????也許會,，但他們真的沒料到會這么高，特別是考慮到他們獲得的回報,。標準普爾500指數(shù)較五年前下跌了近9%,。只要表現(xiàn)稍稍好一點，就會成為英雄,。就哈姆格倫而言,，麥克森的股價表現(xiàn)顯著優(yōu)于標準普爾500指數(shù)。

????GMI的研究指出,，麥克森的高管薪酬方案中有些內(nèi)容令人驚訝,，比如，如果公司被收購,，需向哈姆格倫支付5億美元,。盡管如此，從公司股票回報率強勁的角度考慮,，麥克森董事會仍然認為哈姆格倫的薪酬是合理的,，而且去年投資者也批準了他的薪酬方案。

董事會多途徑監(jiān)管

????但是其他董事會呢,？——需要擔心高額獎金遭遇終結(jié)嗎,？特別是既然標準普爾500指數(shù)已回到了20世紀90年代的水平。難道績效薪酬不正是當今董事會主要關(guān)注的問題嗎,？

????美國企業(yè)董事聯(lián)合會（National Association of Corporate Directors）和薪酬公司Pearl Meyer and Partners近期的一項調(diào)查顯示,，這對于董事會而言是一個重要問題。但還無需緊張。調(diào)查指出,，“超過80% （的董事）…表明他們“有信心”或“非常有信心”,，相信他們當前的（薪酬）制度能很好地應對如何將CEO薪酬與績效掛鉤的廣泛挑戰(zhàn)?！?/p>

公眾不滿：怒氣大,，忘性也大

????那么公眾不滿呢？——公眾不滿會影響天價薪酬嗎,？對于這一點,，未來的CEO們同樣也不需要擔心。

????美國的個人投資者普遍不關(guān)心這個問題,，甚至都不會去查看共同基金經(jīng)理就薪酬事宜的投票,，更不會為了代理投票問題而興師問罪。而占領運動（或者未來的相關(guān)運動）必須要擴大影響力,，才能真正問責CEO薪酬,。

????當然，一些約束性政策正在醞釀之中,。英國總理戴維?卡梅倫已呼吁就薪酬問題進行有約束力的投資者投票（即需要公司對投票做出回應）,，而一些國會議員希望董事會薪酬委員會中引進員工代表。不過,，短期內(nèi)依然無虞,。美國花了整整八年時間，才最終步英國的后塵,，賦予顧問在薪酬問題上的話語權(quán),。

????總體而言，形勢樂觀,。你有什么打算,？當然是當標普500指數(shù)成份股公司的CEO了，難道你還有什么顧慮嗎,？

????本文作者愛麗諾?布洛斯罕是董事會咨詢公司The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance（http://thevaluealliance.com）的首席執(zhí)行官,。

????Maybe, but they don't really expect that much, when you consider what they're used to getting in the way of returns. The S&P 500 is down nearly 9% from where it was five years ago. Just working to move the dial a bit forward (rather than backward) will make you a hero. In Hammergren's case, McKesson stock has considerably outperformed the index.

????The GMI study notes that some parts of McKesson's executive compensation practices raise eyebrows, like a half a billion dollars Hammergren would be owed if the company were acquired. Still, the board believes his pay is warranted given the company's strong returns, and investors approved his compensation plan last year.

Board oversight, in more ways than one

????But what about other boards -- do you need to be concerned that bonus bonanzas could meet their demise, especially since the S&P 500 is now sitting at levels that had already been achieved in the 90s? Isn't pay for performance a major concern of boards today?

????The issue is important to boards, according to a recent survey by the National Association of Corporate Directors and compensation firm Pearl Meyer and Partners. But there is no need for alarm. According to the survey, "More than 80% [of board members] …stated they are 'confident' or 'very confident' about how well their current [compensation] programs address the broader challenge of aligning CEO pay with performance."

Populist outrage: Long on anger, short on attention span

????What about public outcry -- could that influence high pay? Again, prospective CEOs can put their fears to rest.

????The U.S. retail investing public is generally indifferent and does not even monitor the pay votes of mutual fund managers, much less hold them accountable for those made on their behalf. And the Occupy movement (or a successor) would have to significantly expand its reach to truly take CEO pay practices to task.

????There is some trouble brewing across the pond. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has called for a binding investor vote on pay (one that would require a response from a company) and some members of Parliament want board compensation committees to have employee representation. There's no immediate threat, though. It took eight years for the U.S. to adopt an advisory say on pay, following in the UK's footsteps.

????All in all, it's a rosy picture. So what are you going to do? Any reason you wouldn't aspire to be an S&P 500 CEO?

????Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com), a board advisory firm.