为他们个人赚进大笔钞票。报告称，解决债务运动“已经筹集了6,000万美元资金，招募了80多名CEO加盟”。

    报告列出了这项运动的三大主张：海外利润汇回国内免税，维持布什减税措施，通过降低社会保障、联邦医疗保险计划（Medicare）和医疗补助计划（Medicaid）福利来弥补财政收入减少。

    美国政策研究所的这份报告还解释了为什么这场劫贫济富式的游说运动会给CEO们带来个人利益。解决债务运动的发言人乔恩·罗马诺没有回应置评请求。

    美国政策研究所的研究显示，光通用电气（GE）、微软（Microsoft）、默克（Merck）和思科（Cisco）就有近2,500亿美元的海外利润。分析显示，如果像解决债务运动倡议的那样准许海外利润汇回免税，美国政府赤字可能增加850亿美元，而仅就这4家公司而言，企业利润就会有类似规模的膨胀。像其他很多公司一样，通用电气、微软、默克和思科每年的代理委托书都将企业盈利视为CEO奖金的主要依据之一。企业盈利增加的一部分（当然不是全部）可能会流入CEO的个人腰包。

    延长布什减税措施将更直接地增加CEO资产净值。美国政策研究所的分析显示，参与此项运动的CEO中有5位2011年的应纳税收入为3.78亿美元。根据这样巨额的薪酬，仅去年一年布什减税措施就为他们节省了3,000万美元本应缴纳给美国政府的税款（而美国政府则相应损失了这么多钱）。

    与此同时，这个运动还倡议削减社会保障、Medicare和Medicaid，以帮助弥补另外两项提议造成的税收损失。

    显然长远来看，压缩福利保障会损害到企业盈利，因为享受社会保障和/或依赖Medicare、Medicaid计划的消费者们将减少个人开支。压缩这类支出可能会对整个经济造成负面影响，而不仅仅是一两家公司。这种情况似乎并不是CEO们希望看到的。

    但由于当今激励体系设计的不合理性，即便造成负面的经济后果，CEO个人仍然能够捞到好处。总体而言，董事会们不会对CEO个人或整个群体导致的经济疲弱效应进行量化，也不会要求他们对此负责。因此，CEO们在这方面完全免责。但董事会在为CEO设立目标时，确实会考虑到经济的健康状况。如果经济走软，CEO们需要达到的业绩目标就会降低。而且，经济动荡会降低股价和期权授予价格，事实上可能提高CEO兑现时的收入。如果价格下降，CEO们通常会获得更多的股票和期权，因为它们的价值降低了。以后价格上涨时，CEO们就可以套现了。

    What should boards pay CEOs for anyway? A new study raises questions about the structure and size of CEO pay that deserve answers -- and fast.

    An analysis from the Institute for Policy Studies' (IPS) released earlier this month shows that CEOs will reap huge personal moolah if a fiscal cliff campaign some of them are undertaking is successful. According to the report, the Fix the Debt campaign "has raised $60 million and recruited more than 80 CEOs."

    The paper highlights three elements of the campaign's agenda:  repatriation of foreign profits tax free, maintenance of the Bush tax cuts, and offsets through reductions to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits.

    The IPS report explains why CEOs could be personally interested in the campaign's proposal to rob citizen Peter to pay CEO Paul. Jon Romano, a spokesperson for Fix the Debt, did notrespond to requests for comment.

    The IPS study shows that GE (GE), Microsoft (MSFT), Merck (MRK), and Cisco (CSCO) have nearly $250 billion in offshore income. By allowing on-shoring tax free, as the Fix the Debt campaign advocates, the analysis shows that the government's deficits could increase by $85 billion while corporate earnings would swell by a similar amount -- just for those four companies. Like many other firms, the annual proxy filings of GE, Microsoft, Merck, and Cisco cite corporate earnings as one of the primary justifications for CEO bonuses. Some, but of course not all, of any earnings benefit to the company would likely flow to each CEO's personal bottom line.

    Extensions of the Bush tax breaks enhance CEO net worth more directly. According to the IPS analysis, five of the CEOs involved in the campaign earned $378 million in 2011 taxable pay. With compensation that large, assistance from the Bush tax plan saved them (and cost the country) $30 million in government contributions last year alone.

    Meanwhile the proposal to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would help make up the difference for the lost revenues in the other two recommendations.

    Clearly, those cuts could harm corporations down the road by dampening the spending of consumers who receive Social Security or are kept alive and well because of Medicare or Medicaid (and, in some cases, both programs). These cuts could negatively affect the whole economy, not just one company. That seems like something CEOs might want to avoid.

    But because of the perverse nature in which today's incentive systems operate, any negative economic consequences could end up personally benefiting CEOs. As a general matter, boards neither quantify nor hold CEOs accountable for their solo or collective influence on poor economic conditions. So CEOs get a free pass there. But boards often do consider the health of the economy when they set goals for their chief executives. If the economy weakened, CEOs would likely have lower performance hurdles to clear. Further, economic volatility could actually improve paydays for CEOs by lowering the prices of stocks and options at the time of award. If prices drop, CEOs often get larger pools of stock and options because their value is depressed. When prices subsequently rise, CEOs cash in.