Posted on 12/21/2006 8:36:07 PM PST by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
I cannot exercie any of these options... who knows when they'll be freed up for trading.
Hopefully boards of directors will get off their lazy a$$es and exert some fiduciary responsibility. I am tired of hearing the lame excuse that golden retirement packages are necessary to recruit/hire only the "best." I call BS on that.
Yes,a company's stock tanks 40% with him in charge, and he gets 6 million plus a year in benefits. I could have run the company better for cheaper. I would have only lost 39% of the stock market value. I am sure of it.
Obviously. Not every guy can have the stock tank 40% in pharmaceuticals. That takes special talent. A monkey may have done worse, but may have done better. He might have flung his dung at the right person to motivate them to try a different idea. Give me a freaking break on the skill set thing now.
CEO's from the 1950's were dogmeat or something? There actually is alot more layers of folks doing things CEO's used to do. You have so many accountants, lawyers dealing with legal, financial, tax things now than ever before. A CEO is more free with their time and focus than before.
The stock lost 40%. Period. It tanked. The investors got screwed. That argument is out the window. As long as the investors are ok, pay them whatever. Well, they ain't ok. They took a bath, and now the board is urinating on them. Period.
The kind were three wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner. Too bad the majority of the voting shares are sitting in the same boardroom.
This particular CEO lead his company into a 40% decline and employee layoffs and yet he got a bonus.
The only way I'm going to know exactly how much money I have and where it is, is to stuff it under my mattress. Certainly you're not giving that advice.
"...and a drop of as much as 40 percent in the company's stock price during his five years in charge."
What in the WORLD do CEOs DO to deserve such a nice severence package? How in the world does this man walk away with this money after only 5 years and a drop in company stock of 40%!!! Why can't they just kick his butt to the curb with very little? Why don't they base retirement/bonuses, and benefits upon a CEOs performance?
401k? Most fund managers are more PT Barnum than Peter Lynch.
IMO.
What exactly IS the skill set for a CEO?
Evidently this guy's skills were not that good as the stock dropped 40% in value under his watch.
"I cannot exercie any of these options... who knows when they'll be freed up for trading."
Sure hope you don't get screwed by the Alternative Minimum Tax. If you don't know what that is, I suggest you read up on it. MANY folks in the situation you just described have been really screwed by it.
All a CEO REALLY needs to know how to do is play golf and smooze since ALL deals are made on the golf course.
It never ceases to amaze me the number of times FR conservatives choose to cite ultra-left wing think tank, The Economic Policy Institute, which is controlled by unions, to support class warfare assertions like It's a matter of justice or it's a problem here that needs to be addressed.
Let's look at what conservative economist, Alan Reynolds had to say about this nonsense:
Couldn't some journalist take the trouble to at least ask where these numbers come from? The statistic about CEOs' earning 431 times as much as production workers seemed to come from the other guest on the CNBC show, a representative of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). It actually came from a Dec. 6 press release from the AFL-CIO, which wisely neglected to mention the actual source -- a polemical pamphlet on "Executive Excess" from United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies.
That pamphlet claims executive compensation among 367 corporations (LOL! How many corporations are there in the U.S.?) rose to $11.8 million last year. Ironically, the AFSCME press release said, "Chief executive officers at big U.S. companies were awarded $5.74 million on average last year, 30.2 percent more than in 2003, according to the Corporate Library."
But dividing $5.74 billion by 431 would leave average workers earning $13,318, which is too obviously ridiculous. The pamphlet instead claims "the average production worker made $27,460 in 2004." Also ridiculous and also ironic: Not one of the well-paid members of the AFSCME union is included in that so-called average. What is included is the weekly wages of part-time workers, which were then foolishly multiplied by 52 weeks.
There are 15 million "production workers" in retailing, who worked an average of 30.7 hours a week in 2004, and 12.5 million in leisure and hospitality, who worked an average of 25.7 hours. If CEOs worked 26 to 31 hours a week, then it might seem fairer to compare their weekly salaries with these. But it would still be ridiculous.
Any survey of 375 or 500 companies is the cream of the crop, not an average of executive pay. The Washington Post reported in November that "an AFL-CIO affiliate ... launched an online database of more than 60,000 companies, listing information about their executive compensation." Average CEO pay among even the top 10,000 would surely be in the low six figures, and not more than 20 times what experienced employees earn in those same companies."
Class warriors on the left lie about these statistics to further their political ideology just like the class warriors here at FR. The vast majority of CEO's are extrememly hard working people, with their own money at risk, who make less than 300K a year. For some reason that just drives some green eyed FReepers crazy.
Absolutely! Economics is something everybody 'thinks' they understand but most people know more about physics than economics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.