How Much is Volt Power Group Limited's (ASX:VPR) CEO Getting Paid?

August 03, 2019

The CEO of Volt Power Group Limited (ASX:VPR) is Adam Boyd. This analysis aims first to contrast CEO compensation with other companies that have similar market capitalization. Next, we'll consider growth that the business demonstrates. And finally we will reflect on how common stockholders have fared in the last few years, as a secondary measure of performance. This method should give us information to assess how appropriately the company pays the CEO.

Check out our latest analysis for Volt Power Group

How Does Adam Boyd's Compensation Compare With Similar Sized Companies?

According to our data, Volt Power Group Limited has a market capitalization of AU$12m, and pays its CEO total annual compensation worth AU$448k. (This figure is for the year to December 2018). While this analysis focuses on total compensation, it's worth noting the salary is lower, valued at AU$360k. We took a group of companies with market capitalizations below AU$294m, and calculated the median CEO total compensation to be AU$357k.

So Adam Boyd receives a similar amount to the median CEO pay, amongst the companies we looked at. This doesn't tell us a whole lot on its own, but looking at the performance of the actual business will give us useful context.

You can see, below, how CEO compensation at Volt Power Group has changed over time.

ASX:VPR CEO Compensation, August 3rd 2019

Is Volt Power Group Limited Growing?

Over the last three years Volt Power Group Limited has grown its earnings per share (EPS) by an average of 74% per year (using a line of best fit). In the last year, its revenue is up 288%.

This shows that the company has improved itself over the last few years. Good news for shareholders. Most shareholders would be pleased to see strong revenue growth combined with EPS growth. This combo suggests a fast growing business.

Has Volt Power Group Limited Been A Good Investment?

With a three year total loss of 93%, Volt Power Group Limited would certainly have some dissatisfied shareholders. It therefore might be upsetting for shareholders if the CEO were paid generously.

In Summary...

Adam Boyd is paid around the same as most CEOs of similar size companies.

We'd say the company can boast of its EPS growth, but it's disappointing to see negative shareholder returns over three years. We'd be surprised if shareholders want to see a pay rise for the CEO, but we'd stop short of calling their pay too generous. If you think CEO compensation levels are interesting you will probably really like this free visualization of insider trading at Volt Power Group.

Arguably, business quality is much more important than CEO compensation levels. So check out this free list of interesting companies, that have HIGH return on equity and low debt.

We aim to bring you long-term focused research analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material.

If you spot an error that warrants correction, please contact the editor at editorial-team@simplywallst.com. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. Simply Wall St has no position in the stocks mentioned. Thank you for reading.

mitchell_lawler

A landmark settlement is meant to punish Meta (META). If the 1998 tobacco deal is any guide, it might protect it.

199

zoe_vi5fn3d

Any moat with an opt-out clause for your competitors is just a fence around your own garden.

connor_iwn1g3d

Worth looking at what previous legal action actually did to Meta rather than reaching for tobacco. The FTC's record five billion dollar privacy fine in 2019 was met with the stock rising, because it came in below fears and removed an open question. GDPR was designed to constrain large platforms and increased their share of the European ad market, because compliance cost fell hardest on small intermediaries. The FTC's antitrust case, the one that could genuinely have broken the company up, was decided in Meta's favour last November. The only thing that ever meaningfully hurt the business was Apple changing a tracking default, and Meta out-spent that too, while the ad-tech firms that could not afford to rebuild disappeared. The pattern is not that Meta survives regulation. It is that regulation keeps costing its smaller competitors more.