One could be forgiven for assuming that a piece headlined “Companies Say ‘No Way’ to ‘Say on Pay’” would be rife with examples of intransigent executives and scofflaw boards gleefully telling shareholders to go screw themselves while bathing in Chateau d’Yquem on their private jets. The reality is somewhat less scandalous: The very few companies who lose the required by non-binding say-on-pay votes do something about it—even the very, very worst offenders among them.

Oracle has failed its say-on-pay vote the past two years, despite Mr. Ellison’s token $1 salary, and will likely face frustrated shareholders again in the fall….

The company significantly cut its yearly stock grants to Mr. Ellison and other executives this year….

At Tutor Perini, for instance, only 44% of shareholders supported the executive-pay packages this year….

The vote was a slight improvement from 38% the past two years because the company restructured its long-term incentives and added performance metrics.

Companies Say ‘No Way’ to ‘Say on Pay’ [WSJ CFO Journal]

1 comment (hidden to protect delicate sensibilities)
Show all comments ↓

Comments (1)

  1. Posted by Narcissus Bellicose | August 27, 2014 at 9:44 AM

    Here at MF Global, we've realized that the Mutual Funds control the majority of the shares – for the most part they are too busy to put our feet to the fire on pay practices, and so long as they keep a record of their vote, they basically tend to support management. With our "Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation", in particular the elements of the vote that apply to our CEO Jon S Corzine, we know good and well that his personal relationships with the fund managers at each fund family virtually guarantee that he'll be re-elected to the board, with the expected increase in compensation for the year 2012-13.