Pfizer CEO retirement package: $180 million.

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Tab
:roll: Who cares? Christ, you people are so incredibly jealous of success. No wonder the left is perceived as wanting to tax the rich to death.

that must have been sarcasm.....


seriously, this guy was not successful. In fact i think that was the point of this thread.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dna
I guess he really earned it.... :roll:

I presume this is what happens when shareholders have no say in the compensation given to managment.

It makes you think -- some of these guys get a shitload of money, yet workers' pensions remain unfunded, and if the company goes bankrupt, guess who has to take care of it?

I wonder how funded are the pensions for Ford and GM employees, or even those airlines that went into bankruptcy.

Shareholders have no say? Who do you think elects the board of directors?

most of the votes are controlled, someone who doesn't actually own the stock does the votecasting.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Aimster
You all would do the same if you could

Yep

Originally posted by: Ferocious
(includes $67 million of his own money set aside)

5 years of service in which the stock price dropped over 40%.

They gave him a bag of money to go away, happens all the time.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You're paid what you're worth. Proof is someone's paying it. Who am I to judge unless I'm paying it?

If anyone here owns any index funds or other diversified mutual funds, guess what? You're a shareholder in pfizer! So you can have a say by your standard.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Tab
I've credit when it's due. 😛

Huh?

I guess the spell check can't correct grammar yet.

Opps... Damn ADD

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
I really don't get the big deal here, I mean what is the difference between this guy and someone winning the lottery?

You say that he does not deserve it?

Does someone deserve 105 million dollars simply because they plopped down a dollar and it happened to be thier day?

Basically, he's earing millions of dollars when the company's stock price has been decreasing. Those millions of dollars could have instead gone to research, dividends, or any other productive investment. Instead, it went to the ex-ceo of a company that has been on the decline since that coe joined.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: Zebo
You're paid what you're worth. Proof is someone's paying it. Who am I to judge unless I'm paying it?

If anyone here owns any index funds or other diversified mutual funds, guess what? You're a shareholder in pfizer! So you can have a say by your standard.

Sure. And your .0000000025% ownership opinion is taken for what it worth, not much. <<<Main reason I don't screw around with stock market... Oil and gas wells much more profitable and controllable owning say a 35% working intrest in a well or gathering system....you do get to control what you pay peoples.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: Aimster
You all would do the same if you could

Yep

Originally posted by: Ferocious
(includes $67 million of his own money set aside)

5 years of service in which the stock price dropped over 40%.

They gave him a bag of money to go away, happens all the time.

Sounds to me like Pfizer fullfilled thier employment contract with Dr. McKinnell. Thier stock price is explained by dilution from acquisitions of Warner-Lambert and Pharmacia in 2003 both huge stock transions and the former companies executive stock sales that goes along with them as they exit the scene. Now is the time to buy Pfizer... buy low sell high.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: Zebo
You're paid what you're worth. Proof is someone's paying it. Who am I to judge unless I'm paying it?

There's a difference between someone else setting the salary, and a CEO being in a crony system set up to overcompensate him.

The 'CEO buddy system' on boards empowers the corruption, and the industry of 'compensation analysts' who say the compensation is ok gives protection for it.

Another example of the limits of your statement is to ask, if Congress voted themselves double the salary, would they be 'worth it' because 'someone is paying it'?

If anyone here owns any index funds or other diversified mutual funds, guess what? You're a shareholder in pfizer! So you can have a say by your standard.[/quote]

Sure. And your .0000000025% ownership opinion is taken for what it worth, not much. <<<Main reason I don't screw around with stock market... Oil and gas wells much more profitable and controllable owning say a 35% working intrest in a well or gathering system....you do get to control what you pay peoples.[/quote]

I'm unclear on what you are saying here. What are the average returns and risk of investing in oil and gas wells? (I think Bush proved you can lose all the money).

And you can control what you pay to an extent, but not below what they'll accept or leave. Your competition affects how much you have to pay to keep people from going to them.

 

[Michael]

"most of the votes are controlled, someone who doesn't actually own the stock does the votecasting. "

I'm wondering what the source of this information is?

Many shares are owned by institutions. The management of the institutions decides how the stock in their custody is voted, but it is owned by them.

I try and vote all my proxies that I receive as I think it is very important that the shareholder gets their say.

There are abuses of the system for certain, but in the end the company has entered into a contract with the CEO and has to honor it. CEOs get turfed out very quickly these days if they do not perform, so it is becoming a higher risk occupation. However, far too many contracts have too big a payoff even if you do poorly. Those type of clauses are supposed to protect you from capricious acts by the BoD, not normal termination of services. usually if you're not fired for 'cause", you get a big pay day.

Michael

 

[Jhhnn]

Stock market holdings of the vast majority of Americans who own stock are in the form of pension funds, and shares in mutual funds- 401K or 457 plans. As such, any say in the operation of an entity like Pfizer is extremely indirect. The number of people who do own significant quantities of stock that allows them to influence corporate decision making is extremely small, one of the products of continuing concentration of wealth into the hands of a very few. If you have that kind of money, then you're probably on the BoD of several corporations, and in a position to benefit in a variety of ways, ways that may or may not be in the interests of a given company...

It doesn't help that we've entered the era of the cult of the CEO, either, with the notion that huge compensation packages will somehow attract the most talented corporate heads. Far from it. The best compensated CEO's are often those who run their companies into the dirt... It's probably tough to really give a damn when your contract is such that the sooner you screw up and get set aside, the sooner you'll collect on your golden parachute... I'm sure that the retiring head of Pfizer recognizes that the functional difference between his retirement payout now and a larger one had he been more successful is not terribly significant. Kinda like swimming in 1000 feet of water or 5000 feet ofwater- pretty much the same...

 

[Michael]

Jhhnn - the pesion funds and mutual funds you mentioned all employ one of several consulting firms that recommend how to vote on the different choices shareholders have to make. That includes directors. Those institutions are very focussed on total returns and often they're the ones to thank for firms actually getting rid of poor management. The outside consultants are actaully pretty tough on what management proposes.

CEO pay packages do not go to shareholder vote. For the most part, I agree as even the BoD should not be running the day-to-day affairs of a company. That is what management is for and why they're paid their salaries. You can only hope that the BoD properly carries out their duties and make sure it is done properly. There have been a bunch of good articles recently that document how this system has broken down and how shareholder interests are not being served in many cases.

Michael