by Billions in losses, but executive salaries rise
Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis have suffered multi-billion dollar losses due to changes in their electric vehicle strategies and associated write-downs. One might expect that for such costly miscalculations and investments, executives would receive lower salaries. But the opposite happened.
General Motors: record payouts amid losses
Let’s start with General Motors. Although the company did not abandon electric vehicles as abruptly as Ford or Stellantis, it expects losses of approximately $7.9 billion due to cost cuts on EVs. Despite this, according to regulatory filings, CEO Mary Barra earned $29.9 million last year, up 1.4% from the previous year.
Barra, who has led GM for 12 years, has a base salary of $2.1 million, and her stock bonuses increased by 11% to $21.6 million. Interestingly, her non-equity compensation decreased by 26% to about $5 million, so she could have earned even more.
Remarkably, Barra was not the highest-paid GM executive last year. Chief Product Officer Sterling Anderson received compensation of $40.3 million. Most of this amount was a hiring bonus that GM paid to poach him from Aurora Innovation, an autonomous driving startup he founded. According to the Wall Street Journal, GM President Mark Reuss received $19.3 million (up 4.6%), and CFO Paul Jacobson’s salary increased by 5.5% to $13.8 million.
Ford: changing bonus rules in favor of the CEO
Now for Ford. The automaker announced a $19.5 billion write-down last year due to a reassessment of its electric vehicle strategy. At the same time, the company conveniently changed its bonus payout rules: previously, they depended only on EV sales, but now include all electrified vehicles, including hybrids. As a result, Ford exceeded its sales targets, and CEO Jim Farley’s salary increased by 11% to $27.5 million. This happened despite the company reporting losses of $8.2 billion—the worst performance since 2008.
According to WSJ, a Ford representative stated that Farley’s salary reflects the company’s overall performance, citing a 42% total shareholder return (including dividends), which outperformed the market and other automakers, as well as record revenue.
The representative added that Ford did not account for unexpected costs such as tariffs when calculating bonuses and noted that the company recognizes “the importance of a broader portfolio of electrified powertrains, such as hybrid vehicles.”
Stellantis: new CEO with a more modest salary
As for Stellantis, CEO Antonio Filosa earned $6.37 million in total compensation last year, although he held the position for only the second half of the year. Stellantis incurred losses of $26.2 billion due to excessive investments in electric vehicles.
This situation raises many questions about corporate governance in the automotive industry. When companies lose tens of billions of dollars due to strategic miscalculations and executives receive salary increases, it indicates a disconnect between financial results and top management compensation. Changing bonus rules at Ford to include hybrids looks like an attempt to artificially improve metrics, while at GM, the highest compensation went not to the CEO but to a new employee poached from another company. This may suggest that automakers are more concerned about retaining talent than being accountable for loss-making investments. Meanwhile, shareholders watching stock values fall may begin to demand greater transparency and a stronger link between salaries and actual financial results rather than adjusted metrics.
