So so true. I tell my clients this all the time. And for executive comp information, most of the time it's not even in the 10-K, but in the proxy, which probably gets read even less.
As for the disclosure itself, I think it's largely irrelevant. I can understand knowing how much the named executive officers make, but what does that have to do with the ratio to the rest of the employees? As an investor, would you rather have that ratio high or low? If there is a greater disparity, then you could argue either that (a) the CEO is paid to much (but you could make that determination without the ratio) or (b) that the employees are paid to little (for an investor, you would just be arguing for the payroll expenses to increase, which hurts your investment). If the ratio is low and the gap is fairly small, then some could argue that the CEO is paid too little (still can be done without this disclosure) or that the employees are paid too much (can't cut salaries or risk losing key people because of it). As an investor you shouldn't give a fuck what the employees are paid. It'd be that much better if they all worked for free since expenses would go down. And as for CEO pay, it is very company-specific and person-specific as to what the value of the CEO's, so it is short-sighted to say that someone isn't worth it because they make $50MM in a year. As with anything, someone is worth what the market is willing to pay them. If you think it is too high, don't invest in that company. But it is very hard to look at some disclosure and say that the CEO is paid too much because they make so much more than some sample of employees. Maybe the CEO adds that much more value to the Company than those employees, which I would say is likely the case in most instances.
