View Full Version : Exec Pay Increases
And now we wait to see how this one plays out in the American political pig sty and the occupy whatever crowd.
This year's survey shows CEO pay packages have boomed: the top 10 earners took home more than $770m between them in 2010. As stock prices began to recover last year, the increase in CEO pay outstripped the rise in share value. The Russell 3000 measure of US stock prices was up by 16.93% in 2010, but CEO pay went up by 27.19% overall. For S&P 500 CEOs, the largest companies in the sample, total realised compensation – including perks and pensions and stock awards – increased by a median of 36.47%. Total pay at midcap companies, which are slightly smaller than the top firms, rose 40.2%.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Revealed: Huge Increase In Executive Pay For America's Top Bosses
Guardian, 20 Dec 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/14/executive-pay-increase-america-ceos
It's been nothing but a Money grab for the last five years. Everyone is socking away what they can.
greenberetTFS
12-22-2011, 15:14
And now we wait to see how this one plays out in the American political pig sty and the occupy whatever crowd.
This year's survey shows CEO pay packages have boomed: the top 10 earners took home more than $770m between them in 2010. As stock prices began to recover last year, the increase in CEO pay outstripped the rise in share value. The Russell 3000 measure of US stock prices was up by 16.93% in 2010, but CEO pay went up by 27.19% overall. For S&P 500 CEOs, the largest companies in the sample, total realised compensation – including perks and pensions and stock awards – increased by a median of 36.47%. Total pay at midcap companies, which are slightly smaller than the top firms, rose 40.2%.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Revealed: Huge Increase In Executive Pay For America's Top Bosses
Guardian, 20 Dec 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/14/executive-pay-increase-america-ceos
They ought to tar and feather those bast*rds.........:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Paragrouper
12-22-2011, 15:24
Alot of the earnings reported are attributable to stock options, which ties their earnings to performance.
I can see the occupy whatever crowd taking exception to this--I don't think I'll join in their outrage. I like success based incentive plans.
It's been nothing but a Money grab for the last five years. Everyone is socking away what they can.
FWIW, I agree.
IMO, corporate America could defuse a lot of the criticism its receiving from individuals and politicians--and thereby undermine calls for increased regulation and oversight--if it took a less self-interested approach to earnings.
craigepo
12-22-2011, 20:22
Who cares? Privately-owned companies in a free-enterprise country, not a government entity. If they want to blow all the money on strippers and booze, it's their business. If it screws up the company, competition down the street will end up buying all their assets for pennies on the dollar. If the shareholders don't like it, they can show up at the next shareholder meeting and fire them. You want to hire the best for a company, you pony-up the bucks.
People need to remember that the way this country can afford all this military technology, interstate highways, etc., is because of free-market competition. This socialist crap leads, without fail, to poverty and oppression.
Paragrouper
12-22-2011, 22:13
Who cares? Privately-owned companies in a free-enterprise country, not a government entity. If they want to blow all the money on strippers and booze, it's their business. If it screws up the company, competition down the street will end up buying all their assets for pennies on the dollar. If the shareholders don't like it, they can show up at the next shareholder meeting and fire them. You want to hire the best for a company, you pony-up the bucks.
People need to remember that the way this country can afford all this military technology, interstate highways, etc., is because of free-market competition. This socialist crap leads, without fail, to poverty and oppression.
Well said.
Who cares? Privately-owned companies in a free-enterprise country, not a government entity. If they want to blow all the money on strippers and booze, it's their business. If it screws up the company, competition down the street will end up buying all their assets for pennies on the dollar. If the shareholders don't like it, they can show up at the next shareholder meeting and fire them. You want to hire the best for a company, you pony-up the bucks.
Agreed! I had that conversation with a friend of mine a few weeks ago. He was complaining about corporations paying CEOs enormous sums for half-assed performance. I said that:
1) If you don't own stock in that company, its not your problem.
2) If you DO own stock, and it bothers you... show up to a shareholder's meeting. Say something. Vote at board elections. Sure, you're just one guy, but it is a democracy, of sorts. Can't be bothered to do any of that? Then you don't REALLY care, you're just whining.
One thing they usually fail to mention with these types of reports is that those numbers usually filter downward within the company. Productivity and employee happiness/satisfaction are almost always a proportionate.
Me to. However several companies their management gave themselves large bonuses while the company was going down the toilet. Enron comes to mind. I worked for a company that while in bankruptcy court gave their chiefs huge multimillion dollar bonus for a job well done. No kidding, they ran the company into bankruptcy and think they deserve a bonus.
I am not in agreement or plan to join the occupy movement but their are a few companies out there that feed their cause.
I vaguely remember a comment from a mortgage firm(could have been Nationwide, who else? :rolleyes: ) during the meltdown in 2007: "We gave our execs exorbitant bonuses as incentives for them to come to work and do their job." Last time I checked my incentive was my paycheck, and the job associated with it...
MrBox2113
12-23-2011, 04:25
"Who cares? Privately-owned companies in a free-enterprise country, not a government entity. If they want to blow all the money on strippers and booze, it's their business. If it screws up the company, competition down the street will end up buying all their assets for pennies on the dollar. If the shareholders don't like it, they can show up at the next shareholder meeting and fire them. You want to hire the best for a company, you pony-up the bucks.
People need to remember that the way this country can afford all this military technology, interstate highways, etc., is because of free-market competition. This socialist crap leads, without fail, to poverty and oppression."
Agreed. Now if they are doing something illegal sure nail them to the wall, however, I really like how everyone is going after the people that have benefited from capitalism rather than those in our government, congress etc...that have caused a majority of the problems.
There has to be a top somewhere. More power to them. There can never be equality in terms of material goods or earnings. Does a panel decide this cap? If so that's too much power. Everyone gets a house, then you'll have some complain that their house is no longer new enough, , or as new as the one down the street.
Then we do away with exotic and luxury items, because we should all drive 4 door coups that are the same as every other coup in the US. No more ferarris, porsche, or corvettes.
No more star athletes, singers, artists, or actors. No reason to better ourselves as a person, or strive to excell in any pursuit, except complaining.
I say more power and money to them, and thanks for being at and defining what the top is for the rest of us who arn't there.
No one is happy being who they are and where they are in their life. And instead of doing anything meaningful with their lives or making changes to produce the kind of change they want to bring in their life would rather do nothing but be miserable and blame the rest of the world for their misery. Few have the patience to wait for the fruits of their deeds, efforts and labor to come back to them.
I want a life where I am responsible for my own future, and my own happiness. Not one dependent on limits, or caps, or somehow believing that if I was one of those execs that all my problems would magically disapear along with those of the world.
greenberetTFS
12-24-2011, 06:28
"We gave our execs exorbitant bonuses as incentives for them to come to work and do their job." Last time I checked my incentive was my paycheck, and the job associated with it...
I completely concur........:mad: Do you recall the movie "GREED" that is how most of these top exec's oprate and if you find that had to believe I've got a bridge to sell you........:mad: Free enterprise my ass!!!.....:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Scimitar
12-24-2011, 15:14
Here's the real principal behind these large salaries.
It's all about competition in the HR market but not the way you might think.
Fundamentally the HR market is a free market, you remunerate someone something to get them to do something for YOU instead of something for someone else or themselves.
These fortune 500 executives have the money, expertise, and experience, to go out and buy and / or run their OWN companies, so why the hell shouldn't they....Oh cos you want to remunerate them better than they can be being their own boss.
IMHO it steams out of education system change in the 70s, when the whole self esteem pedagogy came in. For some reason a significant amount of people in this nation, and definitely all around the world, think that if that guy does 8 hours, and I do 8 hours shouldn't we get paid the same.
Remuneration is based on
- Supply and demand for skills
- Value added
- Resource limitations
When the hell does “equality” have to do with it. This may be a strong statement but, it's damn well Communisim dressed up nice.
Funny thing is, Jesus agrees with me, and I hear he’s always a great guy to have on your debate team. :D
Matthew 20:1-15
God's kingdom is like an estate manager who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. They agreed on a wage of a dollar a day, and went to work.
Later, about nine o'clock, the manager saw some other men hanging around the town square unemployed. He told them to go to work in his vineyard and he would pay them a fair wage. They went.
He did the same thing at noon, and again at three o'clock. At five o'clock he went back and found still others standing around. He said, 'Why are you standing around all day doing nothing?'
"They said, 'Because no one hired us.'
"He told them to go to work in his vineyard.
When the day's work was over, the owner of the vineyard instructed his foreman,
"Call the workers in and pay them their wages. Start with the last hired and go on to the first."
Those hired at five o'clock came up and were each given a dollar. When those who were hired first saw that, they assumed they would get far more. But they got the same, each of them one dollar. Taking the dollar, they groused angrily to the manager,
"These last workers put in only one easy hour, and you just made them equal to us, who slaved all day under a scorching sun."
He replied to the one speaking for the rest,
"Friend, I haven't been unfair. We agreed on the wage of a dollar, didn't we? So take it and go. I decided to give to the one who came last the same as you. Can't I do what I want with my own money? Are you going to get stingy because I am generous?'
OK, so who wants to argue with God almighty.... :D
Paragrouper
12-24-2011, 15:53
Me to. However several companies their management gave themselves large bonuses while the company was going down the toilet. Enron comes to mind. I worked for a company that while in bankruptcy court gave their chiefs huge multimillion dollar bonus for a job well done. No kidding, they ran the company into bankruptcy and think they deserve a bonus.
I am not in agreement or plan to join the occupy movement but their are a few companies out there that feed their cause.
The beauty of your two analogies are they both involve companies that were failing, as it should be. Huge bonuses to undeserving executives was likely an indicator of greater failures in their organizations.
I certainly don't want to have the government, or anyone else to step in and determine my salary, bonuses and other compensation negotiated between myself and the firm I work for. I'm not going to begrudge others the same courtesy.
Scimitar
12-24-2011, 16:45
Let’s talk about the high remuneration during a recession.
It takes a hell of a lot of skill to manage a company in a down turn, more importantly its a different skill set from managing a company in growth, and IMO its a rarer skill set
If I take the three variables mentioned before
- Supply and demand of skill
- Value added (in this case mitigating loss)
- Resource constraints
Don't you think a recession executive should also get paid well?
What really gets my goat is the whole "rich and poor gap" metric.
Total lefty BS measurement
The very principles of capitalism says that the "richer" will grow in wealth exponentially quicker than the "not to rich", instead we should measure the increase in the lowest 25% standard of living.
I think there are two running themes/arguments here, as QP Paragrouper and Scimitar have pointed out:
a) Big pay for executives that have either actively and/or passively run the company into the ground, plead for and receive government help, make a bank run while the rest of the company filing out of the building for the last time, and finally jets off somewhere to escape congressional inquiry and/or civil/criminal charges.
I think we can all agree that the only thing this class of scum should be banking on is a few decades in the big house.
b) Big pay for executives that actively grow the company during the good times, and either grow, or (at least) triage the cash and employee bleed during the bad times.
I think most can all agree that these executives deserve *substantial* compensation for skilled leadership, especially during a downturn and/or recession. Maybe the employees deserve something too, and maybe the execs should "spread the wealth"; I don't know, and I don't really care, that's up to the company, and if you the employee don't like it, work elsewhere or move to China, I hear they spread much wealth over there.
That said, as echoed by previous members here and elsewhere, these reports are sensationalistic, and usually out of context, so we look at them and say: Hey! We should be stringing them up by their gonads for making that kind of money while (insert: bad economy/world hunger/civil war/africa/generic catastrophe here)" After that comes the "Foo-Bar gap" crowd, then the socialists, and the list goes on. It all comes down to that dirty, four letter word: work. Nobody wants to do it, and everyone wants to get paid like they are.
As far as stock prices are concerned, a missing teleprompter and the President winging it can drive prices way down; linking pay to stocks is nice, and sometimes a good performance indicator, but there are way too many variables that affect the market to accurately correlate between the two. This report is a NO-GO.
Paragrouper
12-27-2011, 14:34
I think most can all agree that these executives deserve *substantial* compensation for skilled leadership, especially during a downturn and/or recession.
I agree. Then again, I am a greedy capitalist:D
Paragrouper
12-27-2011, 17:38
Enron is a company that failed.. The other is still going strong.
The problem is our govt is holding up many of the companies instead of letting them fail. I believe you misunderstood my post, and perhaps I did not make it clear. I am not advocating socialism. I believe in rewarding a job well done. What I do NOT agree with is illegal and unethical behavior and being rewarded for it. I do NOT believe our tax money should shore up these companies that run themselves into the ground with high executive pay then screw the little guy as well as the tax payer.
The company that is still in business (I will not name) has literately killed several people with their illegal and unethical behavior recently. While they did not send out a hit squad they cut corners on safety resulting in the death of several people. They should be nailed to the wall for this yet we both know that will not happen because the politicians get too many donations to their campaign cause.
I must have misunderstood you. I agree that those that have acted illegally should be punished severely Further, I absoultley agree that our government should not intervene for poorly run companies. In the case you describe above it seems (once again) that it isn't the executives of the company alone who are responsible, but may also involve your local government officials. I hope the situation gets sorted.