Doubt it will change anything, but some empirical proof that in aggregate terms, over paying for your CEO 'talent" ain't so good for shareholder returns.
Though Cooper concedes that there could be exceptions at specific companies (the study didnít measure individual firms), the study shows that as a group, the companies run by the CEOS who were paid at the top 10% of the scale, had the worst performance. How much worse? The firms returned 10% less to their shareholders than did their industry peers. The study also clearly shows that at the high end, the more CEOs were paid, the worse their companies did; it looked at the very top, the 5% of CEOs who were the highest paid, and found that their companies did 15% worse, on average, than their peers.