READING THESE TWO ARTICLES ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW

• Do you think Boards of directors are doing their fiduciary duty regarding executive compensation?
• Use your moral imagination and suggest a solution.
• Be sure to identify theethicalframework from which you are working! (ULITIARIAN, DEONTOLOGICAL , VIRTUE)

CEOs make $15.6 million on averagehere's how much their pay has increased compared to yours over the year

CEO pay is quickly outpacing yours. In 2016, the CEOs of the top 350 U.S. firms earned on average $15.6 million.

"There are CEOs getting paid hundreds of millions," Stanford economics professor Nicholas Bloom tellsWNYC "Freakonomics Radio" podcast. "So I find it hard to defend those amounts."

According to a report from theEconomic Policy Institute, the average CEO pay is 271 times the nearly $58,000 annual average pay of the typical American worker.

Although the 271:1 ratio is high, it's still not as high as in previous years. In 2015, CEOs made 286 times the salary of a typical worker and 299 times more in 2014. Compare that to 1978, when CEO earnings wereroughly 30 timesthe typical worker's salary.

But what's really attention-grabbing, according to the report, is the rate at which a CEO's pay has increased over the years compared to the average employee.

According to the Economic Policy Institute:

Since 1978, and adjusted for inflation, American workers have seen an 11.2 percent increase in compensation. During that same period, CEO's have seen a 937 percent increase in earnings. That salary growth is even 70 percent faster than the rise in the stock market, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

CEO pay still remains high compared to that of "very high wage earners." The average CEO in a large firm earns 5.33 times the annual earnings ofthose in the .1 percent.

Though some argue that CEO pay is based on experience and what their role entails, the study finds that's actually not the case.

"CEOs are getting more because of their power to set pay, not because they are more productive or have special talent or have more education," says the report. "Exorbitant CEO pay means that the fruits of economic growth are not going to ordinary workers, since the higher CEO pay does not reflect correspondingly higher output."

However, economists say that it's difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint the right amount a CEO should be paid.

"There is no one that can definitively say that's too much or too little," says Bloom. The Stanford professor adds that the job of a CEO is a difficult one that has a heavy impact on the economy and the company's employees. With this in mind, businesses want to lure in the best possible candidate and one way to to do that is through salary.

"Being a CEO of a big company is a hundred-hour-a-week job. It consumes your life. It consumes your weekend. It's super-stressful," Bloom explains on the podcast. "You really want to make sure that they're motivated and also rewarded. "

Yale leadership expert Jeff Sonnenfeld says that the main issue isn't so much the astronomical pay, but rather the disparity between performance and pay.

The United Parcel Service is a very strong company, yet ranks low in terms of compensation, he tells the podcast. "But Philippe Dauman, who ran Viacom until recently, was being paid more than the very high-performing CEOs of Disney and Time Warner combined. And Viacom was a disaster."

The Economic Policy Institute argues that CEO pay should decrease. Contrary to popular belief, their research shows that if this were to occur, there would be no "adverse impact on output or employment." Here are the four key ways the institute says to address this issue:

1. Reinstate higher marginal income tax rates at the very top.
2. Remove the tax break for executive performance pay.
3. Set corporate tax rates higher for firms that have higher ratios of CEO-to-worker compensation.
4. Allow greater use of "say on pay," which allows a firm's shareholders to vote on top executives' compensation.

The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says

Across the board, the more CEOs get paid, the worse their companies do over the next three years, according to extensivenew research. This is true whether they're CEOs at the highest end of the pay spectrum or the lowest. "The more CEOs are paid, the worse the firm does over the next three years, as far as stock performance and even accounting performance," says one of the authors of the study, Michael Cooper of the University of Utah's David Eccles School of Business.

The conventional wisdom among executive pay consultants, boards of directors and investors is that CEOs make the best decisions for their companies when they have the most skin in the game. That's why big chunks of the compensation packages for the highest-paid CEOs come in the form of stock and stock options. Case in point: The world's top-earning CEO, Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison, took in $77 million worth of stock-based compensation last year, according toThe New York Times, after refusing his performance bonus and accepting only $1 in salary (he made a stunning total of $96 million in 2012). But does all that stock motivate Ellison to make the best calls for his company?

The empirical evidence before fell on both sides of that question, but those studies used small sample sizes. Now Cooper and two professors, one at Purdue and the other at the University of Cambridge, have studied a large data set of the 1,500 companies with the biggest market caps, supplied by a firm called Execucomp. They also looked at pay and company performance in three-year periods over a relatively long time span, from 1994-2013, and compared what are known as firms' "abnormal" performance, meaning a company's revenues and profits as compared with like companies in their fields. They were startled to find that the more CEOs got paid, the worse their companies did.

Another counter-intuitive conclusion: The negative effect was most pronounced in the 150 firms with the highest-paid CEOs. The finding is especially surprising given the widespread notion that it's worth it to pay a premium to superstar CEOs like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase (who earned $20 million in 2013) or Lloyd Blankfein ($28 million) of Goldman Sachs. (The study doesn't reveal individual results for them.) Though Cooper concedes that there could be exceptions at specific companies (the study didn't measure individual firms), the study shows that as a group, the companies run by the CEOS who were paid at the top 10% of the scale, had the worst performance. How much worse? The firms returned 10% less to their shareholders than did their industry peers. The study also clearly shows that at the high end, the more CEOs were paid, the worse their companies did; it looked at the very top, the 5% of CEOs who were the highest paid, and found that their companies did 15% worse, on average, than their peers.

How could this be? In a word, overconfidence. CEOs who get paid huge amounts tend to think less critically about their decisions. "They ignore dis-confirming information and just think that they're right," says Cooper. That tends to result in over-investinginvesting too much and investing in bad projects that don't yield positive returns for investors." The researchers found that 13% of the 150 CEOs at the bottom of the list had done mergers over the past year and the average return from the mergers was negative .51%. Among the top-paid CEOs, 19% did mergers and those deals resulted in a negative performance of 1.38% over the following three years. "The returns are almost three times lower for the high-paying firms than the low-paying firms," says Cooper. "This wasteful spending destroys shareholder value."

The paper also found that the longer CEOs were at the helm, the more pronounced was their firms' poor performance. Cooper says this is because those CEOs are able to appoint more allies to their boards, and those board members are likely to go along with the bosses' bad decisions. "For the high-pay CEOs, with high overconfidence and high tenure, the effects are just crazy," he says. They return 22% worse in shareholder value over three years as compared to their peers.

PROMOTED

UNICEF USABRANDVOICE| Paid Program

COVID-19 And Child Labor: A Time Of Crisis, A Time to Act

Civic NationBRANDVOICE| Paid Program

The Importance Of Queer Student Resources On A Collegiate Level

Grads of LifeBRANDVOICE| Paid Program

Driving Opportunity For Women Immigrants Is Key To Recovery

Yet another surprising finding: The high-paid CEOs did poorly for themselves when it came to cashing in their options. Among the bottom-paying firms, 33% of the CEOs held onto their options when they could have cashed them in for aprofit, which the paper calls "unexercised in-the-money options," while more than twice as many high-paid CEOs, 88%, held onto their options when they could have made money selling.

What can be done about all those negative numbers? The paper doesn't venture to say but Cooper notes that some finance experts have suggested so-called claw-back provisions. In a CEO pay contract, there would be an item that says, if the firm does poorly compared to its peers, the CEO loses a share of his compensation. "That proposal hasn't gone over real well," says Cooper. "There is another school of thought, that CEOs are just too highly paid, period," he adds. "The U.S. is pretty egregious as far as the ratio between median pay and what the CEO makes."

Though four years ago the Dodd-Frank law instituted a requirement that firms divulge the ratio between CEOs and median pay, the SEC has yet to issue a final rule ordering it, and companies have been less than forthcoming. ButBloombergcompiled data last year showing that the average multiple of CEO compensation to that of rank-and-file workers was 204, up 20% since 2009. At General Electric, with its star CEO Jeffrey Immelt ($28.2 million in 2013), the ratio was 491, according to Bloomberg.

The Occupy movement, labor unions and some members of Congress have pushed companies to divulge more information about pay ratios, and complained about excess CEO pay, while boards have pushed so-called say-on-pay provisions that would allow them to vote on executive compensation packages. Now those groups have some new empirical evidence to support their positions.