Only 13 of them received a stock or free shares this year here

It is commonly acknowledged a simple link between the competitiveness of an economy and the level of wages. An economy is competitive, requires that the cost of the work of the least educated people is low but to attract the best leaders, with the highest wages. To caricature, more low wages would be lower and more senior salaries would be high, the economy would be competitive. The France thus boasts over the past years have caught up to his delay, in having helped the patterns of the CAC 40 to reach, or even exceed the salary levels of their counterparts in the US or Europe. They no longer have to be ashamed of "ridiculous" to their pay level. They would therefore now recognised at their fair (and high) value. And fiscal policy has been designed for what is true before tax remains after. It uses the same rationale for the patterns for the stars of football club.

Since the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the crisis that followed, the debate from excessive remuneration is focused on stock options and bonuses. With the adoption of rules based on an implied principle: regardless of the level of remuneration, which may be very high, as long as their evolution follow the performance of the company, in the short and medium term. That which helps improve the performance of a company can claim a high share of the gain has attracted. That is why healthy rules for the award of bonuses and stock options would be intended to put capitalism on good track.

The analysis of the remuneration of the patterns of 90 companies that make up the representative index for the "small" French Cap (Small 90), with an average turnover of EUR 375 million, shows however that French capitalism remains from the account. Their patterns are almost exclusively of men (3 women on 90!) whose median salary (fixed variable) is high at 299.000 EUR in 2008. Only 13 of them received a stock or free shares this year here. Disturbing surprise: under the action of the company has made progress since 2001, the boss has won silver in 2008.

That judge, bearing in mind that a portfolio of all of these companies (the index) is appreciated by 54 during the analysis period. 9 Actions that have the most made progress since 2001 ( 640 average appreciation) are those of 9 lower-paid patterns (203.000 euros in 2008) and 9 shares following for their gain over the same period ( 160) correspond to the second group of good-paying patterns (236.000 euros in 2008). At the other extreme: 9 less efficient shares (76 of average depreciation since 2001) are those of 9 patterns best paid in 2008, with 675,000 euros on average. And the second group the less efficient actions (-54), brings together the second group of patterns best paid (438.000 euros).

The observation is without appeal: in these representative companies from small French listed companies, with a few exceptions, the level of remuneration of patterns is inversely proportional to the creation of shareholder value.

This disconnect between pay and performance brings new light to a real problem. How admit that a leader is also much better paid than its peers, while shareholders are depleted How can we understand that for profitability required by shareholders asked to almost all of the employees of a company effort to temper their requests for increase in salary if the first of them receives a remuneration without connection with the service it renders to the shareholders

Probably, this analysis also reveals a problem of governance. Because almost all of the companies in which we observe this correlation reverse and shocking said comply with the requirements of the corporate governance code developed by the SDN and the Medef. How can we characterize of good governance a system which disconnects so systematic compensation of the leaders of those of the stock market performance of the company

At the time where several surveys are conducted to whether different professions feel paid a fair value (teachers, doctors, entrepreneurs...) this is a category within laquelle it is a partial but objective way of answering the question. There is no logic of value in the scale of the remuneration of the leaders of the 90 companies studied.

Can go further and move from small companies listed on the entire society. Some wages were singed in a period where growth was low, and where poverty had ceased back down. This is what had led us, in 2005, in the report which proposed the creation of the RSA, to propose the "sleepers" high compensation to social performance of the economy. In the new social equation, writing that the variable part of the main leaders of companies could take into account both the specific results of the company and other social indicators of the nation (precariousness, poverty, activity). At the time, this had made smile!

If a business executive pay must be the value it creates for the shareholders, then this rule is obviously not met. If there are other values of the stock market value to warrant the high salaries of some leaders - a better service to the whole society, to employees, customers -their existence is not self-evident and should be demonstrated and measured. There is still much to be done to restore the logic, common sense, order and justice in the remuneration of executives. PAS only on behalf of a moral imperative, but the economic and social effectiveness. A beautiful site for 2010.