News Store
Important notice to all NewStore users. The NewsStore service is now free! Please click here for more information. Help

The Sydney Morning Herald

Outrageous Fortune

Author: Jane Cadzow
Date: 13/02/2010
Words: 4916
Source: SMH
          Publication: Sydney Morning Herald
Section: Good Weekend
Page: 14
They may have responsible jobs, but do CEOs really deserve their astronomical salaries? Jane Cadzow looks at how we allowed the "supermen in suits" to hijack the gravy train.

Barry jackson is just the bloke you want in the cockpit of the world's largest passenger plane. The Airbus A380 captain is one of Qantas's most senior pilots. He doesn't surprise easily. But when he heard about the airline's final payment to former chief executive Geoff Dixon, his usual equanimity deserted him. "I was floored," he admits. "I said, 'This is crazy.' "

It wasn't just the size of the pay-out. It was the timing.

Jackson is president of the Qantas pilots' association. Last July, he says, the company gave him an ultimatum: either he and his fellow pilots found a way to slice $8 million off their wages bill or 67 of them would be sacked. He knew the threat was serious. Things were tough in the aviation industry and savage cost-cutting at Qantas had eliminated 1750 jobs in the previous 18 months. Reluctantly, he set about convincing colleagues to reduce their flying hours, thereby lowering their pay. If enough of them made that

financial sacrifice, some or all of the 67 positions might be saved.

The plan worked. "We ended up getting enough volunteers to offset some of the potential redundancies," he says. But satisfaction at achieving the goal was short-lived. "Just when we'd completed that, the company offers the departing chief executive $10.7 million."

Jackson laughs ruefully. He joined Qantas 23 years ago and has always been a proud and loyal employee. But he and the other pilots who agreed to take salary cuts are still shaking their heads in disbelief at the insouciance with which Dixon strolled out the door with almost 10 per cent of the struggling airline's net profit. How could he justify it? Did he really think he was worth that much? Was there even a twinge of conscience about the workers who had lost their jobs while he ran the company? A hint of embarrassment about the shareholders, who had seen the Qantas bottom line plummet 88 per cent since the previous year?

This magazine would have liked to put those questions to Dixon but he failed to respond to a request for an interview. In any case, he is only one of the doyens of corporate Australia to have pocketed vast sums in both good times and bad. While the economic downturn forced millions of us to tighten our belts last year, Michael Smith, chief executive of the ANZ bank, received a pay package calculated by executive remuneration consulting firm Guerdon Associates to be worth $10.9 million. Gail Kelly, head of Westpac, made $10.6 million, and Ralph Norris at the Commonwealth Bank got $9.2 million. Rod Pearse left the Boral building products group with $11.5 million and Sol Trujillo exited Telstra with $9 million. On average, the chief executives of the 100 largest companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange were paid $4.5 million, or about $86,500 a week.

The Federal Government's Productivity Commission recently held an inquiry into executive pay and has recommended several minor regulatory changes designed to put downward pressure on stratospheric salaries. The Government is expected to decide within the next few weeks which of the recommendations it will adopt. But no amount of tinkering at the edges of the Corporations Act will alter the fact that chief executive officers, or CEOs, are the merchant princes of the 21st century - feted, fabulously wealthy individuals who seem to inhabit a different world, let alone a different income bracket and postcode, from the rest of us.

Robert Webster, for one, thinks they deserve their special status. "Being chief executive of a large, listed company is a bit like being prime minister of Australia," says Webster, Sydney-based head of global board services at executive recruitment firm Korn/Ferry International. "You're effectively on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It takes over your whole life." He

argues that CEOs shoulder huge responsibilities and deserve to be compensated accordingly. "It's totally unfair to compare their salary with the salaries of more mortal beings."

According to Guerdon Associates, the highest-paid corporate boss in Australia is Frank Lowy, executive chairman of shopping-centre developer Westfield Group, whose total package in the 2008 calendar year was $16.2 million. That was more than 47 times the $340,000 salary of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Next comes Marius Kloppers, chief executive of mining conglomerate BHP Billiton, who made $13.9 million in the 2009 financial year. Wal King, of construction group Leighton Holdings, is third on $12.5 million.

"It may seem like an obscene amount of money to the average person," says Webster, "but, you know, it's all relative." He is right about that. None of the current crop of CEOs comes close to the record set by Allan Moss, former chief executive of Macquarie Bank, who reportedly received $33 million in 2007 and left with $50 million in 2008. A month before his retirement, Moss attended Rudd's ideas summit in Canberra, where he was taken aback to hear that schoolteachers' salaries peaked at about $70,000 a year. "It was actually a revelation to me," he was quoted as saying. (Little wonder that Moss was surprised - he made more than that every day, including weekends.)

At Sydney's Macquarie University, Paul Gollan believes the creation of a fantastically rich executive elite is an indication that something has gone fundamentally wrong in our society. "It's not just fixing the financial system that is at stake," says Gollan, director of research in the university's business department and an associate fellow of the London School of Economics. "It's about bringing values and dignity back into a community." To him, the present situation is somewhat absurd. Once you have banked your first $10 million pay packet, figuring out what to do with the next one must present quite a challenge. "What do you want to spend it on?" he asks. "What's the point of it?"

I remember wondering much the same thing when I interviewed Jodee Rich, chief executive of One.Tel, soon after the telephone company collapsed in 2001. Creditors and shareholders were baying for Rich's blood because he and joint managing director Brad Keeling had awarded themselves $6.9 million in bonuses as the firm's losses mounted. Rich was then 41. He had a fleet of expensive boats, a jet, a helicopter, a ski lodge and a 1200-

hectare retreat in north Queensland. A couple of years earlier, he had bought Craigend, a $14 million house at Darling Point on Sydney Harbour and embarked on $6 million worth of renovations while he and his family continued to live in their $8 million house at Vaucluse.

The obvious question about the purchase of Craigend: Why?

"I completely agree with you," he said after a pause. "I'm totally happy in the house we built 10 years ago." Rich thought about it some more. "So why do you need a bigger house?" he asked himself. "Why do you need a house on the water?" He fixed me with his light-blue eyes. "I don't have a good answer."

In his favour, rich was an entrepreneur - like frank lowy, he started a business and built it up. In most cases, a chief executive is merely a hired hand, engaged by a board of directors to manage an existing company on behalf of its owners, the shareholders. The board answers to the shareholders and the CEO answers to the board, which decides the size of his or her salary. At least, that's how it's supposed to work. Some observers say that, in reality, chief executives have become so powerful that they dominate boards and effectively set their own pay.

In his book The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism, American investment guru John C. Bogle contends that traditional "owners' capitalism" - in which the rewards go to those who put up the money and risk their own capital - has mutated into "managers' capitalism", where the people entrusted by the owners to run their enterprises have hijacked the system for their own enrichment. In other words, he says, chief executives are running companies for the benefit of chief executives, at the expense of the shareholders (and often to the detriment of staff and customers). Why? Because they can. In theory, shareholders have the option of sacking a board that fails to keep the CEO in line. But the stockmarket has diffused corporate ownership to the point that it is now extremely difficult for the thousands of investors in a given company to organise concerted action. Consequently, boards stay in place and chief executives continue to line their perfectly tailored pockets.

Bogle points to "grotesquely excessive" CEO pay as a major cause of the yawning gap between the rich and poor in his country. In the mid-1970s, the wealthiest one per cent of US citizens owned 18 per cent of the nation's financial assets, he says. By the end of the 20th century, the share owned by the top one per cent had leapt to 40 per cent. In Australia, as in America, the gulf

between CEOs and the rest of the population has widened dramatically. In 1990, the bosses of our 100 largest companies were paid 18 times more than the average full-time worker. Twenty years on, the ratio is closer to 70 to one.

The strength and adaptability of the executive class is illustrated by the ease with which most of its members have sailed through the global financial crisis. The CEOs at our 200 biggest companies may have seen their pay dip overall in the 2009 financial year, but not so much that it cramped their style. Guerdon Associates calculates that a sixth of them received annual bonuses of more than $1 million. At a time when the sharemarket lost close to a quarter of its value and corporate profits were down almost 20 per cent, creative accounting and compliant boards ensured the Pol Roger kept flowing in the executive suites.

The Stockland property group reported a record $1.8 billion loss, yet managing director Matthew Quinn was paid a $1.2 million end-of-year bonus based on an "underlying profit" of $631 million. At Lend Lease Corporation, where the share price fell by 26 per cent, chief executive Steve McCann's base pay was boosted by a bonus of almost $1 million as well as a $1.7 million "retention payment" - that is, an extra $1.7 million for staying put. One of the biggest annual bonuses went to Wal King, who picked up $5 million on top of his salary despite Leighton Holdings' profit slumping by more than a quarter and its share price falling by more than half.

King is 65. When he retires, his eight-figure farewell cheque will include a $4.9 million "restraint fee" for agreeing to refrain from working for a competing company for three years. Dean Paatsch, director of corporate governance and shareholder advisory firm RiskMetrics Australia, points out that King will also get a $5 million "transition bonus" for selecting and installing his successor. "You'd think that would have been part of his job," Paatsch says mildly.

When i started this piece, i called Katie Lahey, chief executive of the

Business Council of Australia. The council is an association of the nation's top 100 CEOs, the very people I would be writing about, and I hoped Lahey would put their side of the

executive pay story. Disappointingly, she could find no space in her diary for an interview. Not even a 10-minute phone conversation at a time of her choosing? No, said her spokesman, Scott Thompson. How about the council president, Graham Bradley - was he available? No. Was anyone at all prepared to discuss executive salaries? Unfortunately not, Thompson said in a cool voice.

We don't need to consult Lahey and her colleagues to know that CEO remuneration began its upward trajectory in the mid-1980s, about the same time that chief executives started to be regarded as supermen in suits. Lee Iacocca, the can-do American credited with saving Chrysler Corporation from bankruptcy, wrote an auto-biography that became a worldwide bestseller. One of the first of the celebrity CEOs, he was instrumental in planting the now widely accepted idea that a sufficiently dynamic individual can work corporate miracles, reviving a company's fortunes by sheer brilliance and force of personality. In 1987, the year the Oscar-winning film Wall Street coined the expression "greed is good", Iacocca's salary of $US18 million made him the highest-paid executive in the world.

That record is now thought to be held by Stephen Schwarzman, head of the US asset management and financial services firm Blackstone Group, who in 2008 received a package worth $US702 million. The runner-up, Larry Ellison, chief executive of business software company Oracle, made $US557 million.

Almost a quarter-century after flint-eyed fictional financier Gordon Gekko explained the meaning of life ("It's all about bucks, kid. The rest is conversation"), he will return to cinema screens in April in Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps. Somehow the timing feels just right.

Besides spectacularly healthy bank balances, what do corporate bosses have in common? "Enormous drive, ambition and self-belief," says Korn/Ferry's Robert Webster. "And they're all hard workers. No one can get to a position like that without being a hard worker."

Webster firmly rejects the notion that CEOs are motivated primarily by financial reward. "Being the sort of people they are, they're going to demand that their contribution be valued and appropriately remunerated," he says. "But I don't think a lot of these people are in it for the money. The money is secondary. They're in it for the satisfaction. You can use that as a euphemism

for the adrenalin rush, the thrill that power gives you, the capacity to make change, the capacity to influence the course of a company. Maybe there's an altruistic reason as well. Maybe they think that they can do some good along the way."

Take Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple Inc, who has taken home only a dollar a year since starting his second stint at running the US consumer electronics firm in 1997. Over the same period, he has delivered a return of more than 3000 per cent to investors. (Granted, the growth of the company has benefited him, too: his Apple shares are now worth about $US1.1 billion.) Both Fortune magazine and the Harvard Business Review named Jobs the best-performing CEO in the world last year.

Then there is the case of Ethan Berman, chief executive of the US-based RiskMetrics Group, who in 2005 wrote to his board of directors asking that his remuneration be reduced. It had been a terrific year for the firm, Berman allowed, but he felt his own performance had been a bit below par. He went on to describe an incident early in his financial career, when for the first time he received a bonus bigger than his salary: "After hearing the amount from my boss, I immediately called my father with the news. The first words out of his mouth were, 'Don't ever feel you are worth it.' I don't want him to say that to me again."

Melbourne organisational psychologist Leanne Faraday-Brash suspects quite a few chief executives start out overwhelmed by the size of their pay cheques. All those zeroes! "They take their first CEO position," she says, "and they say, 'Oh my gosh. Am I worth it?' The haunting question they ask themselves in the privacy of their own bedroom or under the shower is, 'Am I good enough?'"

But it seems to Faraday-Brash that most of them get past that stage

pretty quickly: "They kick a few goals and get promoted to the next CEO position, which is bigger and better and gives them more reach, more money." Then they start to feel at home in CEO-land. "They find out what everyone else is doing, wearing, drinking, which restaurants they're seen at and which cars they drive. And they think, 'I've arrived. This is the norm.'"

The salary, the cash bonuses, the stock options, the cheap loans, the subsidised school fees, the corporate credit cards - chief executives learn to

accept these as their due. "One of the great ironies," says Martin Lawrence, RiskMetrics Australia's head of research, "is that the ranks of corporate Australia, at the very top, are full of people who protest about the entitlement culture in welfare and among unions. Yet the largest and most endemic entitlement culture in Australia is among senior executives." That peeved reaction when their lavish compensation is questioned? "It's not faux indignation: it's genuine indignation."

On the phone one afternoon, I ask Lawrence to name the Australian chief executives he considers to be really worth the money they are paid. "Frank O'Halloran at QBE," he replies. The line goes quiet, and I picture him mentally flipping through a list of the country's business leaders. When he starts talking again, he sounds slightly apologetic: "That's about it, actually, that

I can think of off the top of my head."

Geoff Dixon travelled in seat 1a. "he would sit with his back angled to the person in the seat beside him, with a newspaper up around his face," says a senior flight attendant who concluded that the Qantas chief was pointedly avoiding interaction with both fellow passengers and cabin crew. "He would take no food or drink. He'd just sit and read the paper. It was very distant and cold. Very remote. 'Don't talk to me.'"

To earn Dixon's 2008 package of $11.9 million, a flight attendant would have to work for 150 years. That's a lot of safety demonstrations. So Dixon's standoffish attitude seemed to some to add insult to injury. Of course, he wasn't the only CEO to fail to connect with his staff. Modern corporations are so large that many of us never meet our bosses. Instead, we read about their exploits in the finance pages: the most recent mergers they have engineered, the latest acquisitions they have made. At the same time, publishing companies pump out books that give the impression that running a company is something akin to a mystical art - The Secrets of CEOs, Wisdom for a Young CEO, Your Inner CEO: Unleash the Executive Within.

Remuneration expert John Shields says corporate bosses might be forgiven for coming to believe that they deserve every cent they get. The status they have in the outside world is nothing compared to the reverence accorded them in their own companies: "They're inside a system which says, 'You're next to God and we're paying you this much because we know that you can transform this organisation and lead us to Nirvana.'"

That faith is unjustified, according to Shields, who is associate professor of work and organisational studies at Sydney University. Even basic research shows that the presumed link between high executive pay and company performance does not exist, he says. In fact, a report Shields co-authored reached the startling conclusion that the 20 best-performing Australian com-panies paid their CEOs substantially less than did the 20 worst-performing companies. "The evidence is that as an executive's pay increases, the performance of the company deteriorates," he wrote. "Against three criteria - return on equity, share price change, and change in earnings per share - statistical analysis shows that high executive pay levels actually coincide with a lower bottom line."

That was in 2003, but Shields says the findings are still broadly true: "Companies that pay their CEOs a lot don't necessarily get anywhere near as much return on that outlay as companies that pay a lot less."

Robert Webster adheres to the view that securing the services of the right chief, even if expensive, is crucial to a company's success. "The old adage that the most important thing a board ever does is appoint the CEO is absolutely right," he says. But Shields is inclined to think that chief executives get more credit than they should. "Really, a lot of the hard work goes on much deeper down in the engine room," he says.

"I think the great unsung heroes of organisational success and sustainability are the middle managers - the very people who tend now to be left

behind in the executive pay race.

"That's one of the untold stories about executive pay - not so much that it's grown astronomically compared to average full-time weekly earnings, which it has, but how within organisations there's been a serious stretch in inequality in earnings between the middle and the top."

Leanne Faraday-Brash acknowledges that chief executives are ultimately accountable for the performance and well-being of their organisations, and that the weight of this responsibility should not be underestimated. But she points out that they aren't the only ones who work crazy hours and lie awake at night worrying about meeting production targets.

"So many people at much lower levels in the organisation are doing exactly the same thing for a fraction of the money," says Faraday-Brash, whose role as an organisational development consultant brings her into contact with the type of committed and industrious mid-level managers who send her emails on Sunday afternoons when the sun is shining outside. "And when you consider that they might be on $150,000 a year and the CEO might be on $5 million plus bonuses ..." For even the most dedicated employees, the contrast can be a bit dispiriting. "It does seem to have an impact on morale."

If life on the executive floor is sweet, it can also be quite short. Research by management consultancy Booz & Co shows that Aust-ralian CEOs hang onto their jobs for an average of six years. "They get paid well if they're successful," says Robert Webster, from Korn/Ferry, "and if they're unsuccessful, generally they're moved on." As he sees it, this is a compelling reason for boards to offer them big salaries in the first place: "Basically you're asking people to take a huge risk. You're asking them to put their life on the line, essentially."

To RiskMetrics' Martin Lawrence, the suggestion that chief executives require the equivalent of danger money is frankly puzzling: "What is the worst thing that happens to you as CEO of a top-100 company? You get fired with at least 12 months' base pay. That is not a risk - not in the way that anyone in the normal world understands risk."

Hefty termination payments are routine inclusions in chief executives' contracts, whether the departure is forced or voluntary. Last year's recipients included Telstra's Sol Trujillo ($3.8 million) and Lend Lease's Greg Clarke ($3.1 million). Faraday-Brash notes that David Kirk, former chief executive of Fairfax Media (publisher of Good Weekend), left with a touch over $4 million. "What should we be paying war correspondents who are out there sitting in a trench or a swamp and are possibly going to get shot at?" she asks.

Occasionally chief executives themselves express amazement at their good fortune. "I think that CEO compensation is out of control, totally out of control," said Paul Anderson, when in 2002 he retired early from the top job at BHP Billiton with an $18 million pay-out. "It's reached a point now that there's no way to justify the incredible compensation." (Now a member of the BHP Billiton board, Anderson knocked back a request for an interview.) Similarly, former Qantas CEO James Strong once said that executive pay could be "slightly obscene and occasionally really obscene". Strong is on the Qantas board, where he heads the remuneration committee that handed Geoff Dixon his parting gift of $10.7 million. (Strong did not respond to an interview request.)

Dixon was paid for the full 2009 financial year, although he worked as chief executive for only five months. The board threw in $3 million to compensate for potential tax advantages he lost as a result of changes to the super-annuation law in 2006. "It was a very complex thing. I couldn't hope to explain it," says Qantas chairman Leigh Clifford, who concedes it was irritation about the size of Dixon's pay-out that prompted 43 per cent of shareholders to vote against adopting the board's last remuneration report. He emphasises that the terms of the former CEO's contract were negotiated before he, Clifford, joined the company two years ago. "With the wisdom of hindsight, I'm sure those present at the time would do it differently," he says.

Even if a majority had rejected the report, Dixon would have got his money. Shareholder votes on executive pay are non-binding. But Clifford says Qantas got the message loud and clear and is mending its ways -

the new chief executive, Alan Joyce, is on a lower base salary than Dixon, and changes have been made to the bonus system. Not that the chairman is in favour of clamping down too hard. Australian companies must pay

globally competitive salaries or risk losing their best talent to foreign corporations, he says.

Australian Shareholders' Association chief executive Stuart Wilson isn't so sure about that: "Name us five Australian-based CEOs who have gone overseas to a higher-paid job," he says. "Of the listed companies in Australia, we can think of only one CEO in the last 10 years who has gone. It was a property fellow who went to Dubai, and I think shareholders were pretty pleased that he left anyway."

Wilson believes corporate boards have been much too willing to cave in to chief executives' demands. "You've got the CEO and their lawyer putting forward a very strong case about how valuable this individual is," he says. "And company directors really haven't stood up to CEOs the way they ought to in protecting the interests of the shareholders." Martin Lawrence suggests this is at least partly because CEOs and directors tend to be part of the same cosy club. "They live next door to each other, they see each other socially, they're all on the same charitable boards," Lawrence says.

Ceos have an image problem. their wealth and power may inspire a kind of awe, but only 16 per cent of Australians surveyed by Roy Morgan Research last year gave them a high rating for ethics and honesty. In two other polls, nine in 10 people said CEOs' salaries were too high and three out of four thought the Government should cap their pay. Reflecting that mood, the annual general meetings of more than a few leading companies late last year were long, tetchy affairs at which shareholders expressed

exasperation at executive compensation levels before lodging substantial protest votes. "What

I think troubles the community is very substantial reward for what appears to be underperformance," says Peter Anderson, chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

The Productivity Commission has recommended that if 25 per cent or more of shareholders reject the remuneration report two years in a row, all shareholders should then vote on whether to hold a new election for board members at an extraordinary general meeting. Any regulatory moves that will curb CEO rorting are welcomed by RiskMetrics' Dean Paatsch. But it seems to him that something more is needed. "We haven't had a broader debate about the values," he says. "Do we want to run a society where we promote avarice as an ideal?"

Macquarie University's Paul Gollan shrugs. "Capitalism is built on greed," he says, cautioning against adopting a holier-than-thou tone when discussing high executive compensation. "We might yell and scream about it because we think this is an incredible abuse of the system. But I suppose what I'm questioning is, are we actually any different? If we were given that opportunity, I'm not quite sure that we would be."

Talking to Leigh Clifford at Qantas about Geoff Dixon's final pay cheque, I mention that people probably feel more resentful about corporate bosses' remuneration when share prices are down and staff are sacked. "Workers losing their jobs is a different thing," Clifford replies in a politely dismissive tone. "That tends to be the emo-tional aspect, and I understand that completely."

Linda White is assistant national secretary of the Australian Services Union, which represents about a third of Qantas employees. In her dealings with Dixon, she found him an engaging personality. "I like him," she says. But White cannot forgive him. "I see the human cost to people who are made redundant, who have had long years at Qantas and love their jobs and who are forced out," she explains. How many jobs could that $10.7 million have saved? "That's what colours my thoughts. I just think, you know, nobody's worth that amount of money."

Most highly paid Australian-based CEOs

Bonus includes annual and long-term incentive pay.

Total remuneration includes leave accrual. All values in Australian dollars.

1 Frank Lowy

Company:

Westfield Group

Year: 2008

Salary: $9,180,103

Bonus: $7,000,000

Total remuneration: $16,204,760

Total shareholder return:

1 year  down 34.5%

3 year  down 14.5%

2 Marius Kloppers

Company:

BHP Billiton Limited

Year: 2009

Salary: $5,750,841

Bonus: $8,157,931

Total remuneration: $13,908,772

Total shareholder return:

1 year  down 17.9%

3 year  up 28%

3 Wal King

Company:

Leighton Holdings Limited

Year: 2009

Salary: $3,717,945

Bonus: $8,839,746

Total remuneration: $12,557,691

Total shareholder

return:

1 year  down 50.8%

3 year  up 53.3%

4 Rodney Pearse

Company:

Boral Limited

Year: 2009

Salary: $7,020,500

Bonus: $4,450,000

Total remuneration (including termination pay): $11,511,500

Total shareholder return:

1 year  down 24.2%

3 year  down 42.1%

5 Michael Smith

Company:

ANZ Banking Group Limited

Year: 2009

Salary: $6,148,461

Bonus: $4,741,479

Total remuneration: $10,935,603

Total shareholder return:

1 year - up 39.5%

3 year - up 7%

6 Geoff Dixon

Company:

Qantas Airways Limited

Year: 2009

Salary: $3,606,509

Bonus: $1,676,665

Total remuneration

(including termination pay): $10,704,326

Total shareholder return:

1 year  down 27.7%

3 year  down 15.8%

7 Gail Kelly

Company:

Westpac Banking Corporation

Year: 2009

Salary: $6,438,982

Bonus: $4,185,930

Total remuneration: $10,624,912

Total shareholder return:

1 year - up 29.9%

3 year - up 35%

8 Ralph Norris

Company:

Commonwealth Bank

of Australia

Year: 2009

Salary: $3,353,551

Bonus: $5,774,181

Total remuneration: $9,209,752

Total shareholder

return:

1 year - up 4.5%

3 year - up 4.7%

9 Sol Trujillo

Company:

Telstra Corporation

Limited

Year: 2009

Salary: $2,780,815

Bonus: $2,450,538

Total remuneration (including termination pay): $9,061,482

Total shareholder return:

1 year  down 13.8%

3 year  up 13.5%

10 Michael Luscombe

Company:

Woolworths Limited

Year: 2009

Salary: $2,521,762

Bonus: $5,655,056

Total remuneration: $8,327,767

Total shareholder return:

1 year - up 11.8%

3 year - up 43.5%

Source: Guerdon Associates

 
Back  Back to Search Results
 

Advertise with Us | Fairfax Digital Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Member Agreement
© 2014 Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Ltd.