CEO compensation decisions may be unpopular, but they are not improper.
Sometimes when boards make decisions not everyone is happy. Decisions made by company boards may raise the ire of its employees and investors. But generally boards make decisions, even unpopular decisions, publicly and let others comment or react as they desire.
Two board decisions have received a significant public response recently - the pay package that Northwest's CEO received and the retirement package that AT&T's (NYSE: T, BullBoards) CEO received.
Northwest Airline's CEO, Douglas Steenland, will receive $26.6 million of restricted stock and options once the company emerges from bankruptcy next month. The airline's pilot union, as you would expect, condemned the arrangement. From their perspective, the reason the company was able to emerge from bankruptcy protection was because of sacrifices made by union workers. The unions believe their past concessions were excessive and they should share in any gain from the company's turnaround. For its part, the board knew the CEO's package wouldn't popular, but presumably felt it was necessary to recruit and retain key executives.
The other compensation arrangement that is in the news is the $158.5 million retirement package that ATT's Edward Whitacre will receive when he retires. Definitely better than just a gold watch. Plus, he will receive other perks, such as a $24,000 per year automobile benefit and $25,000 for his country club dues for the next 3 years. During these three years, besides presumably playing golf, he will also receive $1 million per year to be a consultant for the company.
Some corporate activists have been shocked by the size of the retirement package. However, there has been little outrage from shareholders. AT&T's stock has performed very well under Mr. Whitacre's leadership.
The compensation decisions made by Northwest and AT&T were both clearly disseminated as soon as the decisions were made. No attempt was made to use improper gimmicks to mislead the public regarding the amounts that would be received. They knew they would receive some criticism.
This makes what some other companies did to backdate options they gave their executives all the more galling. In many of these cases, if the companies had decided to just raise the salaries of their executives, few shareholders would have complained. But instead, executives at some of the companies decided to mislead, not only the public, but often their boards about the options they received. It is little wonder that the stocks in these companies dropped when their improper backdating options practices were revealed. Such companies include Transaction Systems Architects, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSAI, BullBoards), Sonic Solutions (NASDAQ: SNIC, BullBoards), and Active Power, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACPW, BullBoards)
Another situation we are investigating involves Allot Communications (NASDAQ: ALLT, BullBoards). On April 2, 2007, its stock declined precipitously - approximately 40% below its IPO price. This drop occurred after the company lowered its previous guidance. It has been alleged, among other things, that the company's Registration Statement and Prospectus were negligently prepared, contained untrue statements of material facts, and omitted facts necessary to make the states in the documents not misleading.
Mark McNair is an attorney in private practice who represents investors in securities litigation and was formerly an attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission. For additional information, go to securitiessleuth.com
StockHouse Conflict and Disclosure Policy:
Stockgroup Media Inc., owners and operators of StockHouse.ca/com, has established rules to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety on the part of any StockHouse writers who discuss or name individual public companies in the content published on the StockHouse websites. The content of StockHouse Editorial articles are the opinion of the writer and any reliance on the content of these articles shall be at your sole risk.
StockHouse Editorial writers may own, buy, or sell shares in public companies mentioned in their articles. Please be advised that a conflict may exist and that any investment decisions you make are your own responsibility. Additionally, our Editorial writers are not registered investment advisors. You should not make any kind of investment decision in relation to these articles or stocks discussed in them without first obtaining independent investment advice from a registered investment advisor.
Facts relied upon by our Editorial writers in arriving at their opinions are generally provided by the subject companies or gathered by our Editorial writers from other public and/or private sources. These facts may be in error and if so, the opinions of our Editorial writers may be materially different.
Rules applying to StockHouse Editorial Writers
StockHouse Editorial writers may own stock of any company they cover, but at the bottom of the article or within the article they must clearly and prominently state their ownership position in the company.
StockHouse Editorial writers cannot solicit, accept, or agree to receive anything of value given or paid with the intent of influencing their editorial articles published on StockHouse.
StockHouse Editorial writers are not permitted to write articles that attempt to influence or benefit persons connected to the writer such as family or friends, , except where disclosure is made in the same way as if the writer him/herself owns stock.
StockHouse notifies each Editorial writer about these rules but in case of a possible breach of our rules, we may not be in a position to find out or investigate the facts. We rely on the integrity of our writers to ensure that our rules are followed.