The highest-paid CEOs in Oregon

| Print |  Email
Monday, October 01, 2007


The Top 10

1 Mark G. Parker
2 Don R. Kania
3 Mark Donegan
4 John D. Carter
5 Andrew A. Wiederhorn
6 Eric E. Parsons
7 Walden C. Rhines
8 Nicholas Konidaris
9 Earl R. Lewis
10 Richard H. Wills


It’s not only about how much, but why.

By Linda Steffen and Bill Smith

As a result of mounting investor pressure in recent years, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has changed the requirements regarding the way companies disclose and value various elements of executive compensation in their annual proxy statements that go to all shareholders.

The SEC changes are an attempt to force companies to better disclose not only how much they are compensating CEOs and other top executives but also the process and logic behind their pay decisions. Of the companies represented in this year’s ranking of the highest-paid public-company CEOs in Oregon, 34 had fiscal year-ends after Dec. 15, 2006, and thus were subject to the new disclosure rules.

As was the case with last year’s Top 50 list, we continue to rank CEOs by summing the following components of compensation: base salary, actual bonus earned, the value associated with the opportunity of earning a long-term incentive and all other compensation.

Oregon’s highest-paid CEO on this year’s list is Mark Parker of Nike. His total compensation of $11.5 million included restricted stock and option awards totaling roughly $8.8 million. Parker was not on our list last year, as he was appointed Nike’s president and CEO in January 2006.


This year’s Top 50 highest-paid CEOs in Oregon saw a modest increase in their average total compensation. On average, total CEO compensation was $1,881,007, up $59,777 from 2005. The average base salary decreased by a relatively small amount. While the average bonus increased by $170,806, decreases in stock grants and stock option awards respectively tempered the overall increase. Five executives received bonuses of more than $1 million this year, compared to last year’s ranking, when only two executives received bonuses of more than $1 million.

Pay for performance: The new disclosure requirements are intended to help investors evaluate the connection between executive pay and company financial performance. Companies must now disclose the measures, expected levels of performance, the degree of difficulty associated with meeting performance goals, and the logic behind awards.

Bonuses: Twenty-two companies reported target bonuses, with the median CEO bonus target (as a percentage of base salary) of 78%.

Equity Summary

Option awards 65% 52%
Restricted stock 31% 36%
Performance shares 4% 12%
Total 100% 100%

New reporting requirements enable investors to compare the actual bonus earned for the year with what the CEOs were targeted to receive for expected performance. Twenty companies provided information that allowed for a calculation of a bonus achievement rate (actual bonus amount divided by target bonus amount). By comparing a company’s bonus achievement rate to its total return to shareholders for the year, investors can better assess the link between pay and performance.

Breakout of total compensation

Compensation Mix
The above chart illustrates the role of the various elements of compensation to the Top 50 CEOs. Average movement in the broad categories of CEO pay was as follows:
  • Average base salary down $573 (-0.1%)
  • Average bonus up $170,806 (37.5%)
  • Average long-term incentive (LTI) down $111,602 (-12.4%)

In theory, there should be a positive correlation between bonus achievement and total shareholder return — companies with a CEO who’s earned more than their targeted award would be expected to have a positive total shareholder return. Most companies in Oregon showed the expected correlation between the pay and total shareholder return.

Long-term incentives: Long-term incentive equity grants continue to shift away from stock options and have moved to performance shares, restricted stock and cash-based long-term incentive programs instead. Even with this change, stock options continue to represent over half of the value granted in equity-based programs. Both restricted stock and performance shares displayed gains of 5%-6% of the total equity granted.

Other disclosure changes: The new disclosure regulations required additional pieces of information to be disclosed or elaborated upon. While the items that follow are noteworthy, they did not impact our calculations for 2006.

  • Deferred compensation. Although summary compensation must now include any above-market interest earned on deferred compensation, this amount is not included in the ranking calculation. Companies must report contributions and ending balances for deferred compensation for each executive in a separate table. Often, long-tenured executives will have large deferred-compensation balances. Such balances represent a type of tax-sheltered savings for the executive as well as a loan to the company from the executive.

  • Pensions. Under the new reporting requirements, each company must provide an actuarial estimate of the current value of all defined benefit pension programs. This amount is not included in our ranking calculation because of the various uncontrollable factors (age, years of service and other assumptions used for the calculation) that may trigger a substantial increase or decrease in the value of the pension from year to year.

  • Termination scenarios. To inform investors of any potential compensation that an executive may receive in the future under existing agreements, the company must disclose payment under all possible termination scenarios. Executives often receive payments upon leaving the company, including: voluntary termination, involuntary termination without cause, change in control, death or disability. Termination scenario disclosure allows an investor to determine if a company has golden parachute arrangements and to see the potential payout levels upon termination.

Although the new disclosure rules have required companies to provide broader and deeper data, the greatest challenge investors face is finding meaningful ways to interpret this information and form meaningful conclusions not only about how much is paid but also about why various programs are used.

Linda Steffen and Bill Smith are members of the Northwest Compensation Consulting Practice of Watson Wyatt Worldwide, an international human resource consulting firm.

Have an opinion? E-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


More Articles

What I'm Reading

November/December 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Peter Lizotte at ACME Business Solutions and Roger Busse at Pacific Continental Bank share their favorite reads.


Healthcare pullback

Thursday, November 20, 2014
112014-boehnercare-thumbBY JASON NORRIS | OB CONTRIBUTOR

Each month for Oregon Business, we assess factors that are shaping current capital market activity—and what they mean to investors. Here we take a look at two major developments regarding possible rollbacks of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).


See How They Run

January-Powerbook 2015
Friday, December 12, 2014

Studying ground-running birds, a group that ranks among nature's speediest and most agile bipedal runners, to build a faster robot.


I Know How You Feel

November/December 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Most smartphones come equipped with speech recognition systems like Siri or Cortana that are capable of understanding the human voice and putting words into actions. But what if smartphones could do more? What if smartphones could register feeling?


Editor's Letter: Power Play

January-Powerbook 2015
Thursday, December 11, 2014

There’s a fascinating article in the December issue of the Harvard Business Review about a profound power shift taking place in business and society. It’s a long read, but the gist revolves around the tension between “old power” and “new power” as a driver of transformation. Here’s an excerpt:

Old power works like a currency. It is held by few. Once gained, it is jealously guarded, and the powerful have a substantial store of it to spend. It is closed, inaccessible, and leader-driven. It downloads, and it captures.

New power operates differently, like a current. It is made by many. It is open, participatory, and peer-driven. It uploads, and it distributes. Like water or electricity, it’s most forceful when it surges. The goal with new power is not to hoard it but to channel it.

The authors, Henry Timms and Jeremy Heimans, don’t necessarily favor one form of power over another but merely outline how power is transitioning, and how companies can take advantage of these changes to strengthen their positions in the marketplace. 

Our Powerbook issue might be viewed as a case study in the new-power transition. This annual book of lists provides information on leading businesses, nonprofits and universities in the state. Most of the featured companies are entrenched power players now pursuing more flexible and less hierarchical approaches to doing business. Law firms, for example, are adopting new technologies and fee structures to make legal services more accessible and affordable.

This month we also take a look at a controversial new U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring public companies to disclose the median pay of workers, as well as the ratio between CEO and median-worker pay. 

Part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the rule will compel public companies to be more open about employee compensation, with the assumption that greater transparency will improve corporate performance and, perhaps, help address one of the major challenges of our time: income inequality.

New power is not only about strategy and tactics, the Harvard Business Review authors say. “The ultimate questions are ethical. The big question is whether new power can genuinely serve the common good and confront society’s most intractable problems.”

That sounds like a call to arms. Or a New Year’s resolution. Old power or new, the goals are the same: to be a force for positive change in the world. Happy 2015!

— Linda


Tackling the CEO-worker pay gap

January-Powerbook 2015
Thursday, December 11, 2014

An SEC rule targets the disparity between executive and employee compensation, reigniting a long-standing debate about corporate social responsibility.


Election Season

November/December 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014

We didn’t intend this issue to have an election season theme. But politics has a way of seeping into the cracks and fissures.

Oregon Business magazinetitle-sponsored-links-02