Are shareholders right to revolt over £14m+ CEO paycheques at BP Plc, Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc and WPP plc ord 10p?

Have CEO’s deserved their pay at BP plc (LON: BPP), Reckitt Benckiser Group plc (LON: RB) and WPP plc ord 10p (LON:WPP)?

| More on:

The content of this article was relevant at the time of publishing. Circumstances change continuously and caution should therefore be exercised when relying upon any content contained within this article.

You’re reading a free article with opinions that may differ from The Motley Fool’s Premium Investing Services. Become a Motley Fool member today to get instant access to our top analyst recommendations, in-depth research, investing resources, and more. Learn More.

RISK WARNING: should you invest, the value of your investment may rise or fall and your capital is at risk. Before investing, your individual circumstances should be assessed. Consider taking independent financial advice. The Motley Fool believes in building wealth through long-term investing and so we do not promote or encourage high-risk activities including day trading, CFDs, spread betting, cryptocurrencies, and forex. Where we promote an affiliate partner’s brokerage products, these are focused on the trading of readily releasable securities.

After BP (LSE: BP) ran its largest ever annual loss last year, a staggering $6bn, and began targeting thousands of job cuts, the board of directors duly went about cutting CEO Bob Dudley’s pay. Well, maybe in Dreamland. Here in reality, Dudley received a nearly 20% raise to bring his total 2015 compensation to $19.6m. True, Dudley did meet the operational and safety targets laid out to receive his increased bonus, but the optics of a pay rise after share prices slid 15% in a year are poor to say the least.

Unsurprisingly, 59% of shareholders were against confirming Dudley’s pay package at the recent AGM in a non-binding vote. Of course, a CEO can do little to halt collapsing crude prices or the billions paid in fines related to the Gulf of Mexico spill. But shareholders can’t be blamed for expecting the CEO to make less when 5,400 jobs were lost last year, debt increased substantially and the company was forced to make dramatic cuts to capital spending, which will likely constrain long-term returns.

Shareholder returns

Reckitt Benckiser (LSE: RB) CEO Rakesh Kapoor’s £23.9m pay package is only slightly less galling considering the consumer goods giant’s shares posted a 20% gain in 2015. This performance easily trounced a flat FTSE100 and gained twice as much as competitor Unilever. Reckitt’s remuneration policies are also a fair sight better since they’re more directly linked to shareholder returns, including earnings per share growth over a three-year period and net income targets.

The company’s long-term incentive plan has improved in recent years by adding clawback clauses, as now are standard practice at many banks, but could go further by stretching the time frame for EPS growth or shareholder returns. The larger question over whether individual CEOs actually effect that much change on their companies remains a thorny one, particularly in the case of RB, which performed well for years before Kapoor took the helm. However, as long as the company continues to outpace the market while simultaneously investing for long-term growth, RB shareholders have less reason to gripe than BP’s.

Big money

Both Kapoor’s and Dudley’s pay pales in comparison to that of WPP (LSE: WPP) chief Martin Sorrell’s £70.4m 2015 take home. And while shares of the media relations firm performed well last year, they certainly didn’t increase 65%, as Sorrell’s pay did. However, this may be less of a hot button issue for WPP going forward as this year’s high total compensation was due to a share vesting programme that was discontinued several years ago following a previous shareholder uprising.

Additionally, WPP is a slightly different story than BP or Reckitt Benckiser as Sorrell founded the company. Still, CEO bonuses and benefits grew much faster last year than the average employee’s, which could conceivably lead to morale problems among the workers who did, well, most of the work. And although it’s impossible to determine how much any individual CEO added to a company’s bottom line, it’s hard to believe that either Sorrell wouldn’t work as hard for less money, or that a suitable replacement couldn’t be found.

RISK WARNING: should you invest, the value of your investment may rise or fall and your capital is at risk. Before investing, your individual circumstances should be assessed. Consider taking independent financial advice. The Motley Fool believes in building wealth through long-term investing and so we do not promote or encourage high-risk activities including day trading, CFDs, spread betting, cryptocurrencies, and forex. Where we promote an affiliate partner’s brokerage products, these are focused on the trading of readily releasable securities.

Ian Pierce has no position in any shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK owns shares of and has recommended Unilever. The Motley Fool UK has recommended BP and Reckitt Benckiser. We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors.

More on Investing Articles

Investing Articles

Publish Test

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut…

Read more »

Investing Articles

JP P-Press Update Test

Read more »

Investing Articles

JP Test as Author

Test content.

Read more »

Investing Articles

KM Test Post 2

Read more »

Investing Articles

JP Test PP Status

Test content. Test headline

Read more »

Investing Articles

KM Test Post

This is my content.

Read more »

Investing Articles

JP Tag Test

Read more »

Investing Articles

Testing testing one two three

Sample paragraph here, testing, test duplicate

Read more »