甲骨文股东要求CEO埃里森减工资

    股东对高管薪酬的投票（即所谓的“薪酬发言权”投票）不具有约束力。虽然公司董事会代表股东，但并不是必须按照股东的意见行事。不过，甲骨文公司董事会毫不妥协的态度极不寻常。

    相比之下，虽然塔吉特百货公司（Target）董事会在去年的“薪水发言权”投票中获胜，尽管优势很微弱，但是董事会还是对高管薪酬方案进行了实质性调整，结果导致公司CEO薪酬大幅缩水。麦克森公司（McKesson）和弗里波特－麦克莫兰铜金公司（Freeport McMoRan）在2013年遭遇的惨败同样也促成了对公司高管薪酬方案的改革。

    通常情况下，如果哪家公司像弗里波特－麦克莫兰铜金公司一样，业绩平淡，CEO却获得高额薪酬，这家公司就会在“薪水发言权”投票中失败。而甲骨文公司的情况却很不一样。过去五年，甲骨文公司股票价格一直在稳定攀升，近期还开始支付股息。此外，甲骨文公司的净收入在过去五个季度中保持基本稳定。而且，甲骨文公司还会因为股东在公司的不作为（不反对薪酬方案）而进一步增加对他们的高额回报。那么，股东们到底在抱怨什么？股票价格的上涨使埃里森获得1.5亿股票期权收益，但同样也给股东们带来了好处。

    有些公司业绩优秀，但股东们依然否决了公司的高管薪酬方案。麦克森公司的股东回报一直不错，依然进行了薪酬改革。尽管达美乐比萨（Domino’s Pizza）和墨西哥烧烤快餐店（Chipotle Mexican Gril）取得了优异的业绩，却都在上月的“薪水发言权”投票中惨败。尽管目前要想知道这两家公司将出台哪些改革措施还太早，但是过去的经验表明，他们不会忽视投票的结果。

    今年10月召开的甲骨文公司年度大会将对新的股东提案进行投票。除非公司宣布重大变更计划，否则“薪水发言权”投票结果似乎已成定局。美国劳工总会与产业劳工组织（AFL-CIO）及纽约市雇员退休体制（New York City Employee Retirement System）提交了决议，呼吁对薪酬方案进行变革，原因是“这家公司近期提交股东批准的（薪酬）方案引用的综合（业绩）标准含糊不清或名目繁多，以至于毫无意义。”卡明斯基金会（Nathan Cummings Foundation）甚至提交了所谓的“代理参与”决议。这个决议将允许股东正式提名董事，还有可能让他们进入薪酬委员会。这样一来，他们就能执行股东们的要求。

    那么，是什么原因让甲骨文公司忽视大多数股东的愿望呢？埃里森是公司的创始人，所以可能是这种情形：“我的地盘我做主。”不过，许多公司也只会向创始人支付适度的薪酬。比尔•盖茨或史蒂夫•鲍尔默从未获得微软公司（Microsoft）的股票奖励，他们每年只获得有限的薪水和奖金。他们持有公司的大量股票，使股权奖励变得毫无意义。股东因此对他们的支持程度会提高多少？埃里森的情况也是一样，只是他的董事会不说而已。

    Shareholder votes on executive compensation – commonly known as Say on Pay – are not binding. The board – despite being there to represent shareholders – does not have to act on shareholders’ opinions. But Oracle’s intransigence is extremely unusual.

    At Target, by contrast — which won its Say on Pay vote last year, albeit with a margin of only a couple of percentage points — the board made substantial changes to executive pay that resulted in a dramatic fall in compensation for the CEO. At McKesson and Freeport McMoRan, major defeats in 2013 also led to changes to its executive compensation.

    Typically, companies lose Say on Pay votes when performance is lackluster and the CEOs are paid handsomely, like at Freeport McMoRan. That’s hardly the case at Oracle, whose stock price rise over the past five years has been pretty consistent, and the company has recently begun to pay dividends. On the other hand, net income at Oracle has been basically flat over the last five quarters. Still, great returns to shareholders might be advanced as a reason for inaction at Oracle. What are shareholders complaining about? They benefited from the rise in stock price that allowed Ellison to make $150 million in profit on his stock options.

    Shareholders have rejected executive compensation plans at companies that have had great performance. At McKesson, where returns to shareholders have also been excellent, pay reform went ahead. And Domino’s Pizza and Chipotle Mexican Grill both catastrophically lost Say on Pay votes last month despite exemplary performance. It’s too early to know what changes will be made at these companies, but past experience suggests that the vote will not be ignored.

    The new shareholder proposals at Oracle will be voted on at the company’s October annual meeting, where, unless major changes are announced, the results for the Say on Pay vote would seem to be a foregone conclusion. The AFL-CIO and New York City Employee Retirement System both filed resolutions calling for pay changes because, “recent [pay] plans submitted by the Company for shareholder approval have only cited general [performance] criteria so vague or multitudinous as to be meaningless.” The Nathan Cummings Foundation has filed what is known as a “proxy access” resolution, which would allow shareholders to formally nominate directors … and potentially get them on the compensation committee so they could implement shareholder demands.

    So what is it about Oracle that makes it ignore the wishes of a vast majority of its owners? Ellison founded the firm, so perhaps it’s a case of “it’s my party and I’ll pay if I want to.” Except that many founder firms pay their founders very modestly. Neither Bill Gates nor Steve Ballmer ever received a stock award from Microsoft, taking only a small salary and bonus each year. Their vast holdings in the firm made equity awards pointless. How much more aligned with shareholders could they get? The same could be said about Ellison, except that his board does not say it.