GSK investors attack exec pay, performance
It's been a tough week for outgoing GlaxoSmithKline CEO Jean-Pierre Garnier. Browbeaten during a BBC interview on Tuesday, he was "heckled" by annoyed shareholders at yesterday's annual meeting. Investors complained about the stock's lackluster performance and rebelled against what they called excessive executive pay. At least Garnier's pain was shared by the company's board: "I am getting fed up with this underperformance," one shareholder said to applause. "This board is a continuing failure."
One paycheck at issue was Chris Viehbacher's one-time retention bonus, a stock award worth between $4 million and $5 million. Viehbacher, you'll recall, was in the running to replace Garnier, but lost out to incoming chief Andrew Witty. One of GSK's big investors questioned the bonus, saying it had "insufficient justification." (It's worth noting, however, that the other CEO hopeful, David Stout, left GSK after Witty was appointed.)
Investors criticized other exec's pay, too, saying it's not sufficiently linked to the company's stock performance. Only 61 percent of shareholders voted in favor; considering the usual rubber-stamp shareholder vote, that's a low percentage. Last year, GSK's pay plan got 92.5 percent of the vote.
Perhaps Garnier was simply taking out his frustrations on a handy target when he scoffed at the idea of GSK buying rival AstraZeneca. "What kind of future do they have?" he asked. "What kind of pipeline do they have? Why would you trade down?"
- see the story in the Financial Times
- check out the article in The Telegraph
- read the item in the Wall Street Journal Deal Blog
- get the Pharmalot take
- find the WSJ Health Blog item
Related Articles:
GlaxoSmithKline's Jean-Pierre Garnier--CEO Pay
'No regrets,' says newly retired JP Garnier
GSK's Garnier gets $4.9M handshake
GSK's Garnier to join Dubai equity firm
At GSK, a public race for the top spot
Comments
Glaxo is only of of the big pharma companies whose CEO turbulence has started. Investors need to rise up against companies like Merck and Pfizer whose stock prices have plummeted over 15% in the last few month. However the CEO's compensation exceeds the return share holders got over the last 12 months. How does that compute?
This is the new corporate reality in America . While CEO's preach performance and tie compensation for their employees they conveniently reward themselves for a job well done. At least in their minds. The board approves these excessive payouts to retain executive talent. My question is how do you define talent? Let see: layoffs, Plant closings, decrease revenues, unproductive R&D the list goes on. Well ladies and gentlemen of the board how much talent does it take to drive a company to despair?
How about this: creative solutions, foresight, tough decision making, image building and revenue growth. These sound like qualities that are severely lacking in todays executive corporate board rooms.
Perhaps the same thought process is entrenched in the board members themselves. Until pay for performance is directly linked to the CEO and their henchmen the investor will be left out in the cold and so have thousands of talented employees who will and have seen their jobs fly overseas to cost efficient counties with great human right records.
Well we can always buy more goods from the Chinese.
Post new comment
Paid Research Reports
- Leading Drug Delivery Companies and Technologies: Competitive landscape, company profiles and technological developments
- Drug Repositioning Strategies - Serendipity by design
- eHealthInsight Series: Online Patient Recruitment Strategies - Optimizing the clinical trial process
- Pricing & Reimbursement - Seven Major Markets Update
- Innovative Clinical Trial Design and Management: Trends, success stories and impact upon R&D budgets


