Prof. Dr. Alex­an­der Götz/Niklas Frie­se: Com­pen­sa­ti­on of the Board of Manage­ment in the DAX and MDAX 2014

Publi­ca­ti­on in Cor­po­ra­te Finan­ce 9/2015

After signi­fi­cant increa­ses in 2013, exe­cu­ti­ve com­pen­sa­ti­on for DAX and MDAX com­pa­nies also increased in 2014. Im Mehr­jah­res­ver­gleich gibt es eine posi­ti­ve Kor­re­la­ti­on mit der wirt­schaft­li­chen Ent­wick­lung der Unter­neh­men. In rela­ti­on to EBIT, it can be seen that the top per­for­mers pay rather below avera­ge in terms of the abso­lu­te level of remu­ne­ra­ti­on. The model tables accor­ding to the DCGK have led to a signi­fi­cant increase in trans­pa­ren­cy.

I. Intro­duc­tion

Against the back­ground of the finan­cial cri­sis in 2008, the
Fede­ral Govern­ment adopted the Act on the Ade­quacy of Exe­cu­ti­ve Board Remu­ne­ra­ti­on (Vors­tAG) on 05.08.2009 in order to influence the remu­ne­ra­ti­on struc­tu­re of board mem­bers. In addi­ti­on to the legal requi­re­ments, the recom­men­da­ti­ons of the Ger­man Cor­po­ra­te Gover­nan­ce Code (DCGK) have also been fur­ther deve­lo­ped with adjus­t­ments almost every year in order to empha­si­ze and pro­mo­te the long-term natu­re of remu­ne­ra­ti­on incen­ti­ves in the sen­se of sus­tainable value crea­ti­on. and increase the trans­pa­ren­cy of report­ing. Sin­ce then, a very broad sci­en­ti­fic and public deba­te has taken place. While in 2014 the­re was still inten­si­ve deba­te, e.g. The main cor­ner­sto­nes of the deba­tes over the harsh remu­ne­ra­ti­on cei­lings or the exten­ded report­ing requi­re­ments under the DCGK seem to be the main cor­ner­sto­nes at the moment, as the inten­si­ty of the dis­cus­sion decrea­ses. The empi­ri­cal ana­ly­sis of the remu­ne­ra­ti­on of DA X and MDA X com­pa­nies until 20135, published in 2014, is to be con­tin­ued below with the fin­dings of the 2014 finan­cial year. The focus is on how the sala­ries of the Exe­cu­ti­ve Board have deve­lo­ped in recent years in their abso­lu­te level and com­po­si­ti­on (fixed, varia­ble, opti­ons, etc.). For the first time, the expen­ses for pen­si­on pro­vi­si­on can also be ade­qua­te­ly map­ped, as the new­ly intro­du­ced remu­ne­ra­ti­on tables are enable DCGK to pro­vi­de suf­fi­ci­ent ana­ly­sis. In addi­ti­on, the rela­ti­ve deve­lo­p­ment of exe­cu­ti­ve board remu­ne­ra­ti­on com­pared to com­pa­ny key figu­res is exami­ned in terms of EBIT or avera­ge per­son­nel expen­ses. This is par­ti­cu­lar­ly hel­pful with regard to the ques­ti­on of the ade­quacy of remu­ne­ra­ti­on, sin­ce the public deba­te is always based on abso­lu­te amounts. Accor­ding to the will of the legis­la­tor, howe­ver, the ade­quacy of the remu­ne­ra­ti­on should be based, among other things, on the size of the com­pa­ny and the respon­si­bi­li­ty of the Exe­cu­ti­ve Board. The­r­e­fo­re, remu­ne­ra­ti­on can only be asses­sed in rela­ti­on to cor­re­spon­ding mea­su­res. Par­ti­cu­lar atten­ti­on will be paid in this stu­dy to the addi­tio­nal fin­dings that can be gene­ra­ted by the model tables pro­po­sed in the DCGK.

read more

Search
Search

Don't hesitate to contact us:

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from Google reCAPTCHA v3. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information '
'