为什么没人跑去“占领Facebook”？

    本月早些时候，社交媒体公司Facebook提交首次公开募股申请，人们最关注的是Facebook未来市值可能高达1,000亿美元。然而，大家都忽略了、或者说没有仔细追究Facebook高管们的薪酬待遇。这可是一笔巨款。仅2011年，这家公司高管薪酬的总额就高达8,300万美元。涉及高管的薪酬，很难说支付多少属于合理范畴。在某种程度上，正是因为这个原因，董事会最终批准了这些巨额薪金。Facebook的巨大成功也堵住了悠悠之口。甚至我的同事艾伦•斯隆在阐述Facebook首次公开募股的弊端时，也没有提到高管薪酬。

    虽然华尔街经常被视为天价薪酬的标杆，不过与Facebook比起来简直是小巫见大巫。唯一一家能和Facebook相提并论的银行是摩根大通（JP Morgan）。2010年，其五位薪酬最高的高管共计获得7,900万美元（目前各大银行尚未公布2011年高管们的薪酬情况），但与Facebook相比，仍然少了400万美元。要知道，戴蒙（摩根大通首席执行官——译注）等人管理的公司是一家足有239,831名雇员的巨无霸，而Facebook员工仅有3,200人。其它银行则被Facebook远远抛在了身后。美国银行（Bank of America）薪酬最高的八名高管共计获得2,800万美元，还赶不上谢丽尔•桑德博格一个人的薪酬。

    Where's the Occupy Facebook movement?

    Earlier this month, when the social media company filed for its initial public offering most of the attention was focused on the fact that Facebook could be worth as much as $100 billion. But what didn't get a lot of attention, or scrutiny, was what the company pays its top executives. It's a ton - $83 million in 2011 alone. It's hard to say what's fair when it comes to paying top executives. That is, in part, how boards get away with approving large paydays. Facebook's huge success, too, blunts criticism. Even my colleague, Allan Sloan, didn't include executive pay on his list of things wrong with Facebook's IPO.

    One yardstick, though, could be Wall Street, which is routinely singled out for its over-the-top compensation. Compared to Facebook, Wall Street pay looks like peanuts. The only bank that comes close to Facebook is JP Morgan Chase (JPM). That bank's five highest-paid executives got $79 million in 2010 (none of the banks have said what they paid in 2011 yet), nearly $4 million less than Facebook. But Dimon & Co. manage a company with 239,831 employees, compared to Facebook's 3,200. None of the other banks really come close. Bank of America's (BAC) top eight executives got paid a collective $28 million, less than Sheryl Sandberg took home alone.

    如果考虑盈利情况，Facebook的薪酬简直荒唐可笑。这些高管们的薪水相当于Facebook 2011年净利润的8%。这一比例是高盛（Goldman Sachs）的10倍之多，高盛公司高管们的薪水还不到该公司净利润的1%。摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）的这一比例是1.2%。富国银行（Wells Fargo）则仅为0.4%。的确，Facebook薪酬的绝大部分来自股票，而且其中一部分还是受限股票，但华尔街也同样如此。与苹果（Apple）首席执行官蒂姆•库克要到2021年才能到手全部收入相比，Facebook股票的等待期相对较短，而且行使权力的依据完全是时间而不是绩效。

    人们或许会说与大型银行相比，新创企业必须将其利润的更大一部分用于支付薪酬，因为它们赚得不多。但Facebook并不是典型的新创企业。其利润已经高达10亿美元。更重要的是， 2004年，谷歌（Google）上市的前一年，这家搜索公司顶级高管的总薪水仅为220万美元。当然，这些高管后来从首次公开募股中大赚特赚，但扎克伯格之流肯定也会这样。

    金融危机处于顶峰时，我们的高管薪酬问题一度出现过转机。当时，人们曾强烈抗议美国国际集团（AIG）的留任奖金。华盛顿提出了奖金税。奥巴马后来任命了一位“薪酬沙皇”。如今下文如何？

    译者：项航

    Based on profits, Facebook's pay only looks more ludicrous. The company paid its executives equal to 8% of its bottom line last year. That was 10 times Goldman Sachs (GS), whose executives take home pay was less than 1% of that firm's profits. Morgan Stanley's (MS) executive compensation equaled 1.2% of pay. Wells Fargo was just 0.4%. Yes, much of Facebook's pay is in stock, and some of it's restricted, but so is Wall Street. And the vesting periods at Facebook are relatively short - nothing like Apple's CEO Tim Cook who will have to wait until 2021 to get all of his pay - and the conditions are all based on time, not performance.

    You can make the case that start-ups have to pay out a higher ratio of their bottom line in pay than a big bank would because they don't make a lot of money. But Facebook isn't your typical start-up. It's bottom line is already $1 billion. What's more, in the year before Google (GOOG) went public back in 2004, the search firm top executives collectively received just $2.2 million in pay. Of course, those guys were set to get a huge payday from IPO, but so is Zuckerberg and Co.

    At the height of the financial crisis, it looked like we were on the verge of some kind of shift in executive pay. There was a public outcry over AIG's retention bonuses. A bonus tax was floated in Washington. Obama appointed a pay czar. What happened?