从德约科维奇和纳达尔的奖金差异看美国大公司CEO的高薪酬问题

Djokovic, Nadal, and the CEO Pay Controversy

by baruchlev 纽约大学会计与金融系教授

Novak Djokovic, Wimbledon’s 2018 winner, received £2.25 million prize, whereas Rafael Nadal, who lost to Djokovic in the semifinals, receive a paltry £562,000. What explains Djokovic’s almost four-timeshigher prize? Is Djokovic four-times more talented than Nadal? Was he playing four times harder? Does Djokovic draw four times more spectators, or TV audiences than Nadal (contribution to tournament revenue)? Obviously, No, No, and No. So, what explains the extreme skewness (prize differential) in sport tournaments’ pay?

温布尔登网球锦标赛2018赛季的冠军——诺瓦克·德约科维奇拿到了225万英镑的奖金，而在半决赛中输给德约科维奇的拉菲尔·纳达尔拿到的奖金是少得多的56.2万英镑。怎么解释德约科维奇的奖金几乎是纳达尔的四倍？难道说德约科维奇的水平是纳达尔的四倍？或者说德约科维奇在比赛中的努力程度是纳达尔的四倍？被德约科维奇吸引而来的现场观众或电视观众的数量（即给锦标赛带来的收入）是纳达尔的四倍？显然，情况并非如此。那么，冠亚军奖金之间的巨大差异是怎么来的？

Economic theory says that people are rewarded for their marginal productivity―that is for their contribution to the organization. A salesperson receives a cut of the sales he/she generate, and an R&D researcher should be compensated for the patents, or new products they help to generate. Seems logical and fair. But it doesn’t explain the 4:1 prize margin of Djokovic over Nadal. Novak Djokovic obviously didn’t contribute four times more than Nadal to Wimbledon’s success in 2018. Something else explains the skewness (large differentials at the top) of tournament prizes (and lotteries too).

经济学理论认为，人们因其对组织所做的贡献即边际生产效率的提升而得到奖励。销售人员从销售额中拿走一部分作为奖励，研发人员应因其在专利发明或在新产品研制过程中所做的贡献而得到相应的补偿。该话听上去既合理又公平，但还是解释不了为啥德约科维奇的奖金是纳达尔的四倍？诺瓦克·德约科维奇在温布尔登网球锦标赛2018年赛季的成功举办方面所做的贡献显然没有纳达尔的四倍，一定有其他什么东西可以讲清楚为啥在锦标赛奖金的设置乃至场外下注回报率方面会存在如此巨大的差异。

Edward Lazear and Sherwin Rosen, two leading labor economists, advanced in 1981 their “Tournament theory” to explain the large top prize differentials of tournaments.[1] Top tournament prizes, say Lazear and Rosen, are not just aimed to compensate winners for their effort and contribution to the tournament. Rather, they serve as an incentive for all tournament participants to strive as hard as they can to reach the top. Suppose the total prize money of a tournament (or a lottery) were equally divided among all players. Obviously, the incentive to win (or buy a lottery ticket) would have been significantly lower than with a skewed prize structure.

1981年，两位劳动力经济学方面的知名学者Edward Lazear和Sherwin Rosen推出了“锦标赛理论”，该理论解释了为什么锦标赛最高奖金的数额要远远高于其他奖。Lazear和Rosen认为，锦标赛的最高奖金并不仅仅体现了对冠军的努力以及对比赛的成功举办所做贡献的补偿。而是激励所有参赛者竭尽全力打出最好状态。假设一场比赛中的所有奖金被平均分配给了所有的参赛者，这种情况下，夺取冠军的动力显然要大大低于最高奖远超其他奖的奖金分配机制。

Edward Lazear，斯坦福大学经济学教授

Sherwin Rosen( 1938- 2001)，前芝加哥大学教授

“锦标赛理论”出现在“Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts”这篇文章中，该文发表于《政治经济学期刊Journal of Political Economy》

Why am I telling you all this? Because now is the time of the year when last year’s compensation of U.S. CEOs is tallied, hotly debated, and often derided. Reed Hastings, Netflix’s CEO, received $36.1M in 2018, whereas the median S&P 500 CEO received “only” $12.4M (Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2019). Is Hastings “worth” three times the median CEO? And what about Robert Iger, Walt Disney’s CEO, who received $65.7M in 2018? Is he twice as able as Hastings?Four times as able as Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, who took in a measly $15.7M? And do all these multi-million CEO earners deserve so much more than John Roberts, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, who was paid $270,700 in 2018? Worse yet, theJournalreports that the 2018 pay of 97 CEOs of the S&P 500 companies increased, while their shareholder returns were in the bottom half of the group. For example, “Dialysis chain DaVita Inc., doubled Kent Thiry’s pay to $32 million while it recorded a negative 29% [shareholder] return…” It seems that CEO compensation is totally unrelated to corporate performance and shareholder return.

为啥要说这些？因为当前正值美国各大公司CEO的上一年度薪酬数额引发舆论争议并经常遭到非议的时候。例如， Netflix的首席执行官Reed Hastings2018年度的薪酬为3610万美元，而根据2019年5月17日华尔街日报的报道，标准普尔500指数成分股公司CEO的薪酬的中位数“只有”1240万美元。 Hastings的价值真的相当于标准普尔500指数成分股公司CEO能力的中位水平的三倍？迪士尼公司的首席执行官Robert Iger2018年的奖金为6570万美元，这又应当做何解释？他的贡献相当于Hastings的两倍吗？ 他的能力等于2018年拿了1570万美元的苹果公司首席执行官蒂姆·库克的四倍？所以这些一挣就是几千万的CEO真的就应该比2018年薪酬为270,700美元的美国最高法院首席大法官John Roberts挣得多吗？更糟糕的是，华尔街日报还报道，2018年有97家标准普尔500指数成分股公司CEO的薪酬出现上升，但这些公司的股价涨幅却在标准普尔500指数成分股公司中位居均线以下。比如，该报道称“Dialysis chain DaVita Inc公司给首席执行官 Kent Thiry的薪酬翻了一番至3200万美元，但该公司的股票却下跌了29%。。。”看上去CEO的薪酬与公司业绩以及给股东的回报之间毫无关联。

This is not new. Ever since I started reading economic literature (and this is a long time ago), academics and pundits lash out at the allegedly extravagant and undeserved CEO compensation, claiming that CEOs pack their boards with friends who award them undeserved pay and perks at shareholders’ expense. And yet, when shareholders vote, annually or biannually, on managers’ compensation―the famous Say on Paymandatory vote―they approve the compensation at more than 97% of the companies. With but a handful of exceptions (one is Oracle, where the 2017 say on pay vote was only 49% in support of management) shareholders don’t seems to mind the multi-million CEO pay packages. And why would they? When Netflix’s shares returned 39% in 2018, who can resent Reed Hastings’ $36M pay? So, if shareholders are overall satisfied with CEOs’ compensation, what is the reason for the annual fest of criticism and soul searching about CEO pay?

这些争论已经没啥新鲜的了，自从我很久以前开始读经济文献以来，专家学者就一直在对CEO所谓过高的薪酬大加抨击，声称各家公司的的董事会内部充斥着CEO塞进去的一帮狐朋狗友，因此CEO的薪酬远超其所作的贡献且损害了股东的利益。然而，在每年一度或每半年一度的股东对管理层薪酬决议案进行表决时，有97%的公司的股东投了赞成票。除了个别的案例，其中一个案例是2017年甲骨文公司在管理层薪酬决议案表决时只有49%的股东投了赞成票，其他大多数公司的股东似乎并不在意给CEO支付数千万美元的薪酬。股东们为啥这样做？2018年Netflix的股价上涨了39%，有谁会在乎Reed Hastings拿走了3600万美元的薪酬？因此，如果股东们总体上对CEO的薪酬感到满意，那么每年一度的关于CEO薪酬水平过高的批评声浪以及反思与思考的声音又从何而来呢？

Back to Djokovic, Nadal, and the Lazear and Rosen’s Tournament Theory. The mistake people make in analyzing CEO pay is to focus totallyon the recipients of the compensation (CEOs) and their company’s annual performance. (When the legendary Babe Ruth was told once that he made more money than U.S. President Herbert Hoover, he said: “I had a better year than he did.”) A major reason for the large “prizes” at the top of business enterprises’ pay is to motivateall employeesto invest in their human capital (education, training) and exert their utmost effort and skill to reach the top of the organization, just as athletes in sport tournaments strive for the top prize. The top prize, accordingly, is, in part, unrelated to the recipient’s effort and contribution in a given year. Rather, it is aimed atother employees(or athletes) as a beacon to motivate human capital investment and effort. Just as Wimbledon’s management doesn’t change the prize structure when the level of the finals isn’t great, companies should not reshuffle pay structure every year.

回到德约科维奇、纳达尔以及Lazear和Rosen的锦标赛理论的话题。人们在分析CEO薪酬方面时所犯的错误在于，他们完全将注意力放在了CEO的薪酬多少以及公司的年度业绩上。（小插曲：美国棒球史上的风云人物Babe Ruth有一次在得知其年收入超过了当时的美国总统赫伯特·胡佛后，说道“我这一年干得比他好”。）大企业的管理层所获“奖励”数额之所以如此之高是要激励全体员工在人力资本比如教育和培训方面加大投入，发挥聪明才智，尽其所能地实现整个组织的利益最大化，就像运动员在体育比赛中竭尽全力夺取最高奖一样。因此，从某种意义上讲，这个最高奖与获得者在某一特定年份的个人努力和贡献并无关系，而是旨在让其他员工或参赛者将大奖获得者作为榜样，激励其加大人力资本投入并竭尽所能。温布尔登网球锦标赛就是个很好的例子，在比赛结果不理想的时候，大赛组委会并没有改变奖金的发放机制，同理，公司也不应对高管的薪酬发放机制每年都做重新调整。

Babe Ruth，被誉为20世纪最伟大的棒球选手

赫伯特·胡佛，美国第31任总统

Please note, I don’t say that CEOs’ pay should be completely detached from enterprise performance and shareholder return. CEO pay should definitely reflect performance and share return, but over several years. And this is clearly the case at most companies, and not just for CEO pay. The median tenure of U.S. CEOs is at an all-time low of five years (for S&P 500 companies). U.S. CEOs are clearly held responsible for their companies’ performance. But it’s a mistake tototally focuson a company’s annual performance when analyzing CEO pay, as so many do. There are other objectives for a skewed corporate pay structure at the top, as Wimbledon’s managers realized when they paid Novak Djokovic in 2018 four times the purse of Rafael Nadal.

请注意，我并不是说CEO的薪酬水平应与企业的业绩表现以及给股东带来的回报完全脱钩。CEO的薪酬水平确实应该体现公司业绩以及股东回报的大小，但应以几年作为一个考核期限。大多数的公司显然也应这么做，而不仅仅是在对CEO的薪酬考核方面。以标准普尔500指数成分股公司为代表的美国大企业的CEO的任职期中位数为5年，为史上最短，很显然，美国大企业的CEO已经为其所在公司的业绩表现承担了责任。但误区是在分析CEO薪酬的时候将注意力全放在公司的年度业绩表现上，而有太多的人都是这样做的。将高管的薪酬水平确立得如此之高是因为公司有其他方面的考量，就像温布尔登网球锦标赛的组委会2018年付给德约科维奇的奖金是纳达尔的四倍时所考虑的东西一样。