CEO天价薪酬安然无恙

    也许会，但他们真的没料到会这么高，特别是考虑到他们获得的回报。标准普尔500指数较五年前下跌了近9%。只要表现稍稍好一点，就会成为英雄。就哈姆格伦而言，麦克森的股价表现显著优于标准普尔500指数。

    GMI的研究指出，麦克森的高管薪酬方案中有些内容令人惊讶，比如，如果公司被收购，需向哈姆格伦支付5亿美元。尽管如此，从公司股票回报率强劲的角度考虑，麦克森董事会仍然认为哈姆格伦的薪酬是合理的，而且去年投资者也批准了他的薪酬方案。

董事会多途径监管

    但是其他董事会呢？——需要担心高额奖金遭遇终结吗？特别是既然标准普尔500指数已回到了20世纪90年代的水平。难道绩效薪酬不正是当今董事会主要关注的问题吗？

    美国企业董事联合会（National Association of Corporate Directors）和薪酬公司Pearl Meyer and Partners近期的一项调查显示，这对于董事会而言是一个重要问题。但还无需紧张。调查指出，“超过80% （的董事）…表明他们“有信心”或“非常有信心”，相信他们当前的（薪酬）制度能很好地应对如何将CEO薪酬与绩效挂钩的广泛挑战。”

公众不满：怒气大，忘性也大

    那么公众不满呢？——公众不满会影响天价薪酬吗？对于这一点，未来的CEO们同样也不需要担心。

    美国的个人投资者普遍不关心这个问题，甚至都不会去查看共同基金经理就薪酬事宜的投票，更不会为了代理投票问题而兴师问罪。而占领运动（或者未来的相关运动）必须要扩大影响力，才能真正问责CEO薪酬。

    当然，一些约束性政策正在酝酿之中。英国总理戴维•卡梅伦已呼吁就薪酬问题进行有约束力的投资者投票（即需要公司对投票做出回应），而一些国会议员希望董事会薪酬委员会中引进员工代表。不过，短期内依然无虞。美国花了整整八年时间，才最终步英国的后尘，赋予顾问在薪酬问题上的话语权。

    总体而言，形势乐观。你有什么打算？当然是当标普500指数成份股公司的CEO了，难道你还有什么顾虑吗？

    本文作者爱丽诺•布洛斯罕是董事会咨询公司The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance（http://thevaluealliance.com）的首席执行官。

    Maybe, but they don't really expect that much, when you consider what they're used to getting in the way of returns. The S&P 500 is down nearly 9% from where it was five years ago. Just working to move the dial a bit forward (rather than backward) will make you a hero. In Hammergren's case, McKesson stock has considerably outperformed the index.

    The GMI study notes that some parts of McKesson's executive compensation practices raise eyebrows, like a half a billion dollars Hammergren would be owed if the company were acquired. Still, the board believes his pay is warranted given the company's strong returns, and investors approved his compensation plan last year.

Board oversight, in more ways than one

    But what about other boards -- do you need to be concerned that bonus bonanzas could meet their demise, especially since the S&P 500 is now sitting at levels that had already been achieved in the 90s? Isn't pay for performance a major concern of boards today?

    The issue is important to boards, according to a recent survey by the National Association of Corporate Directors and compensation firm Pearl Meyer and Partners. But there is no need for alarm. According to the survey, "More than 80% [of board members] …stated they are 'confident' or 'very confident' about how well their current [compensation] programs address the broader challenge of aligning CEO pay with performance."

Populist outrage: Long on anger, short on attention span

    What about public outcry -- could that influence high pay? Again, prospective CEOs can put their fears to rest.

    The U.S. retail investing public is generally indifferent and does not even monitor the pay votes of mutual fund managers, much less hold them accountable for those made on their behalf. And the Occupy movement (or a successor) would have to significantly expand its reach to truly take CEO pay practices to task.

    There is some trouble brewing across the pond. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has called for a binding investor vote on pay (one that would require a response from a company) and some members of Parliament want board compensation committees to have employee representation. There's no immediate threat, though. It took eight years for the U.S. to adopt an advisory say on pay, following in the UK's footsteps.

    All in all, it's a rosy picture. So what are you going to do? Any reason you wouldn't aspire to be an S&P 500 CEO?

    Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com), a board advisory firm.