IBJNews

Simon Property Group signs CEO to long-term contract

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Simon Property Group Inc., the biggest U.S. mall owner, signed an employment agreement with CEO David Simon that will keep him as head of the Indianapolis-based company for the next eight years.

Simon, 49, will receive a one-time award of 1 million long- term incentive performance units that begin vesting in six years as part of the agreement, the Indianapolis-based company said Thursday in a regulatory filing. The value of the award was $120 million, based on Wednesday’s closing share price.

“David Simon is widely recognized as the leading CEO in our industry and one of the top executives in corporate America,” Simon Property said in an e-mailed statement. “The board believes it is in the best interest of SPG shareholders to secure Mr. Simon’s continued service as CEO for at least the next eight years through this equity-based retention plan with long-term vesting.”

The employment agreement was signed Wednesday and runs through July 5, 2019, according to the company. Simon has been CEO of the real estate investment trust since 1995.

As IBJ reported in May, Simon Property's executive pay outclassed other Hoosier public companies in 2010. Using a new system of long-term stock awards, the company boosted total compensation by roughly fivefold for each of its top five executives.

David Simon received a pay package of cash, stock and perks valued at $24.6 million, topping all other Indiana executives. About $13.3 million came in the form of stock awards that will pay out only if Simon achieves certain targets in the future. The same is true for Simon’s other top brass.

Still, the compensation committee of Simon’s board said then that it was working on a long-term compensation package for the CEO, who members believe was underpaid relative to his peers.

“David Simon has been widely recognized as the best and most effective chief executive in an extremely competitive industry and one of the top chief executives in corporate America,” the six-member compensation committee gushed in the company’s proxy statement, released in April.

“The committee has considered for several years that David Simon’s compensation has not been commensurate with his contributions to our success and creation of long-term stockholder value.”

Simon’s stock has been hot indeed. It gained 28.5 percent last year and has since risen another 22 percent. And even after a sharp decline in late 2008 and 2009, Simon’s shares are now above their value at the end of 2007.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • What a relief!
    I hate to think of this guy working so hard, but not having enough money to buy that ninth luxury automobile or seventh vacation home.
  • Good
    That is actually a great deal. David, now it's your turn.

    Indianapolis

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