Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (293395)	7/5/2006 2:06:08 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 1591070

I'm not the guy who said the policy would apply to every company, so we can discuss its effects on any company. Dell's CEO made ~$3 million last year - if his pay suddently gets cut to $250k to implement your policy, he's probably going to retire. Maybe that's not a problem, I don't know. And I agree that executives who make $10 million per year at companies that are doing really poorly are overpaid, I just don't know the solution off the top of my head. I'm pretty sure a uniform law affecting all companies is not the way to solve that problem. Maybe you could have something like any executive pay package over $X million has to receive shareholder approval. Or, if a company's stock underperforms the S&P 500 during the pay period shareholders have to approve any payouts over $X million. In other words, if your stock underperforms the stock market, you can only get the $10 million salary you are expecting if the shareholders say OK.

To: combjelly who wrote (293395)	7/5/2006 5:32:23 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1591070

You are correctly pointing out that quite a few large corporations are under performing or worse, while their executives still collect what you call "obscene" compensation. That being very true in no way counterdicts the fact of the high levels of correlation between successful corporations and the level of compensation extended to their executives. Dell is indeed a good such example, because Dell is one of those well performing corporations. Microsoft is another obvious case. Obscene margins, obscene wealth amassed,corporate as well as personal, right? Oops, Gates is a lib, I forgot that. And why not look up the performance of 90% of Eisner's time at Disney except for the last few years where he obviously run out of steam while being well over his prime and just shy of retirement? Taro

To: combjelly who wrote (293395)	7/14/2006 1:40:38 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1591070

The CEO of GM is very well compensated, yet GM isn't what anyone would describe as a leading light amongst corporations. They have underperformed by pretty much every measure Not that I am asserting that GM's current management is doing well (far from it) but the distinction can be made between the management doing well and the company doing well. Previous management could have screwed things up, or the market for the companies product could be bad, or long term labor contracts and pension and health care costs could drain the company. I'm not really arguing for or against any policy or decision or idea in this post, just pointing out that the situation is complex. The employees are expected to accept wages that underperform with respect to inflation, assuming they don't get riffed, but the executives get continual raises and bonuses as the company stagnates at best? The relevant measures for the wages is what the employees can do for the shareholders compared to how much they cost, and the supply and demand for different types of employees. The executive salaries and worker salaries don't have to follow the same general trend. OTOH it would be hard to argue that GM's shareholders have gotten good value for the compensation they have given the execs, or that they couldn't possibly retain the same execs or get better ones for at least moderately less money.