The end of its projections it was concluded

sakil634

That growth based on the increase in market value fell short of the variation in remuneration perceived in the period. While in the period - the percentage variation in CEO remuneration was  and that of the top was, however, according to the aforementioned authors the percentage of growth justified by the increase in the company's value was , respectively. According to the authors, the increase in the remuneration of American executives could be justified by the increase in variable remuneration (eg stock options , bonuses), as long as the fixed remuneration ( in cash compensation ) presented a proportional reduction.

However, the results presented demonstrate that there was no proportional reduction between fixed and variable remuneration, which could justify the increase in the overall remuneration of Phone Number List executives in the period -, on the contrary, there was an increase in both forms of remuneration, a fact that corroborates the thesis of unjustified asymmetry. According to the aforementioned authors, the problems arise from the influence that CEOs exert on the board of directors/remuneration committees, which in theory should be sufficiently independent to supervise executives' remuneration and negotiate them under market conditions. They also conclude that the problem is aggravated in companies whose corporate governance levels are considered weak.



Regarding the remuneration of executives of Brazilian companies, the issue is governed by article of Law ,/, which imposes on the company the duty to inform the global amount of remuneration paid to executives, without a specific obligation to separate remuneration between fixed and variable, or inform about stock options plans . Furthermore, at the infra-legal level, we have the regulations for Bovespa's differentiated levels of corporate governance, which, despite being a commendable and successful initiative, impose generic rules regarding executive remuneration, and, thus, like legal rules, do not oblige companies to clearly inform whether or not a given administrator has stock option plans.