Sir Stelios Condemns Fat-Cat Pay

Published in Investing on 27 January 2012

The founder of easyJet blasts the airline for becoming a 'gravy train' for directors.

Yesterday brought good news for Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou, entrepreneur and founder of budget airline easyJet (LSE: EZJ).

Shares take off

On Thursday, easyJet shares soared by more 10% to 445.5p after it released a solid set of figures for the final quarter of 2011. As I write on Friday morning, its share price has crept up another 2% to 454p.

In the last three months of last year, easyJet's revenue leapt by a sixth (16.7%) to £763 million. This was largely due to a rise of more than 9% in per-seat revenue to nearly £52, plus a near-7% improvement in seats flown to 14.7 million.

Overall, easyJet's passenger numbers climbed by more than 8% to 12.9 million. Nevertheless, the budget airline still expects to lose £140 million to £160 million in the first half of this year, against a loss of £153 million in the first six months of 2011.

From airline to gravy train

Despite these operational improvements, Sir Stelios launched a scathing attack on Carolyn McCall, easyJet's chief executive, chairman Sir Michael Rake and their boardroom colleagues. According to the Guardian, easyJet's biggest shareholder (with a stake approaching 38%) claims that what was once his baby has become a 'gravy train' for executives to line their own pockets.

In a three-page litany of criticisms, Sir Stelios accuses the company of using 'phoney calculations' to produce a 12% return on capital employed (ROCE). Using his own calculation for ROCE, Sir Stelios gets a figure of 4%, just one third of that delivered using the board's method.

As a result, shares issued this month to 10 executives under a new long-term incentive plan will pay out as much as £8 million, which is far more than Sir Stelios believes is due.

Sir Stelios speaks

In a searing criticism of institutional investors, the entrepreneur remarked: "I am aware that many of the other EZJ shareholders are listed companies themselves, so they have a conflict of interest, as they want to carry on with the same fat-cat City bonus culture! Turkeys will never vote for Christmas."

Sir Stelios also gave his personal thumbs-up to Vince Cable's plans to require a binding vote by at least three-quarters (75%) of shareholders to approve director remuneration.

A battle for the skies

Of course, this isn't the first time that Sir Stelios has directed his anger at easyJet's executives. In fact, this ongoing feud has been raging since 2008. Indeed, last September, the entrepreneur threatened to start a rival budget airline to compete with easyJet, called Fastjet.

On one hand, onlookers can sympathise with Sir Stelios, as he watches the company he founded in November 1995 heading off in a new direction. Then again, the counter-argument is that if the entrepreneur didn't want to relinquish control of the carrier, then he should not have listed it in London in 2000, nor left its board in 2010.

Finally, this is my fourth story this week on 'responsible capitalism' and the linking of directors' rewards to shareholders' interests.

First came Vince Cable's plan to curb corporate excess, followed by the withdrawal of a £2.5 million bonus for the chairman of Cairn Energy (LSE: CNE). Then came the news that Royal Bank of Scotland (LSE: RBS) had trimmed the bonus of chief executive Stephen Hester to below £1 million.

If this keeps up, then bulging bonuses and corporate fat-cattery are set to be the most talked-about business topic for 2012!

> Here's your free Essential Investor Kit. Over the next few weeks, you'll get share ideas, a sector report and much, much more. Don't miss out!

More from Cliff D'Arcy:

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

AlysonThomson 27 Jan 2012 , 1:00pm

£1million bonus may be an improvement but it's got a long way to go down to become realistic.

BigJC1 27 Jan 2012 , 2:18pm

Alyson: What is realistic, the £20m someone gets for 90 minutes work a week kicking a bag of air around a grassy pitch, the £10m for a good round of golf, £15m for starring in the latest movie or the multi-millions the Blairs have made since they left office.

Sir Stelios never objected to lining his pockets from Easyjet, if he had given 95% of all he grabbed to charity I might just have some sympathy (he could make a start by donating it to the Greek people).

If shareholders don't want the best people running their businesses the answer is simple - sack the board and hire some cheap numpties.

chat01 27 Jan 2012 , 2:19pm

Good on Sir Stelios. Isn't this exactly the sort of shareholder the government wants to encourage? His views are often portrayed as some kind of self-serving, bitter whinge but as owner of 38% of the business he is perfectly entitled to give the hired help a hard time isn't he? It's the arrogant responses of the board that try to pooh pooh and brush off everything he says that get me. How dare they speak to one of the major owners like that?

CunningCliff 27 Jan 2012 , 2:58pm

Hi chat01,

I like your comment here: "...as owner of 38% of the business, he is perfectly entitled to give the hired help a hard time, isn't he?"

Hear, hear! Well said! :0)

Cliff

theRealGrinch 27 Jan 2012 , 3:07pm

Stelios isnt credible

BarneyCowshed 27 Jan 2012 , 3:37pm

"shareholders don't want the best people running their businesses the answer is simple - sack the board and hire some cheap numpties"

I think that there are already too many self serving numpties on the boards already. Any more, even cheap ones won't help.

The system makes shareholder influence completely ineffectual and after listening to Vince Cable's announcements this week it seems obvious that he can do nothing but make announcements.

Capitalism wins - the Lords of the Universe are in charge -accept it or man the barricades.

BigJC1 27 Jan 2012 , 4:22pm

BarneyCowshed: Well said, Capitalism does win, even China and Russia came round to that way of thinking. Vince Cable should realise that envy is no reason to tinker with the markets, god forbid that these highly paid executives should leave our shores and take their 63% tax contribution with them.

Perhaps a good old fashioned wage cap or a 90% tax rate could be the way to finally end this mess we are in and take us a step closer to the Greeks (as long as we get the 50% debt write off and low interest rates they are holding out for).

dubre 27 Jan 2012 , 4:38pm

Why do we have this mental block over professional sport.It is a business.Arsenal may not qualify for Europe next year & this may cost them ~£40m.One of the main reasons they may not qualify is because they have not been paying enough to players.

The problem with numpties is that the expensive ones were with Northern Rock.RBS.lloyds etc. & contiue to be rewarded beyond all reason.

BigJC1 27 Jan 2012 , 4:55pm

Dubre: I couldn't agree more, those clubs who can afford the top wages get the best players and go onto win. Same in business, but I would rather reward somebody £1m for creating wealth, jobs and prosperity as opposed to £1m for scoring a goal.

Sometimes the top guys make mistakes or fail, look at Torres

dubre 27 Jan 2012 , 6:00pm

BigJC1

Well said.My wife knocked me down with exactly the same comment about Torres.Then again,& not wishing her to have the last word--"if he wins the Eurpoean Cup for Chelsea he will have been worth every penny"

jaizan 27 Jan 2012 , 7:58pm

The most significant & correct comment made by Stelios, is about "turkeys not voting for Christmas".

Of course the majority of shares are controlled by fund managers, who also tend to be very well paid, even if their results do not justify such high salaries.
So if fat cat fund managers oppose fat cat company managers, this will draw attention back to the excess pay for the fund manager.
So it really would be turkeys voting for Christmas.

Somehow, we need to find a way of giving all the small investors who really own the assets in the funds the vote on remuneration, rather than the fat cat managers.

Many of the other comments above are irrelevant to the subject of investment.

fencepanel 28 Jan 2012 , 9:34am

My problem is that a minority shareholder is exerting too much influence which wouldn't be legal in the US. By alienating prior, present and possible future management he is actually destroying shareholder value. Whether you think a mill is excessive (and I do if its an immediate cash bonus - which this one isn't) is not really the point. If he continues this kind of commentary EZJ will have to pay a lot more for short term mercenary management in the future. It should also be remembered that this exec board declined bonuses in the prior year even though that was profitable due to the lousy operational performance had on the customers caused by the decisions of prior execs. If you are genuinely not getting bonuses for degraded company performance (and that doesn't happen often enough in any sector) then being rewarded at a reasonable level for true good performance is acceptable, promotes long term company health and thus shareholder value.

tru2me 29 Jan 2012 , 10:04am

The most significant & correct comment made by Stelios, is about "turkeys not voting for Christmas".
Totally agree jaizan.

The simple fact is that someone such as Sir Stellios has much greater influence & can make a much louder noise than the ordinary PI.

Which has to be good news in influencing the current self serving nature of corporate board rooms.

Those that disagree maybe on the gravy train themselves?

Carmensfella 29 Jan 2012 , 10:32am

These are exactly the kind of issues ShareSoc, the UK individual shareholder group, has been battling against for the last year. These fat cat stories are certainly not going to go away and there are many much worse than Easyjet. Maybe Stelios should join us in the fight.
You can support ShareSoc by joining the organisation as an associate member which is free of charge at www.sharesoc.org

David

RobinnBanks 31 Jan 2012 , 1:14am

The minimum wage was brought in to stop exploitation of the workers; now it's time for a maximum wage to control the bosses' exploitation of their position. A suitable percentage of profits should be paid to both: over to you Vince!

RobinnBanks 31 Jan 2012 , 1:24am

As the largest shareholder in RBS, the government should have voted against Hester's bonus: Cameron has been pushing for more shareholder power, yet will not yield it himself: they shamed Hester into refusing his bonus instead! If the share price was higher, he would have got more than a £million, which would take the average worker 40 years to earn at £25k per year.

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.