券商薪酬分配机制

Search documents
财达证券:近20年工龄员工追讨30万补偿,有高管薪酬超400万
Xin Lang Cai Jing· 2025-06-10 04:36
Core Viewpoint - The recent labor dispute case involving Caida Securities has highlighted the disparity between executive compensation growth and declining average employee salaries, raising concerns about the internal compensation distribution mechanism within the brokerage industry [1][4][6]. Group 1: Labor Dispute Case - A civil ruling from the Yuhua District People's Court revealed that the plaintiff, Sun, contested the labor arbitration result, leading to a lawsuit against Caida Securities [1][3]. - Sun's claim centers on the calculation method for economic compensation, arguing it should be based on the last 12 months of salary prior to contract termination [3]. - The court found that Caida Securities had previously filed a lawsuit against Sun, which led to the case being transferred for combined hearings [3]. Group 2: Executive Compensation vs. Employee Salaries - In 2024, Caida Securities reported a total executive compensation of 19.11 million yuan, an increase of 547,000 yuan, contrasting with the broader trend of salary reductions in the brokerage sector [4][6]. - The highest-paid executive, Kang Yunlong, received a salary of 2.928 million yuan, with additional deferred performance compensation bringing his total to 4.08 million yuan [4]. - In contrast, the average employee salary decreased from 436,000 yuan in 2023 to 400,000 yuan, a decline of 8.3%, despite a 5.2% increase in average revenue per employee [6]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The disparity between rising executive pay and falling employee salaries reflects the survival strategies of small and medium-sized brokerages during industry consolidation [6]. - Industry experts emphasize the need for a balance between attracting external talent and retaining internal staff, as significant pay gaps could impact team stability and compliance in the securities sector [6]. - The ongoing legal case will clarify the core disputes, while the industry must address the challenge of balancing market-driven incentives with employee rights protection [6].