No salary?! No problem! That’s the mantra of modern CEOs who trade cash for stock and walk away with fortunes that make the average worker’s lifetime earnings look like spare change.

Take Brian Niccol, the newly minted Starbucks CEO. In just four months, he pocketed a jaw-dropping US$95.8 million, with 94% of that sum tied to stock awards. His base salary? A mere $61,538 – pennies compared to his total haul.

This trend of CEOs forgoing a traditional salary in favour of stock-based compensation is often framed as aligning leadership with shareholder interests. But let’s not be fooled: this system isn’t about fairness – it’s about optics. In reality, it supercharges wealth for those at the top while leaving employees and consumers footing the bill.

The ‘zero base salary’ illusion

A symbolic $1 salary, like those accepted by Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sounds like an act of humility – almost noble. But when stock awards and performance-based incentives enter the picture, the story changes.

Elon Musk famously refuses to accept any base salary as Tesla CEO. But consider his now-infamous $56 billion pay package at the EV company. Structured as a high-stakes gamble, it required him to meet 12 out of 16 financial goals, including revenue and market capitalisation targets. He delivered, triggering a payday so astronomical that a Delaware judge threw it out – twice.

Despite the ruling, Tesla investors fought tooth and nail to reinstate it, illustrating just how entrenched this system is. When CEOs can amass tens of billions in stock-based compensation, a low base salary becomes a mere gimmick – a sleight of hand that masks the true scale of corporate excess.

Also Read: Meta raises executive bonuses 200%

A system designed for the few

Stock-heavy pay packages are touted as a way to tie executive compensation to performance, but they often do the opposite. Here’s why:

1. Guaranteed gains, little downside

Many executives use securities-based lending – taking out loans against their shares – to access liquidity without selling a single stock. This allows them to enjoy vast wealth while avoiding the risk of share price fluctuations.

2. Short-termism disguised as long-term vision

Since stock prices are the primary driver of CEO wealth, executives often prioritise buybacks, cost-cutting, and short-term stock surges over sustainable growth. Instead of investing in wages, innovation, or job security, they focus on meeting quarterly earnings targets to unlock their next windfall.

3. Worker exploitation and widening inequality

While executives rake in millions from stock awards, many employees struggle with stagnant wages and job insecurity. Starbucks, for instance, has faced criticism over its handling of unionisation efforts – despite Niccol’s massive payout. If CEOs truly aligned with their workforce, wouldn’t they push for better wages before pocketing millions themselves?

Also Read: Meet your new boss: AI in the C-Suite

The (im)morality of excessive pay

At its core, the debate over CEO compensation is a moral one. Should one individual command hundreds – sometimes thousands – of times the salary of their lowest-paid worker?

When a CEO’s stock package eclipses the combined wages of thousands of employees, the imbalance becomes indefensible. It sends a message that corporate success is solely the result of executive genius, ignoring the labour of those who grind away in warehouses, coffee shops, or factory floors.

In Japan, corporate leaders at firms like Toyota and Sony earn a fraction of what their U.S. counterparts do – yet their companies thrive. The difference? A philosophy that sees business success as a collective achievement, not a one-man show.

A call for reform

It’s time to reimagine how executives are compensated. Tying pay to long-term results isn’t inherently bad, but the scale of modern CEO pay packages is out of control. Regulators, boards, and shareholders must push for:

• Caps on total compensation, preventing astronomical payouts
• Higher wages for workers before CEO bonuses are approved
• Stricter rules on stock-based lending, limiting executives from cashing out early
• Stronger corporate governance, ensuring CEO pay aligns with actual, long-term performance – not stock market games

Zero base salaries don’t mean zero wealth. They’re just a PR stunt, a distraction from the grotesque accumulation of executive riches. If we truly care about fairness, we must stop glorifying these stock-heavy pay structures and start asking tougher questions about who really creates value in a company – and who gets to reap the rewards.