KEY POINTS:
A large part of the success or failure of the stockmarket, the economy and ultimately the livelihoods of 4.2 million people, rests with a small handful of men and women.
The performance of our business elite is nothing short of critical and with big responsibility comes big pressure and potentially big bucks - fair enough.
But considering these roles are so important, why do many companies choose not to disclose in detail what their top executives get paid and against what performance targets.
Is it a secret?
The right to privacy is important but the shareholders - who, lest we forget, actually own the companies - need to know how the executives who can make or break their businesses are being motivated and rewarded.
Some companies that do specifically disclose the bosses' pay separate out basic and performance benefits and options but others roll it all together for a total.
A trawl through the annual reports of 50 or so of our largest firms revealed that 13 do not disclose the remuneration of the chief executive - other than to list the number of employees in pay bands above $100,000.
Most listed property trusts don't even tell us that.
The result is a mish-mash of various levels of disclosure presented in differing ways forcing shareholders into making assumptions.
If you assumed the top pay band included the chief executive, you'd probably be right. Probably.
In some sectors such as television, that may be a huge mistake. Maybe.
Some companies are very good. Westpac in particular provided a clear breakdown of the salary of 10 key executives.
Although it would be helpful if all companies specified throughout their reports exactly which currency they keep banging on about, even if it might seem really obvious. There are many dollars out there - New Zealand, Australian US, Singapore, Hong Kong and Bahamian to name but a few - and multiple market listings and multinational operators all over the show.
Telecom had a good stab at disclosure on page 41 of the annual report, stating the boss received remuneration of $2.9 million in 2006. It was a good start, but then things got confusing on page 45 where Telecom says the boss earned $2.2 million in the same year. Received or earned, take your pick. Depending on the context you might have the right one.
Shareholders don't always live and breathe the companies they own and they're not financial officers familiar with all the ins, outs and nuances of company reports.
Give them a break with enough detail to be useful but simple to understand - after all they do pay your wages ... however much they might be.
