IBJNews

Barron's enthrones Simon among world's best CEOs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Already one of the most highly regarded CEOs in Indiana and in his industry, David Simon now is keeping company with the likes of Warren Buffett, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Larry Page of Google.

Business publication Barron’s has named Simon, the CEO of Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group Inc., to its annual list of the world’s 30 best chief executives, published in its Monday issue. Simon is one of 13 new names in the ninth annual inventory.

“Shrewd acquisitions and development projects have transformed Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group from a regional mall operator into the world’s largest real estate company, with a $50 billion market value and market-shellacking returns,” according to Simon’s profile in Barron’s.

In the five years since the depths of the real estate crisis, shares of Simon Property Group have risen 68 percent. The stock hovered near $160 per share on Monday morning.

The 51-year-old Simon led the family company’s $1 billion initial public offering in 1993. He’s been the CEO since 1995, and has orchestrated more than $25 billion in acquisitions. Simon’s 2004 acquisition of outlet-mall specialist Chelsea Property Group was “the smartest deal ever” among real estate investment trusts, according to Mike Kirby, chairman of REIT research specialist Green Street Advisors.

Other high-profile CEOs on the Barron’s list include Yan Yuanqing of Lenovo, Hugh Grant of Monsanto, and Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, in addition to Buffett, Bezos and Page.

The Barron’s piece mentions that Simon has absorbed criticism for his extravagant compensation package.

In recognition of the company’s blistering performance under Simon’s watch, the company’s board in 2011 granted him $120 million in restricted stock. He can collect the full grant, on top of his regular compensation, if he stays with Simon until mid-2019.

In August 2012, a major shareholder filed suit against the board for improperly increasing Simon’s compensation without seeking shareholder approval. The suit came more than two months after Simon officials disclosed that 73 percent of the Simon shares voted at the company’s annual meeting opposed the granting of the $120 million retention award.

The recognition in Barron’s is just the latest accolade for Simon, who earlier this year was ranked eighth among the best-performing CEOs in the world by Harvard Business Review.

Fortune named Simon Property Group as the “most admired company” in the real estate industry earlier this month.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT