Idunno
26th Jul 2002, 23:11
I found this on an Irish website and thought it might interest our Aer Lingus friends.
Excessive CEO pay at Aer Lingus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sunday Business Post ran an article yesterday comparing and analysing the remuneration of Irelands top CEOs.
One yardstick they used was to take the market value of the company and factor the CEOs remuneration against that to see how many years it would take him/her to 'buy' the company.
For instance the top paid CEO in the country was Michael Smurfitt (CEO of Jefferson Smurfitt) who earned 2.64 million euro. When factored against his companys value it was found that he'd need 1026 years to buy it out.
The BoI chief Michael Buckley was best value, requiring around 15,000 years to buy out his lot.
However I noticed that the Aer Lingus CEO, Mr.Willie Walsh, was not mentioned in the article. As a matter of interest I thought I'd do the same exercise on him.
Aer Lingus is not publicly quoted as yet so it's difficult to put a strict valuation on it. However when it was about to be floated last year the valuation was expected to be in the region of £650M IEP. That will have dropped enormously now. Some would say I'd be generous at calling it €300M euro, but lets take that as the number.
Mr.Walsh is on a salary of €300,000. His predecessor was raking in twice that so Mr.Walsh probably feels he's doing us a big favour in only taking €300K.
Or is he?
If you factor his salary against the valuation above you'll see that Mr.Walsh could buy out Aer Lingus in just 1,000 years. That makes him proportionately higher paid than the best paid CEO in Ireland, Mr.Smurfitt.
And remember, Smurfitts is a profit making company...one of the strongest in Ireland, while Aer Lingus is loss making and struggling to survive.
Mr.Walsh appears to be exorbiatantly overpaid.
If we compare him to Mike Buckley and base Walsh's salary on the same ratio he should in fact be receiving around €20,000 per year.
Mr.Walsh (like most wealthy people) has declared that he doesn't do his job for the money. If thats true then I think he should immediately cease withdrawing his exorbitant salary from the struggling company. He can ask for a payrise when they're back in profit and he has earned it. Using the same yardstick as before for benchmarking would be fair, don't you think?
Excessive CEO pay at Aer Lingus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sunday Business Post ran an article yesterday comparing and analysing the remuneration of Irelands top CEOs.
One yardstick they used was to take the market value of the company and factor the CEOs remuneration against that to see how many years it would take him/her to 'buy' the company.
For instance the top paid CEO in the country was Michael Smurfitt (CEO of Jefferson Smurfitt) who earned 2.64 million euro. When factored against his companys value it was found that he'd need 1026 years to buy it out.
The BoI chief Michael Buckley was best value, requiring around 15,000 years to buy out his lot.
However I noticed that the Aer Lingus CEO, Mr.Willie Walsh, was not mentioned in the article. As a matter of interest I thought I'd do the same exercise on him.
Aer Lingus is not publicly quoted as yet so it's difficult to put a strict valuation on it. However when it was about to be floated last year the valuation was expected to be in the region of £650M IEP. That will have dropped enormously now. Some would say I'd be generous at calling it €300M euro, but lets take that as the number.
Mr.Walsh is on a salary of €300,000. His predecessor was raking in twice that so Mr.Walsh probably feels he's doing us a big favour in only taking €300K.
Or is he?
If you factor his salary against the valuation above you'll see that Mr.Walsh could buy out Aer Lingus in just 1,000 years. That makes him proportionately higher paid than the best paid CEO in Ireland, Mr.Smurfitt.
And remember, Smurfitts is a profit making company...one of the strongest in Ireland, while Aer Lingus is loss making and struggling to survive.
Mr.Walsh appears to be exorbiatantly overpaid.
If we compare him to Mike Buckley and base Walsh's salary on the same ratio he should in fact be receiving around €20,000 per year.
Mr.Walsh (like most wealthy people) has declared that he doesn't do his job for the money. If thats true then I think he should immediately cease withdrawing his exorbitant salary from the struggling company. He can ask for a payrise when they're back in profit and he has earned it. Using the same yardstick as before for benchmarking would be fair, don't you think?