The figure has now been raised to 19 and is expected to go even higher
A lawyer for General Motors has raised the number of eligible compensation claims for deaths related to defective ignition switches in millions of recalled cars.
The death toll from the recalled cars is 19, not 13, as GM had originally indicated. That’s according to an assessment released Monday by GM lawyer Kenneth R. Feinberg, who manages a compensation program for accident victims and surviving families.
The Detroit-based automaker in February recalled more than 2 million of its cars after it acknowledged that switches in the vehicles were prone to shifting, cutting the engine’s power and deactivating airbags and other safety systems. The company had previously said it believed that the faulty switches had led to 13 deaths.
GM has given Feinberg “complete and sole discretion over all compensation awards,” and has waived its right to disagree with his numbers, the company has said. GM said on Monday that it accepts the new, higher assessment of the death toll, Bloomberg reports.
“Ken Feinberg and his team will independently determine the final number of eligible individuals,” a spokesman for GM told Bloomberg. “What is most important is that we are doing the right thing for those who lost loved ones and for those who suffered physical injury.”
GM has so far received 125 death claims, and it is not known how many of those claims might be found eligible in the coming weeks or months. The auto giant is expected to receive even more claims before its Dec. 31 deadline.
GM has also received 58 claims for serious injuries, including brain damage, pervasive burns, double amputation, paraplegia and quadriplegia. Four of those claims have been deemed eligible. Another 262 claims have been received for lesser injuries that required hospitalization or outpatient treatment, eight of which have been accepted.
GM has said its compensation program has no cap and that it will pay any sum that Feinberg “deems appropriate in each and every individual case.” In July, it said it had allocated between $400 million and $600 million for the fund, though it has not yet said how much each individual claim so far approved is worth.
The best salary bumps go to the most valued workers. Here’s how to make sure you’re one of them.
All signs point to a rapidly improving job market, giving workers the upper hand over employers when it comes to getting a decent pay increase.
“The economy is heating up, and employment is improving. Employees should have more leverage and more confidence to ask for more,” says Bill Driscoll of staffing firm Accountemps.
It’s about time. While pay increases have steadily been rising since the end of the recession, the gains have been modest. Mercer is projecting an average pay raise of 3% for workers in 2015. That’s up from 2.9% this year, 2.8% in 2013 and 2.7% in 2012.
But for top performing and highly skilled workers, the pay bumps are much plumper.
Mercer’s survey shows the highest-performing employees received average base pay increases of 4.8% in 2014 compared with 2.6% for average performers and 0.1% for the lowest performers.
“Differentiating salary increases based on performance has become the norm,” according to Rebecca Adractas, a principal in Mercer’s Rewards consulting business. “It’s an effective way for employers to recognize top performers without increasing budgets dramatically.”
Here are five ways you can snag a better-than-average raise.
1. Gather your accolades. You know you’re good at what you do, but when clients, customers and respected colleagues say so, that carries weight with higher-ups. Collect emails of praise from your boss, ask customers or clients to write testimonials for your work, and get feedback from your manager after completing projects.
2. Prove you’re a top performer. There’s nothing like a number to show you are delivering on the job. Quantify your accomplishments. Sure, that’s easier if you’re in sales and you can show you’ve more than hit your targets or landed a big account. Did you implement more efficient ways to get things done, cut costs to meet budgets, take on additional responsibilities above and beyond your normal job duties? Those count too.
3. Know what to ask for. Are other people at your firm getting raises? How is your company doing? Is it hiring people or laying them off? Even companies cutting back don’t want to lose experienced employees. That doesn’t mean you’ll get a raise, but it will help if your request is grounded in reality.
It’s also important to know how you stack up against others in your position. If you’ve been at your company a long time, you may not be making as much as recent hires. Use tools such as PayScale.com’s salary calculator to research compensation by experience level, company size, and the city where you work. You can also talk to colleagues or even co-workers who have recently left your company about how much people make in your position. It’s still taboo to talk about salary, but if you ask for ranges, it’ll be an easier discussion to have.
4. Ask. Seems like the obvious place to start, but 56% of workers have never asked for a raise, according to a recent CareerBuilder survey. Sure, it can be an uncomfortable conversation, but this stat from the survey should give you courage: Two-thirds of workers who asked for a raise received one.
And now is a good time to have the conversation. Companies draw up their budgets for the next year in the fall, beginning in September. Wait till December to talk with your boss and it may be too late.
5. Don’t take no for an answer. If your manager isn’t willing to give you the pay bump you’re looking for, ask what you can do to get it down the road. Take notes and set a time to follow up. After the meeting, send an email thanking your boss for talking with you and summarize what you discussed so you have in writing what was laid out.
If a bigger than average pay increase isn’t in the cards because budgets are tight, consider other perks that you’d value. “Smart companies are retaining their talent in a myriad of ways besides salary increases,” says Driscoll. That includes one-time bonuses, working a flexible schedule, additional vacation days, telecommuting, covering more of the cost of health benefits, a richer 401(k) contribution, even cell phone reimbursement. “There are other ways to increase your salary without getting a pay raise,” he says.
Last year was a banner year for executive compensation
Corporate America is still largely run by men. But women are catching up. According to the Harvard Business Review, “Sixty percent of the top U.S. companies now have at least two women on their executive committees.” Female leaders have dominated headlines in recent years, leading mergers, overseeing IPOs, acquiring companies, and defining their organizations’ overall strategy. So who are these powerful women? Research engine FindTheBest studied public company filings with the SEC to find out, compiling the following list of the 15 highest compensated female executives of 2013.
Perhaps the best-known name from the list above is Sheryl Sandberg, who served as VP of sales and operations at Google before joining Facebook as COO in 2008. The Lean In author has since helped Facebook through a shaky IPO and refined the company’s increasingly important mobile strategy. She earned $16.1 million in total annual compensation in 2013.
Also an ex-Google exec is Marissa Mayer, who left her position as a VP in 2012 to help bring Yahoo—then floundering to stay afloat—back above water as CEO. During her first year, Mayer acquired Tumblr for $1.1 billion and saw Yahoo’s stock prices rise by 73 percent. She returned $3 billion back to shareholders through selling Yahoo’s stake in Alibaba (a Chinese e-commerce company) and, in the process, made $24.9 million for herself.
Another powerhouse from the tech world, Meg Whitman made $17.6 million in 2013. Although she’s the former CEO of eBay and current CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Whitman’s credentials extend beyond tech. She’s held executive positions at a swath of companies including Hasbro Inc., The Stride Rite Corporation (a footwear company), Bain & Company and Walt Disney. She also ran for CA governor in 2010.
Although Sheryl Sandberg, Marissa Mayer, and Meg Whitman are among the biggest household names for female execs, none of them took the spot of top earner. Number one went to the CFO of Oracle, Safra Catz. Not only did Catz make more than did any other female executive ($44.3 million), but she topped the The Wall Street Journal’s report of the highest paid CFO’s in 2013, earning more than every male CFO. This article was written for TIME by Kiran Dhillon of FindTheBest.
In the business world, there’s a sneaky version of success that goes beyond the seven figure salary: It’s the one figure salary.
Members of the $1 salary club earned just enough money in salary in 2013 to afford one McCafé from the McDonald’s dollar menu.
This phenomenon started in WWI and WWII, when executives sacrificed their salaries to help fund the wars, but were required to accept some form of compensation because U.S. law forbids the government from accepting work from unpaid volunteers.
But why would anyone today trade in a seven-figure-plus salary for one measly dollar?
Most dollar-a-year execs have received (or continue to receive) option awards which increase in value over time, as well as other forms of compensation—like bonuses and non-equity incentive plans. Such forms of compensation are based strictly on company performance, and not on a guaranteed yearly paycheck. This means executives can align their personal financial interests with company interests.
So who are the executives who can afford to collect a $1 a year salary?
Research engine FindTheBest scoured the web to find out, compiling compensation information from the SEC on thousands of executives from publicly traded companies across dozens of industries.
Following is the resulting list of 25 CEOs, Chairmen, and other top execs who banked $1 salaries in 2013.
Among the richest members of the $1 Salary Club are Oracle’s Larry Ellison (net worth $50 billion), Google’s Larry Page (net worth $31.2 billion), and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg (net worth 27.9 billion). Their wealth is so closely tied to their companies’ stock, that receiving a few hundred thousand dollars extra wouldn’t make a dent.
Of the 25 execs above, Larry Ellison made the most last year ($79.6 million), mostly due to the $76.8 million he received in option awards. Mark Zuckerberg also concluded the year with more than $1 in his pocket, making $653,165 through “other compensation,” compensation that does not fit into the SEC’s other defined categories of compensation.
Unlike Ellison and Zuckerberg, whose total compensation surpassed $1 in 2013 despite their salaries, Larry Page’s total compensation stayed put at $1. But that’s not to say he didn’t make money—Google’s stock price rose by 56 percent last year.
Two women also made the list, Meg Whitman (CEO of Hewlett-Packard) and Susan K. Barnes (CFO and Executive VP of Pacific Biosciences). Whitman, previously CEO of eBay, earned $17.6 million in 2013 despite her miniscule salary. Like Ellison, Barnes earned most of her money last year ($436,509) through option awards.
Among the executives who, like Larry Page, received only $1 in total annual compensation in 2013, are fellow billionaires Carl Icahn—Chairman of the Board of Icahn Enterprises whose net worth is $23.9 billion, and Richard Kinder—CEO and Chairman of the Board of Kinder Morgan Management whose net worth is $9.9 billion.
Conventional wisdom says share repurchases are good for investors and stock prices. Here's why conventional wisdom is wrong.
A new report shows that stock buybacks soared nearly 60% in the first quarter and are nearing a record over the past 12 months. In a buyback, a company repurchases its own shares in the open market.
Sounds good, right? Don’t celebrate just yet.
Stock repurchases are a classic move in the CEO playbook. By buying up their own company’s stock, CEOs are trying to accomplish a couple of things that sound great on paper.
First, they are looking to reduce the total number of their company’s shares outstanding in the marketplace. That way, even if corporate earnings are flat, on a per-share basis the business will at least look more profitable to investors. Second, stock buybacks are thought to send an explicit message to Wall Street. That statement: “We think investors are undervaluing the true worth of our company, and we are willing to put our money where our mouth is.”
That all sounds quite appealing, but here’s the reality:
Stock buybacks don’t necessarily deliver the message companies want:
As Time’s Rana Foroohar points out, Wall Street may be getting jaded to this buyback ploy. For one thing, investors understand that some mature companies may simply be turning to buybacks as a way to artificially prop up their earnings. That’s not a sign of strength, but actually a signal of the onset of weakness.
Not surprisingly, companies that have announced buybacks haven’t been performing as well as you might expect lately. Here’s what’s happened to the price of an exchange traded fund, PowerShares Buyback Achievers POWERSHARES EXCHAN BUYBACK ACHIEVERS PKW -0.43% , tracking an index of buyback stocks, vs. the S&P 500.
Just because the CEO declares a company’s stock cheap doesn’t make it so.
If buybacks were really a value proposition, share buybacks would really spike in the depths of bear markets, when a stock’s valuation would be near a low. Yet’s that not the case. Buybacks surged in 2007 and 2008, just before the financial crisis hit. The S&P 500 S&P 500 INDEX SPX -0.22% was trading at a price/earnings ratio of over 25, based on 10 years of so-called normalized, or averaged, earnings. That’s expensive.
Yet when the market’s P/E sank to a below-average 13 in the first quarter of 2009, buybacks were near their low points.
Today, buybacks are surging again only after the S&P’s P/E has climbed back above 25. This means companies are falling victim to the same force that individual investors do: rearview investing. The problem is, that almost never works.
Buybacks aren’t a sign of value, but rather management’s attempt to make their shares look cheaper.
There are some market watchers who think a buyback is merely an accounting trick. This piece that ran in SeekingAlpha a while back explains how this trick can boost profitability.
For starters, by reducing the total number of shares outstanding, a company’s earnings per share grows. Not only that, other measures of profitability plump up too. For instance, a buyback will also reduce the overall amount of equity on a company’s balance sheet. Thus, its Return on Equity will rise even if overall profitability doesn’t. Similarly, if a company uses cash to fund the repurchase, that money is an asset on the balance sheet. So as cash levels fall in a repurchase, the company’s Return on Assets (ROA) will look more attractive even though nothing fundamentally changed in the business.
Share buybacks don’t always lower the share count.
Sometimes, companies are forced to repurchase their own shares to make up for the fact that they’ve been dilluting their stock in other ways — for instance, as part of executive compensation packages.
It’s no surprise that seven out of the 12 biggest buybacks so far this year, in dollar terms, have taken place in the technology sector. The tech sector is notorious for compensating talent with stocks grants and options. In addition to Apple, IBM INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. IBM 0.18% , Cisco Systems CISCO SYSTEMS INC. CSCO -0.07% , Oracle ORACLE CORPORATION ORCL 0.1% , Microsoft MICROSOFT CORP. MSFT -0.48% , and eBay EBAY INC. EBAY 1.85% were among the big tech names buying back their own shares this year.
CEOs time buybacks for their own compensation, not yours.
While a repurchase may seem like a benevolent act — companies often portray buybacks as returning cash to shareholders — it’s far from it. A buyback artificially boosts profits — most noticeably earnings per share (EPS). And what are executives most likely to be compensated on?
In a paper called “Bonus Driven Repurchases,” scholars from the University of Washington and Florida State argue that “By mechanically increasing current-year EPS, repurchases provide a means for CEOs to increase their EPS-driven bonuses.”
This is yet another reason why investors ought to press their companies to return cash to them in the form of dividends, not buybacks.
And lately, the market seems to agree:
An index of dividend-paying stocks has pulled well ahead of the buyback group. It’s often good for shareholders when companies stop sitting on their cash. But some options are better than others.
First time median passes $10-million threshold+ READ ARTICLE
CEO pay had long since crossed the six and the seven-figure thresholds, but now it’s all about eight figures.
Median CEO pay hit a record high of $10.5 million in 2013, an 8.8% rise over 2012, according to a new joint study by the Associated Press and Equilar, an executive pay research firm. Compensation packages, buoyed by soaring stock prices, reaped the gains from the market. CEO pay continued its fourth consecutive year of gains since the recession.
The typical CEO now makes 257 times the salary of an average worker, the AP reports. In 2009, CEOs made an average of 181 times as much. More than two-thirds of CEOs in the S&P 500 received a pay raise, with the heads of banks receiving the biggest hikes, averaging 22%.
The highest-paid CEO, with a total payout of $68.3 million, was Anthony Petrello of Nabors Industries, an oil and gas drilling company.
The man who led Target during a data breach that compromised the personal information of as many as 110 million customers will make $15.9 million through his severance package, according to a newly released SEC filing.
Greg Steinhafel, who worked at Target for 35 years and was named CEO in 2008, was fired from the company earlier this month following last fall’s massive data breach, in which hackers stole credit and debit card information for 40 million Target customers and names, phone numbers, addresses or email addresses of 70 million customers. The breach was one of the largest security lapses in corporate history.
The monetary package is a combination of direct severance pay, pension funds and vested stock awards. In addition to the $15.9 million, Steinhafel will continue to draw his base annual salary of $1.5 million, as well as benefits, while he serves in an advisory role until August. In 2013 Steinhafel earned $13 million in total compensation, down from $20.6 million the previous year.
Target is not yet done reshuffling its executive suite. Today the company announced that it was firing the president of its Canadian division and realigning its merchandising team in the U.S. to improve performance.
If you’re the cheerful, satisfied sort—happy with your job, duties, and compensation—you may want to shuffle along to the next article. Keep the peace of mind you have. Cherish it. And whatever you do, forget that the following ten young executives pocketed over $5 million in 2013 alone.
Figures are from public SEC filings.
Note #1: total compensation includes stock awards and other bonuses: annual salary is typically just a small fraction.
Note #2: a few companies—like Yahoo—have yet to file their proxies, leaving one or two likely candidates (hey there, Marissa Mayer!) off this list.
Note #3: Where’s Mark Zuckerberg? Many famous young entrepreneurs do not make this list for two reasons. First, some well-known founders—like Zuck—take a very small salary, often $1 per year. Companies like Facebook save the big checks for all-star second-in-commands, where they need to lure top people away from other firms. Second, this is a list of 2013 compensation, so individuals who made a big splash—or got a large stock award—last year are more likely to win a place on the list.
10. Patrick Söderlund – Electronic Arts – $5.19 million
The video game industry has stumbled along lately, between Nintendo sales woes and garbage freemium games littered throughout mobile app stores. Nevertheless, Electronic Arts (EA) has remained consistent, churning out reliable blockbusters and even some decent mobile games.
EA owes part of its ongoing success to Patrick Söderlund, 39, racecar fanatic and international games guru. Currently an executive vice president at EA, he leads development on big game series like Battlefield and Need for Speed.
9. Andrew Wilson – Electronic Arts – $5.63 million
Obsessed with sports—including both virtual games and real-world leagues—Andrew Wilson rose through EA’s ranks largely through directing the company’s wildly popular FIFA franchise. He was appointed CEO in 2013, at the age of 39.
8. Ryan McInerney – Visa – $7.39 million
Ryan McInerney is only 38, but his resumè reads like a six-decade-long career. First, he worked as a principal consultant at McKinsey & Company. Next, he joined JP Morgan Chase, where he helped create and launch the company’s first mobile banking product. At 34, he was picked to lead the company’s entire consumer banking division, which put McInerney in charge of over 75,000 employees. Visa then lured him away in 2013, where he now serves as the credit company’s president.
7. Mark Tarchetti – Newell Rubbermaid – $7.87 million
It turns out you don’t always need to work in finance or tech to make a multimillion-dollar fortune. Mark Tarchetti, 38, is the executive vice president at Newell Rubbermaid, the company best known for its popular line of tupperware products. Of course, selling plastic, airtight kitchenware isn’t going to make you rich on its own—the company also owns a variety of writing brands, like Sharpie, Paper Mate, Expo and Uni-Ball. Today, Tarchetti leads much of the company’s research and development initiatives.
6. Hari Ravichandran – Endurance International Group – $9.6 million
Hari Ravichandran, 37, is the founder and CEO of Endurance International Group, a company that owns a variety of Internet brands (such as HostGator, Homestead, and Bluehost) and can be best described with a flurry of trendy tech phrases like “cloud-based” and “big data.”
5. Ryan Blair – Blyth – $9.61 million
CEO of ViSalus Science (a subsidiary of Blyth, Inc.), Ryan Blair, 36, focuses on weight management, dietary supplements, and energy drinks. He’s perhaps better known, however, as the gang-member-to-CEO who wrote about his experiences in the appropriately-titled, Nothing to Lose, Everything to Gain.
4. Sardar Biglari – Biglari Holdings – $10.9 million
Sardar Biglari, 36, began building Biglari Holdings at 18, a company that today employs over 22,000 people and contains six different subsidiary companies, including Steak ‘n Shake and Western Sizzlin. Several publications have compared the company to Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, the Fortune 500 business that grew through Buffett’s smart acquisitions and investments.
3. Stephen Gillett – Symantec – $11.5 million
Stephen Gillett (36) first gained national attention after becoming the chief information officer at Starbucks in 2008, though his résumé includes such prominent companies as Yahoo, CNET Networks and Sun Microsystems. More recently, he became Best Buy’s executive vice president, but he moved on to Symantec after only nine months. It seems even Gillett couldn’t slow the downward slide of big box electronics stores.
2. Michael Schroepfer – Facebook – $12.6 million
Michael Schroepfer (39) has been a rising technical star at Facebook for years, moving from director to vice president to chief technical officer, a post he reached in 2013. Before Facebook, he had led development on Mozilla’s once-popular Firefox browser.
1. James S. Levin – Och-Ziff Capital Management – $119 million
The 31-year-old hedge fund trader is also an extreme outlier. Forget under 40-year-olds: he made more in 2013 than anyone, even Oracle’s Lawrence J. Ellison ($81.8 million), due to some very generous stock awards. James S. Levin first made national news in 2012 when he bet $7 billion (a third of Och-Ziff’s total assets) and made the company nearly $2 billion in one trade, accounting for over half of Och-Ziff’s annual profit. Last year, he received $119 million in stock, earning him more than the nine other men on this list combined.
In 2006, Google’s Eric Schmidt suggested that his company had the perfect road map to “manage the new breed of ‘knowledge workers’” who now propel so much of the world economy, and especially the digital economy: follow Peter Drucker.
“After all,” Schmidt said, “Drucker invented the term in 1959. He says knowledge workers believe they are paid to be effective, not to work 9 to 5, and that smart businesses will ‘strip away everything that gets in their knowledge workers’ way.’ Those that succeed will attract the best performers, securing ‘the single biggest factor for competitive advantage in the next 25 years.’”
Unless, that is, you and your rivals agree that you won’t try to attract those high-performing folks in the first place, at least not actively.
In a case set for trial next month, Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe Systems have been accused in a class-action lawsuit of colluding to suppress wages between 2005 and 2009 by, among other things, agreeing not to woo each other’s employees. More than 64,000 people are seeking $3 billion in damages.
It will be up to a federal court jury in San Jose, Calif., to decide whether the tech giants violated antitrust law—though the current betting is that a pre-trial settlement is likely. What is already clear is that they violated Drucker.
In documents that surfaced this week, Schmidt and executives from other companies openly discussed their no-poaching agreement. In a March 2007 email, for example, Schmidt assured Apple’s Steve Jobs that a Google recruiter who’d called into Apple had gone against company policy and was being fired for her actions. “Should this ever happen again please let me know immediately and we will handle,” Schmidt wrote. Jobs replied with a smiley face.
Drucker would have found nothing to smile about in any of this. One of the hallmarks of the knowledge age, he pointed out, was the ability of software engineers and other specialists to shift fluidly among different employers.
“Employees who do manual work do not own the means of production,” Drucker wrote in Management Challenges for the 21st Century. “They may, and often do, have a lot of valuable experience. But that experience is valuable only at the place where they work. It is not portable.
“But knowledge workers own the means of production,” Drucker continued. “It is the knowledge between their ears.” The upshot of this reality: “Knowledge workers have mobility. They can leave.”
Among tech companies, one of the principal ways in which employees wind up leaving Corporation A for Corporation B is when they’re directly solicited in a process referred to as “cold calling.” “This form of competition, when unrestrained, results in better career opportunities,” the U.S. Justice Department noted in 2010 when it settled a civil suit with the same companies now embroiled in the class-action case.
It is in restricting cold calling that Schmidt, Jobs and their cohorts revealed something rather remarkable about themselves: They’re just as intent on exercising power over their workers as the old-line corporate dinosaurs that Silicon Valley tends to look down upon.
Drucker would have been the first to tell them that they’d never get away with it. “The center of gravity in employment is moving fast from manual and clerical workers to knowledge workers who resist the command-and-control model that businesses took from the military years ago,” he wrote in 1988 essay for Harvard Business Review.
Perhaps even more on point are Drucker’s words from Landmarks of Tomorrow—the 1959 book that Schmidt cited as an inspiration.
The organization “must never be permitted the dangerous delusion that it has a claim to the loyalty or allegiance of the individual—other than what it can earn by enabling him to be productive and responsible,” Drucker wrote. A company “must never be allowed to consider its relationship to the individual member as an indissoluble union; it must treat it as existing only for a specific purpose and therefore revocable.”
In a new introduction to Landmarks of Tomorrow, written in 1996, Drucker took credit for foreseeing “the shift to knowledge as the new major resource.” But he also acknowledged missing a huge development: “the information revolution.” Drucker said that this oversight was all the more inexcusable given that, at the time, he was consulting for IBM and lecturing to many an audience that the computer was about to upend “the way we were going to do work, be organized, think, and that, indeed, the computer was but a symptom of a basic change—the change from experience to information.”
In the end, Drucker concluded, “if the book were to be given a score as an ‘early diagnosis’” of some of the most significant trends emerging in society, “it would thus not get an ‘A+.’ But it probably deserves an ‘A-.’”
Schmidt and his pals didn’t miss the information revolution, of course. And I’ve praised Google in the past for some of its employee practices. But they whiffed so badly on understanding how to treat knowledge workers in regard to their employment prospects, I’d bet Drucker would give them an ‘F.’