Business Exposed76
magazine Financial World, which had an annual and widely
publicized contest called CEO of the Year. Based on a survey of a
large number of analysts and CEOs, they awarded medals to the
top executives of a number of large American rms. A couple
of thousand CEOs were eligible; they gave out a few hundred
bronze medals, about a dozen silver medals, and one gold medal
to the true God of Business. The medals were awarded during a
lush and golf-anecdote-friendly dinner in New York City. The
magazine has long gone bust (although, reportedly, throwing
lush dinners till the bitter end) but its awards continue to echo
a telling tale.
A few years ago, together with some colleagues, Professor James
Wade from Georgetown University examined what happened to
these award-winning CEOs and their companies following the
receipt of the prestigious prize. They rst analyzed whether the
companies of the award-winners actually did any better than
the awardless schmucks, and the answer was “nope”. Professor
Wade and his colleagues put it a bit more carefully, saying that
“star CEOs have neither a positive nor a negative effect on the
operating results of rms” but, of course, this basically means:
nope.
They then analyzed whether the star CEOs made more money
(for themselves) than the hapless schmucks, in the form of the
size of compensation package they were given by their boards
subsequent to being awarded the medal. And the answer was
a profound “yes” – that is, with one caveat. Winning a medal
increased a CEO’s pay by about 10 percent but if the company
displayed bad performance (as bad as a negative return on equity),
the lauded CEO would actually make less money than his medal-
craving counterparts. Apparently boards are suckers for stardom,
in terms of compensating their prized CEOs, but when these
captains severely underdeliver they will also punish them for it.
Yet, for CEO remuneration this negative effect was relatively
weak; after all, there are not many companies around with
negative ROE. The stock market, as usual, was more ruthless.
Jim and his colleagues also examined how the stock market