CEO加薪：真的有理由吗？

    2013-2014年，苹果公司CEO蒂姆•库克的工资翻了一番，惠普CEO梅格•惠特曼的薪酬增长了十倍以上；而星巴克CEO霍华德•舒尔茨、维亚康姆CEO菲利普•多曼和迪士尼CEO鲍勃•艾格的工资均大幅下降，最多的甚至降了一半。这些变化一定和CEO的业绩有关系吗？事实表明，并不一定。

    2014年，库克的工资从420万美元增至920万美元，增幅高达117%，主要原因是其年度奖金提高了400万美元，另一原因是他的个人安保费用从零增至近70万美元。

    但上述信息仅代表库克的“已披露收入”，即公司在最新股东委托书中给出的CEO薪酬。我们还可以从其他途径来了解高管薪酬。举例来说，去年库克的实际收入超过1.54亿美元，主要来自出售部分苹果公司限售股，该收入就从未被披露过。这种通常被称为“已实现收入”的薪酬其实相当于W-9个税申报表里填写的收入。2013-2014年，库克的已实现收入增长了109%。此外，库克还坐拥价值5亿美元的限售股。也就是说，他的高收入期还远未结束。

    2014年收入猛增的CEO当然不止库克一人。惠普首席执行官梅格•惠特曼的申报收入和已实现收入同样双双上升。惠特曼的酬劳种类已从最初的聘用薪资标准变成了正常薪资标准。她的工资从1美元增至150多万美元，她拿到的限售股增加了一倍，股票期权价值下降了一半，还有大约400万美元的股票奖励变成了现金分红。惠特曼的申报收入增幅仅略高于11%，但已实现收入增幅高达1300%，着实可观。尽管该数字的增长主要来自现金收入（工资和奖金），但惠特曼在2014年收获了价值1250万美元的惠普股票，远高于上年的80万。然而就公司表现来说，惠普并不如苹果那样稳健。2013年惠普的股价起伏不定，2014年开始才总体稳步上升。但2014年惠普的收入和净利润双双下跌，而这才是影响申报收入的最主要因素。

    并不是所有人都在2014年拿到了高额报酬。星巴克CEO霍华德•舒尔茨靠限售股和期权实现了5800万美元的收入，远低于2013年的1.39亿美元。舒尔茨的部分股票酬劳和公司业绩挂钩，但这些股票仅以两年期的每股收益和投入资本回报率为衡量标准，很难算得上长期指标。他的年度奖金增多是因为公司的收入和营业利润这两项奖金指标在2014年都实现了增长。另一方面，尽管星巴克的营收和营业利润有所提高，但2014年该公司在股市上表现较差。不过自2014年底开始，经营情况好转的消息使其股价从2013年81美元的高点升至目前的94美元。。

    在维亚康姆，似乎看不到CEO的薪酬和工作表现有明确关联。首席执行官菲利普•多曼的已实现收入下降了38%，但申报收入几乎增长了20%。2014年，多曼的奖金、股票和期权价值都有上升。但相反，2013年他的股票酬劳超过1.11亿美元，2014年却为5800万美元左右。薪酬和股价的之间的关系也不清楚。2013年维亚康姆的股价稳步上行，2014年下半年则处于滑坡状态。这也许可以解释多曼股票酬劳的变化，但该公司的营收也出现了下降，而在人们看来，营收业绩应该会影响到多曼的申报收入。和多曼相反，该公司董事长萨姆纳•雷德斯通在个税报表里填写的收入有所增加，原因是2014年雷德斯通的股票报酬超过1亿美元，远高于2013年的1740万美元。

    和多曼一样，迪士尼CEO鲍勃•艾格的申报收入和已实现收入也出现了一升一降的情况。2014年，艾格的股票酬劳从上年的7200万美元降至4100万美元，下跌了21%。由于这两年间艾格的奖金增加了近1000万美元，因此其申报收入却增长了35%以上。而艾格的收入起伏并不难理解：2011年底以来，迪士尼的股价持续上行，而且2014年的营收和运营利润也都实现了增长。

    要想知道CEO们薪酬变化背后的秘密，你必须深入挖掘，不能只看表面数字。但即便如此，有时你也不一定能搞懂他们的薪酬为何异常波动。（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie

    审校：Donna

    Apple AAPL -0.35% CEO Tim Cook’s pay doubled and HP HPQ -0.42% CEO Meg Whitman’s increased by over 1,000% between 2013 and 2014. But the salaries of Starbuck’s SBUX 0.56% Howard Schultz, along with Viacom’s Philippe Dauman and Disney’s Bob Iger all took a dive, by up to a half. Do any of these changes have to do with these executives’ performance? Signs point to no, not entirely.

    Cook’s pay rose from $4.2 million to $9.2 million in 2014, giving him a bump of 117%. Much of the pay hike came from a $4 million boost to the CEO’s annual bonus. An increase in the cost of Cook’s personal security, from nothing to almost $700,000, also played a part.

    But these figures merely represent the rise in Cook’s “reported pay,” which is what a company gives as a total figure in its latest proxy statement. There are other ways to look at compensation. It has not been reported, for example, that Cook actually earned over $154 million last year, largely made up of the vesting of some of the restricted Apple stock he owns. This kind of compensation is commonly called realized pay, it’s equivalent to W-9 pay. Cook’s realized pay increased by 109% between 2013 and 2014. What’s more, Cook is sitting on half a billion dollars worth of restricted stock, so his big paydays are far from over.

    Cook was certainly not the only CEO to see a substantial pay hike in 2014. Hewlett-Packard’s Meg Whitman also saw both her reported pay and realized pay increase in 2014. Whitman’s compensation shifted from her initial hiring package to a more regular one. Her salary went up from $1 to just over $1.5 million, her restricted stock awards doubled, the value of her stock options halved, and approximately $4 million shifted from a stock award into a cash bonus. Whitman’s reported pay rose by just over 11%. Her realized pay, however, went up by a staggering 1,300%. While much of this was driven by increases in cash pay (salary and bonus), Whitman vested in $12.5 million worth of HP stock in 2014 compared to $800,000 in the prior year. HP’s performance, however, has not been as unequivocally positive as Apple’s. Its stock was volatile in 2013, but settled in to a steady rise for most of 2014. But the company’s revenue and net income – the elements that most commonly drive reported pay – fell in 2014.

    Not everyone had a major pay day in 2014. Howard Schultz, Starbucks’ CEO, realized $58 million in restricted stock and option profits in 2014, down from $139 million in 2013. Some of what Schultz earned in stock was made up of performance-restricted shares, though these are only based on two-year earnings per share and return on invested capital (ROIC) goals; hardly long-term. His annual bonus increased because it’s based on revenue and operating income, both of which increased in 2014. On the other hand, Starbucks’ stock price faltered in 2014, despite the increases in revenue and operating profit. Since the end of the year, however, the news of that improved operational performance pushed the company’s stock past its former high of $81 in 2013 to around $94 today.

    You could see the fuzzy connection between CEO pay and performance at Viacom as well. CEO Philippe Dauman, saw his realized pay fall by 38% while his reported pay rose by almost 20%. The values of Dauman’s bonus, stock, and option awards all went up in 2014. In contrast, Dauman realized over $111 million in stock awards in the prior year, compared to around $58 million in 2014. The link between pay and performance is also not clear. Viacom saw a steady rise in its stock price in 2013, but prices fell in the latter half of 2014. That might explain the difference in stock values, but the company’s revenues – the figure that you might expect to influence reported pay – also fell. Viacom’s chairman, Sumner Redstone, saw his W-9 pay go in the opposite direction to Dauman’s, since he received over $100 million in stock in 2014, compared to $17.4 million in 2013.

    Like Dauman, Disney’s DIS -1.03% CEO Robert Iger saw reported pay and realized pay move in opposite directions. Iger received $41 million in stock compensation in 2014 but $72 million in 2013, leading to a decrease of 21%. Iger’s reported pay, meanwhile, increased by over 35% between 2013 and 2014, driven by a bonus that climbed by almost 10 million. The pay bump is a little easier to explain. Disney’s stock price has risen consistently since the end of 2011, and 2014 saw increases in both revenue and operating profit.

    If you want to understand what’s really happening to CEO pay, you need to dig deeper than the headline figures, but even that doesn’t always explain the vagaries of executive salaries.