Obama doesn't want you to succeed

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Obama doesn't want you to succeed
Topic Summary: Tries bill to limit capitalism/CEO pay
[/L]

Nice misleading title. CEO's are already successful by definition.

Also, to those who would agree with the premise that CEO pay should be limited :roll: The people whose pay you would like to set limits on are far smarter than you and hence why they're rich in the first place and you're not. The fact that you believe some pandering politician when he says he's going to do so is even further proof you don't have the grey matter to make your fantasy a reality. Instead of enviously looking at rich CEOs and trying to drag them down to your level, try spending some time building yourself up and becoming rich in your own right.

I don't believe that CEO pay should be limited. I believe they should be held accountable. Like I am. Worlds of difference.

And they are, legally, by the board of directors, who are elected by the stockholders.

Is there cronyism? Absolutely. But legislation of an "outrage" vote won't fix that.

"stockholders" have no voice. It's an insider driven crowd.

This is coming from a CFA charterholder.

Glenn1, I am a decently smart guy and drive my own success. I challenge the notion that CEOs are smarter. Nardelli ran HD into the ground and is doing the same to Chrysler.

Why is he still around? It has nothing to do with his intelligence. Sucking wang and greasing palms with cash has far more to do with it.

They can vote with their wallets. Without Joe Stockholder buying shares in a company, what happens to it? Unfortunately, there are enough people that, frankly, don't care what the CEO is doing until it's too late, as long as the bottom line goes up.

And yes, there are a lot of dumb CEOs that continue to get hired.

Congrats on the CFA, btw - I had a friend that when through the process, and it was not easy at all.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

They can vote with their wallets. Without Joe Stockholder buying shares in a company, what happens to it? Unfortunately, there are enough people that, frankly, don't care what the CEO is doing until it's too late, as long as the bottom line goes up.

And yes, there are a lot of dumb CEOs that continue to get hired.

Congrats on the CFA, btw - I had a friend that when through the process, and it was not easy at all.

Joe Stockholder doesn't buy or sell stocks for the majority of exchange volume, they affect price to a far lesser extent than institutional investors.

Yes, there are, which is why the notion of them being smart excludes them from criticism is stupid.

Thanks.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Obama doesn't want you to succeed
Topic Summary: Tries bill to limit capitalism/CEO pay
[/L]

Nice misleading title. CEO's are already successful by definition.

Also, to those who would agree with the premise that CEO pay should be limited :roll: The people whose pay you would like to set limits on are far smarter than you and hence why they're rich in the first place and you're not. The fact that you believe some pandering politician when he says he's going to do so is even further proof you don't have the grey matter to make your fantasy a reality. Instead of enviously looking at rich CEOs and trying to drag them down to your level, try spending some time building yourself up and becoming rich in your own right.

I don't believe that CEO pay should be limited. I believe they should be held accountable. Like I am. Worlds of difference.

And they are, legally, by the board of directors, who are elected by the stockholders.

Is there cronyism? Absolutely. But legislation of an "outrage" vote won't fix that.

"stockholders" have no voice. It's an insider driven crowd.

This is coming from a CFA charterholder.

Glenn1, I am a decently smart guy and drive my own success. I challenge the notion that CEOs are smarter. Nardelli ran HD into the ground and is doing the same to Chrysler.

Why is he still around? It has nothing to do with his intelligence. Sucking wang and greasing palms with cash has far more to do with it.

I know. This is ridiculous. WTF are we talking "class envy" when the subject is corporate management ripping off shareholders? WTF does class envy even come into that?

Seriously, I make a fine income as a sales professional on a pure incentive structure. I get paid what I am worth. No more, no less. And I wouldn't have it any other way. How the hell is it "socialism" or "class envy" for stockholders (read: people with assets, NOT the poor) to demand that corporate management be held to the same level of accountability?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic
What I'm arguing is that the shareholders of a company being pillaged by management should have the right to express their outrage.

You know, if they are really outraged, they could just go to the annual shareholders' meeting and express their outrage in person. I'd bet that would do a lot more than a nonbinding vote.

For that matter, they could take out newspaper ads. Maybe we should legislate cheaper newspaper ads for people that are outraged about the pay of the CEO of a company they own stock in.

Yeah hey right I own a few shares through a mutual fund, watch me fly out to the shareholders meeting to make a stink.

What planet are you on? Really.

It's easy to rip people off when you make the theft just cheaper than the cost of being able to do something about it. That's how this works.

Capitalism depends absolutely upon the rule of law. A system of justice that is blind. You may not realize it, but you are arguing expressly against that.

Oh, yeah - it's much better to show your true outrage by casting a vote that means nothing. May as well name that bridge. If you continue to own stock in a company (even through a mutual fund) that is financially suffering because of the compensation of the CEO, then that's *your* fault - not the government's.

Please state the "rule of law" that governs CEO pay, and the shareholders' say in it.

:roll:

No, really...

:roll:

Wow - after all of the condescending "I know more about stocks than you" frothing at the mouth, I expected more than that. Really.

Or is that you showing your "outrage" at me asking questions?

Your questions aren't relevant. You're just spouting straw men and pretty visions of how you think the world is but is not. And you have NOT answered a single question of mine (quoted here even), except to sidetrack with this BS, so in your pretty vision of personal accountability, why do you think I owe you jack sh!t? Come back to me when you want to discuss reality.

See - that's the problem. Where did I say you owe me anything?

Let's see what you've asked me, and what I've asked you:

You: "And McCain hasn't been grandstanding himself on this issue?" (btw, speaking of strawmen...)
Me: I'm not going to chide you on bringing McCain into the discussion, but I will chide you for assuming that I think that no politicians grandstand.

You: "Has anyone in this thread actually read the fsckin article?"
Me: {quoted article, that I obviously read)

You: "What planet are you on?"
Me:
Crap - you're right. Well, here you go: I'm on Earth. I'd presume the same about you.

Now, for the questions I've asked you:
Me:"how is Obama "calling [McCain] on it"? By wanting to legislate a "non-binding vote"?"
You: **No Answer**

Me: Are you trying to make a point here, or are you just trying to agitate? Once again, what is the purpose of a "non-binding shareholder vote"?
You: **No Answer**

Me: Please state the "rule of law" that governs CEO pay, and the shareholders' say in it.
You: rolling eyes.

Strawmen and not answering questions, indeed.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: spidey07
More signs of the communist Mr. Obama really is. "oh, you're making too much money - let's limit that". This is very dangerous thinking from this guy. More gubment interference, more regulation, more we need to limit how one can succeed in America. Does the young senator not know that you can already vote at shareholder meetings and most compensation adjustments are given a vote as well? Or will he continue to use class envy as a means to drum up the masses for hope and change.

?If you?re successful, you should be rewarded. But if you?re a Wall Street CEO today, it doesn?t seem to matter whether you?re doing a good job or a bad job for your shareholders and workers: You?ll be rewarded either way,? Obama said in prepared remarks. He lauded McCain?s recent show of disgust with executive pay, but criticized him for not supporting the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, which would give shareholders the chance to signal their displeasure with executive pay with a nonbinding vote. ?When he?s had the chance to do something about this problem, he?s opted for continuing the do-nothing approach of the Bush years,? Obama said."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...des-mccain-on-ceo-pay/

Nothing wrong with getting paid for your work. If you do a bad job, then you should not get paid much. Makes sense to me.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Obama doesn't want you to succeed
Topic Summary: Tries bill to limit capitalism/CEO pay
[/L]

Nice misleading title. CEO's are already successful by definition.

Also, to those who would agree with the premise that CEO pay should be limited :roll: The people whose pay you would like to set limits on are far smarter than you and hence why they're rich in the first place and you're not. The fact that you believe some pandering politician when he says he's going to do so is even further proof you don't have the grey matter to make your fantasy a reality. Instead of enviously looking at rich CEOs and trying to drag them down to your level, try spending some time building yourself up and becoming rich in your own right.

I don't believe that CEO pay should be limited. I believe they should be held accountable. Like I am. Worlds of difference.

And they are, legally, by the board of directors, who are elected by the stockholders.

Is there cronyism? Absolutely. But legislation of an "outrage" vote won't fix that.

"stockholders" have no voice. It's an insider driven crowd.

This is coming from a CFA charterholder.

Glenn1, I am a decently smart guy and drive my own success. I challenge the notion that CEOs are smarter. Nardelli ran HD into the ground and is doing the same to Chrysler.

Why is he still around? It has nothing to do with his intelligence. Sucking wang and greasing palms with cash has far more to do with it.

And Nardelli makes $1 a year in his role as CEO for a private company. I'm not sure how you'd improve "accountability" for his pay - cut it 90% so he only makes a dime a year?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Obama doesn't want you to succeed
Topic Summary: Tries bill to limit capitalism/CEO pay
[/L]

Nice misleading title. CEO's are already successful by definition.

Also, to those who would agree with the premise that CEO pay should be limited :roll: The people whose pay you would like to set limits on are far smarter than you and hence why they're rich in the first place and you're not. The fact that you believe some pandering politician when he says he's going to do so is even further proof you don't have the grey matter to make your fantasy a reality. Instead of enviously looking at rich CEOs and trying to drag them down to your level, try spending some time building yourself up and becoming rich in your own right.

I don't believe that CEO pay should be limited. I believe they should be held accountable. Like I am. Worlds of difference.

And they are, legally, by the board of directors, who are elected by the stockholders.

Is there cronyism? Absolutely. But legislation of an "outrage" vote won't fix that.

"stockholders" have no voice. It's an insider driven crowd.

This is coming from a CFA charterholder.

Glenn1, I am a decently smart guy and drive my own success. I challenge the notion that CEOs are smarter. Nardelli ran HD into the ground and is doing the same to Chrysler.

Why is he still around? It has nothing to do with his intelligence. Sucking wang and greasing palms with cash has far more to do with it.

And Nardelli makes $1 a year in his role as CEO for a private company. I'm not sure how you'd improve "accountability" for his pay - cut it 90% so he only makes a dime a year?

LOL, he makes far more than that since he's an investor. His $1 is akin to Jobs' $1. But after you include Jobs' plane, stock options, other perks...etc, he's making multiple millions.

Sure, it's a private company, which has private investors. However, it's a continuation of the reality of the broader situation. Shit CEOs get recycled due to cronyism.

Don't be so naive.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Obama doesn't want you to succeed
Topic Summary: Tries bill to limit capitalism/CEO pay
[/L]

Nice misleading title. CEO's are already successful by definition.

Also, to those who would agree with the premise that CEO pay should be limited :roll: The people whose pay you would like to set limits on are far smarter than you and hence why they're rich in the first place and you're not. The fact that you believe some pandering politician when he says he's going to do so is even further proof you don't have the grey matter to make your fantasy a reality. Instead of enviously looking at rich CEOs and trying to drag them down to your level, try spending some time building yourself up and becoming rich in your own right.

I don't believe that CEO pay should be limited. I believe they should be held accountable. Like I am. Worlds of difference.

And they are, legally, by the board of directors, who are elected by the stockholders.

Is there cronyism? Absolutely. But legislation of an "outrage" vote won't fix that.

"stockholders" have no voice. It's an insider driven crowd.

This is coming from a CFA charterholder.

Glenn1, I am a decently smart guy and drive my own success. I challenge the notion that CEOs are smarter. Nardelli ran HD into the ground and is doing the same to Chrysler.

Why is he still around? It has nothing to do with his intelligence. Sucking wang and greasing palms with cash has far more to do with it.

And Nardelli makes $1 a year in his role as CEO for a private company. I'm not sure how you'd improve "accountability" for his pay - cut it 90% so he only makes a dime a year?

LOL, he makes far more than that since he's an investor. His $1 is akin to Jobs' $1. But after you include Jobs' plane, stock options, other perks...etc, he's making multiple millions.

Sure, it's a private company, which has private investors. However, it's a continuation of the reality of the broader situation. Shit CEOs get recycled due to cronyism.

Don't be so naive.

I'm rather amused that as a CFA, you somehow feel you can suppress the laws of supply and demand when it comes to executive pay. There is always going to be a greater demand for skilled executives than the amount of people possessing those same skills, thus why their pay will always be bid higher than what some people might think they should "deserve" to get. If it were easy, decently smart guys who drive their own success would be doing the job for a lot cheaper, and shit CEO's wouldn't get recycled due to cronyism because you'd be one of the cronies.

 

[chucky2]

So basically what we've arrived at here is this:

1.) BoD's scratch overcompensated CEO's backs because - usually - those same BoD's themselves are rich crony's like the CEO's they overcompensate. Right or wrong (most would say wrong), this is a No Sh1t item.

2.) Shareholders already have voting rights, however it's based on number of shares, so the common schmoe on the street's vote is basically useless in light of the high number of shares the mutual fund/whatever fund/whatever rich b@stard's possess....and they're all rich.

3.) Obama wants a non-binding vote for us common folks to be able to voice our displeasure, even though that already happens by either voting or selling stock. So basically this is abso F'ing useless...it's a feel good for us common folk when the reality is the rich b@stards could give less than two shits what we think. We're peons and dumb to them.

4.) Obama has 'called' McCain out on something that if enacted, would be absolutely useless. Basically, Obama is flapping his lips to pick up votes by playing on the average moron (who when hearing this is thinking, Wow, this is some gee wiz great thing and we'll finally be able to stick it to those overpaid b@stards while I work for comparatively nothing)...but, he just does it so eloquently....Congrats suckers.

I think that about covers it. :roll:

Chuck

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. I suppose that the OP is going to claim that CEO's of today are 10X better than CEO's of 30 years ago- that's why they receive 10X more money, proportionately speaking.

Hogwash.

The problem for shareholders is that mmuch of thier "ownership" is indirect, intentionally so. The proportion of investment by pension funds and mutual fund 401K money is really quite large, but the actual investors, the little guys, have no direct say in anything. I'm fortunate in having a traditional pension, and the way that works is instructive. The company and the Union each appoint 3 directors to the fund. They, in turn farm out the actual investment strategy to people like Vanguard, who build our portfolio using a variety of instruments- stocks, bonds, mutual funds, real estate.... even though the workers are ultimately the stockholders, we have essentially no say in the matter of executive pay for the companies we're invested in... or in much of anything at all wrt the fund. 401K's are much the same, minus a layer of abstraction- fund managers vote the stock in their funds, and it'd take some major research to figure out just how your fund managers allocated the proxies and how they were voted wrt all the company stock held in the funds...

The problem is that corporate governance is essentially a world apart, even a whole different universe than the one small stockholders occupy. And, yeh, interlocking directorates and the old boy club are much the same, intensified by the trend towards merging into fewer and fewer corporate entities...

 

[nageov3t]

this whole thing seems ludicrous.

I think obama's the *only* candidate who wants us to succeed.

he understand that we are what we've been waiting for.

 

[superstition]

Sally and her classmates see a pie. The teacher tells them to divide the pie, and Sally is the first to get the knife. She cuts two pieces; the larger one is 75% of the pie. She says "I'm a success! I am the top 1% of this class and that gives me the right to have the big piece." Sally takes her giant piece to her desk, despite the glares of the kids around her. When the other kids make trouble, Sally's teacher, who is now on her payroll, builds a fence between her and the other students. For the rest of the day, Sally is in charge of doling out bits from the other piece of pie to the students and the teacher based on her appraisal of their work ethic.

What did Sally do to rise to the top? She happened to be sitting closest to the pie when it was unveiled and her mother told her life is all about climbing to the top of the hill of bodies. Either be trampled, or get there. It's called competition.

 

[Brigandier]

Originally posted by: superstition
Sally and her classmates see a pie. The teacher tells them to divide the pie, and Sally is the first to get the knife. She cuts two pieces; the larger one is 75% of the pie. She says "I'm a success! I am the top 1% of this class and that gives me the right to have the big piece." Sally takes her giant piece to her desk, despite the glares of the kids around her. When the other kids make trouble, Sally's teacher, who is now on her payroll, builds a fence between her and the other students. For the rest of the day, Sally is in charge of doling out bits from the other piece of pie to the students and the teacher based on her appraisal of their work ethic.

What did Sally do to rise to the top? She happened to be sitting closest to the pie when it was unveiled and her mother told her life is all about climbing to the top of the hill of bodies. Either be trampled, or get there. It's called competition.

Typical socialist propaganda. Sally studied hard to be the top person in her class, it was through her hard work that this was all possible. Sally is the one that made the pie in the first place.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

?If you?re successful, you should be rewarded. But if you?re a Wall Street CEO today, it doesn?t seem to matter whether you?re doing a good job or a bad job for your shareholders and workers: You?ll be rewarded either way,? Obama said in prepared remarks.

I typically vote Republican, but I see nothing wrong with this statement.

In a merit based society, it makes sense that leaders should benefit from success, and face the consequences for failure.

Obama is observing that recent trends suggest that CEOs, particularly in the investment industries, walk away with ludicrous salaries regardless of whether or not they are successful in leading their companies.

The recent developments in the sub-prime lending industry should be a clear indicator that there is something wrong with this equation...look at the corporate leadership of Countrywide, who helped to create the foreclosure crisis, and who are now out building new companies that will benefit from the very crisis they helped to create.

Not sure I will agree with how Obama will address this problem, but I agree with his assertion that there is a problem.

:thumbsup:

X2:thumbsup:

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

They can vote with their wallets. Without Joe Stockholder buying shares in a company, what happens to it? Unfortunately, there are enough people that, frankly, don't care what the CEO is doing until it's too late, as long as the bottom line goes up.

And yes, there are a lot of dumb CEOs that continue to get hired.

Congrats on the CFA, btw - I had a friend that when through the process, and it was not easy at all.

Joe Stockholder doesn't buy or sell stocks for the majority of exchange volume, they affect price to a far lesser extent than institutional investors.

I agree, but I was also lumping the people that purchase the shares of the institutional investments in with the "Joe Stockholders". I'm aware that often they have no say about what stocksa are purchased with their investment dollars, but there are cases where they do.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: chucky2
So basically what we've arrived at here is this:

1.) BoD's scratch overcompensated CEO's backs because - usually - those same BoD's themselves are rich crony's like the CEO's they overcompensate. Right or wrong (most would say wrong), this is a No Sh1t item.

2.) Shareholders already have voting rights, however it's based on number of shares, so the common schmoe on the street's vote is basically useless in light of the high number of shares the mutual fund/whatever fund/whatever rich b@stard's possess....and they're all rich.

3.) Obama wants a non-binding vote for us common folks to be able to voice our displeasure, even though that already happens by either voting or selling stock. So basically this is abso F'ing useless...it's a feel good for us common folk when the reality is the rich b@stards could give less than two shits what we think. We're peons and dumb to them.

4.) Obama has 'called' McCain out on something that if enacted, would be absolutely useless. Basically, Obama is flapping his lips to pick up votes by playing on the average moron (who when hearing this is thinking, Wow, this is some gee wiz great thing and we'll finally be able to stick it to those overpaid b@stards while I work for comparatively nothing)...but, he just does it so eloquently....Congrats suckers.

Tha pretty well sums it up. Get ready for people to tell youi that you don't know what you're talking about

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: glenn1
I'm rather amused that as a CFA, you somehow feel you can suppress the laws of supply and demand when it comes to executive pay. There is always going to be a greater demand for skilled executives than the amount of people possessing those same skills, thus why their pay will always be bid higher than what some people might think they should "deserve" to get. If it were easy, decently smart guys who drive their own success would be doing the job for a lot cheaper, and shit CEO's wouldn't get recycled due to cronyism because you'd be one of the cronies.

I am not a CFA, you cannot *be* a CFA. I am a CFA charterholder. Please use the designation correctly.

I'm rather amused that as a layman, you don't recognize that it's a stacked game, completely outside the bounds of "supply and demand". Any person who has taken a few courses in finance knows that.

Go get some edumacation on reality, which you so obviously lack, then try to use my professional experience and education against me.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. I suppose that the OP is going to claim that CEO's of today are 10X better than CEO's of 30 years ago- that's why they receive 10X more money, proportionately speaking.

Hogwash.

They absolutely are better. They are heading much larger corporations since there has been massive conglomeration on a worldwide scale.

These select few control and dominate every aspect of the daily live globally in the "global" economy.

Americans are happy and satisfied with their global overlords, you must be too.

 

[punchkin]

There is no need for the inflated salaries that many CEOs make. For the system to work, there just has to be enough financial incentive for enough talented people to achieve the training and experience necessary for a job.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Brigandier

Originally posted by: superstition
Sally and her classmates see a pie. The teacher tells them to divide the pie, and Sally is the first to get the knife. She cuts two pieces; the larger one is 75% of the pie. She says "I'm a success! I am the top 1% of this class and that gives me the right to have the big piece." Sally takes her giant piece to her desk, despite the glares of the kids around her. When the other kids make trouble, Sally's teacher, who is now on her payroll, builds a fence between her and the other students. For the rest of the day, Sally is in charge of doling out bits from the other piece of pie to the students and the teacher based on her appraisal of their work ethic.

What did Sally do to rise to the top? She happened to be sitting closest to the pie when it was unveiled and her mother told her life is all about climbing to the top of the hill of bodies. Either be trampled, or get there. It's called competition.

Typical socialist propaganda. Sally studied hard to be the top person in her class, it was through her hard work that this was all possible. Sally is the one that made the pie in the first place.

Not that it matters whether she made the pie or not. She could take a steaming dump on top of the pie, and she'd get the clean part while leaving the portion covered in crap for the rest of the class.

Are we done with absurd analogies yet?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: glenn1
I'm rather amused that as a CFA, you somehow feel you can suppress the laws of supply and demand when it comes to executive pay. There is always going to be a greater demand for skilled executives than the amount of people possessing those same skills, thus why their pay will always be bid higher than what some people might think they should "deserve" to get. If it were easy, decently smart guys who drive their own success would be doing the job for a lot cheaper, and shit CEO's wouldn't get recycled due to cronyism because you'd be one of the cronies.

I am not a CFA, you cannot *be* a CFA. I am a CFA charterholder. Please use the designation correctly.

I'm rather amused that as a layman, you don't recognize that it's a stacked game, completely outside the bounds of "supply and demand". Any person who has taken a few courses in finance knows that.

Go get some edumacation on reality, which you so obviously lack, then try to use my professional experience and education against me.

It's akin to feudal royalty. When the few get together they decide on how much to "tax" the investors, like the kings and barons of old did. After all, if the Baron taxed too much the serfs could always fire him, or move to where there were no Barons, like the bottom of the sea.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Obama doesn't want you to succeed
Topic Summary: Tries bill to limit capitalism/CEO pay
[/L]

Nice misleading title. CEO's are already successful by definition.

Also, to those who would agree with the premise that CEO pay should be limited :roll: The people whose pay you would like to set limits on are far smarter than you and hence why they're rich in the first place and you're not. The fact that you believe some pandering politician when he says he's going to do so is even further proof you don't have the grey matter to make your fantasy a reality. Instead of enviously looking at rich CEOs and trying to drag them down to your level, try spending some time building yourself up and becoming rich in your own right.

I don't believe that CEO pay should be limited. I believe they should be held accountable. Like I am. Worlds of difference.

And they are, legally, by the board of directors, who are elected by the stockholders.

Is there cronyism? Absolutely. But legislation of an "outrage" vote won't fix that.

"stockholders" have no voice. It's an insider driven crowd.

This is coming from a CFA charterholder.

Glenn1, I am a decently smart guy and drive my own success. I challenge the notion that CEOs are smarter. Nardelli ran HD into the ground and is doing the same to Chrysler.

Why is he still around? It has nothing to do with his intelligence. Sucking wang and greasing palms with cash has far more to do with it.

And Nardelli makes $1 a year in his role as CEO for a private company. I'm not sure how you'd improve "accountability" for his pay - cut it 90% so he only makes a dime a year?

LOL, he makes far more than that since he's an investor. His $1 is akin to Jobs' $1. But after you include Jobs' plane, stock options, other perks...etc, he's making multiple millions.

Sure, it's a private company, which has private investors. However, it's a continuation of the reality of the broader situation. Shit CEOs get recycled due to cronyism.

Don't be so naive.

I'm rather amused that as a CFA, you somehow feel you can suppress the laws of supply and demand when it comes to executive pay. There is always going to be a greater demand for skilled executives than the amount of people possessing those same skills, thus why their pay will always be bid higher than what some people might think they should "deserve" to get. If it were easy, decently smart guys who drive their own success would be doing the job for a lot cheaper, and shit CEO's wouldn't get recycled due to cronyism because you'd be one of the cronies.

It's a fixed game though. When you have these CEO's sitting on each other's boards of directors there's a huge incentive to scratch each other's backs. Do you think that having a CEO hiring their own compensation consultant on the company's dime to create his own compensation is a direct conflict of interest? The laws of supply and demand don't really apply when your buddies in your network get to say how much you make and you get to say how much they make as well.

Nardelli ran home depot into the ground and collected a huge severance package. He shouldn't even get another chance to be CEO at another company. Maybe stick him in a VP role and see if he can succeed and THEN give him another shot.

 

[punchkin]

Many, many CEOs have many stunningly bad choices-- and I'm not even talking about the illegal choices. Look at Carly Fiorina. They can do extreme damage while the board is reluctant to oust them for years. It is a crock to argue that even the good ones are worth their stratospheric salaries. They would be in the same line of business if they could only be paid, say, one million a year. It's just wasted money which a well-run corporation could use to become even more efficient.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well it seems to me that in a capitalist system you are rewarded based on your added value to the market as a whole. CEO pay has risen orders of magnitude faster than pay for the average worker, and this holds true even if they do a completely terrible job and end up costing their company billions of dollars. Nothing about that situation sounds even remotely "capitalist" to me.

The fact is that CEO pay packages that penalizes for underperformance gives a huge deterrent to risk taking and corporate growth is slower.

This board has a bunch of fucking backseat CEOs who have no idea what the hell they are talking about. A bunch of envious little shits who don't have the balls to go make something out of themselves and try to keep others miserable with them.

That's counter-intuitive. I'm all in favor of giving people incentive to "go make something out of themselves", which is the entire point of capitalism. So if your pay package isn't based on performance, what incentive do you have to do a good job?

Despite what you might think, being a CEO doesn't turn you into a benevolent member of some better class, they're capitalists just like everyone else. Pay that's not tied to performance wouldn't provide much incentive in any other position, so it makes no sense that it would work for CEOs.

 

[Fern]

2 Things:

1. Compensation IS tied to performance. Link Look at Chart #3

The smaller companies pay an average of 57% of the CEO's compensation in salary, the rest is stock etc. In largest companies, only 12% of the CEO's comp is salary, the majority being stock & options. So, if the company doesn't perform (resulting in higher stock value/price) the CEO loses out.

2. Strikes me as all this "CEO make XXX times what they used to" is probrably BS. Corporations continue to get larger, with more lines of business, more revenue, more employees and more operations in far flung places etc. I see no reason whatsoever that a CEO's comp should be linked (as a multiple of) an average worker's salary.

I think the more relevant yardstick is comparing CEO compensation as a percentage of gross revenue. Has it declined or increased?

Fern