- The pay-for-performance deal
the New York Yankees offered to Joe Torre lines up with
executive-compensation trends in Corporate America.
- Marie Leone, CFO.com
- October 22, 2007
The New York Yankees struck out with Joe Torre, the manager who led
the baseball club for the past 12 years until Thursday, when he nixed a
new contract offer. There is a raging debate about Torre's fate in New
York, but whichever side fans and critics come down on, one thing is
clear: the pay package offered by the Yankees is in line with those
being offered by many American corporations.
The Yankees offered Torre a one-year contract comprising a base
salary of $5 million and $1 million bonuses for each level of
postseason play the team reached in 2008, according to reports from
MLB.com, the Website of major league baseball.
The incentive component of the deal promised that if the Yankees win
it all next year, capturing the World Series crown, Torre could take
home $8 million in total compensation. But that won't happen — and it
has nothing to do with the Boston Red Sox.
Torre balked at the deal and called it quits. Essentially, the
Yankees skipper was being asked to cut 30 percent off his current $7.5
million salary and replace the missing cash with performance-based pay.
At a press conference Friday, Torre said he was "insulted" by the offer
and "I had been there for 12 years and I felt the motivation wasn't
needed."
Not only do the Yankees disagree, though, much of Corporate America
does as well. "The Yankees's offer is entirely appropriate and
consistent with current executive-compensation trends in which more
money is being put at risk," chief financial officer Michael Mardy
tells CFO.com. Mardy is CFO of privately held Tumi Luggage and sits on
the compensation committee of two publicly held companies.
The Yankees offer, which Mardy describes as "$5 million and a lot of
upside," is a package that "heads exactly in the right direction." He
contends that if performance parameters are clearly defined and
developed with rigor to reflect the proper business goals, then top
executives should expect to be paid less if they don't perform.
Conversely, the board should not hesitate to pay out more money if
performance objectives are met.
"It's likely that a new Securities and Exchange Commission direction
is pushing boards to develop more shareholder-friendly,
performance-based packages," adds Mardy. That push from the SEC is
spelled out in a new rule issued one year ago that requires
public-company proxy statements to include a compensation discussion
and analysis report. The report must disclose how much a company's
highest-earning executives are paid and explain how the package is
calculated.
Opening the kimono on executive compensation has the SEC, investors,
and board members paying closer attention to the link between
performance and pay. "Compensation-committee issues are probably a
bigger exposure than audit-committee issues these days," opines Mardy,
who is also the audit-committee chair of two public companies. "The SEC
has honed in like a laser on compensation issues."
To be sure, the SEC wants more analysis of how and why companies pay
their top executives what they do, but it also wants the information
presented in a tighter, more concise way, according to a 10-page evaluation the
regulator released earlier this month. The document was released after
SEC staffers reviewed 350 company CD&A disclosures they collected
during the past year.
Even a cursory look at corporate proxy filings illustrates the rise
in incentive-based pay arrangements, says Greg Adams, CFO of Edgar
Online Inc. He attributes that rise to the new CD&A filings, and
says incentive-based pay arrangements have spread beyond the CEO level
and are permeating the entire C-suite.
According to Adams, the Yankees's deal is typical, and he suggests
that if Torre has not delivered a world championship — clearly a
corporate goal coveted by principal owner George Steinbrenner — he
needs to be held accountable to the board, investors, and fans. "I also
think the players should receive the same pay-for-performance
[arrangements], but free agency appears to be their incentive program,"
adds Adams.
Read the entire article at CFO.com