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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (92590)	10/30/2008 8:18:59 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541695

The answer is deceptively simple:You have to pay an executive more than he could make running his own private company. Anyone capable of running a large corporation could also run his own business. Anyone capable of convincing a group of investors to let him run a publicly traded company could just as well convince a group of investors to fund a private venture. Frankly, that's absurd. The skills needed to run a large company are different from the skills needed to found a company, and lead it through its initial growth stages. So let them go begin "their own" company. If they can.

To: TimF who wrote (92590)	10/30/2008 8:24:47 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541695

Steve Jobs at Apple serves as a clear example of the cost of hiring good talent (as well of the value of good executive decisions) How did NEXT Inc, do? Why didn't Shannon mention that the CEO's that wrecked Apple were also big name hotshots, and they got good pay as well. The problem one Shannon Love seems to not understand is that anecdotal examples are not statistics. If Shannon could show a correlation between extreme executive pay and company performance that would be more compelling.

To: TimF who wrote (92590)	10/30/2008 8:42:36 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541695

You have to pay an executive more than he could make running his own private company That's an interesting idea but I don't find it compelling. You'd have to factor in the risk of running one's own company. Not all that much personal risk in running even a failed corporation.

To: TimF who wrote (92590)	10/30/2008 9:29:41 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541695

<<<Let the market decide. Let the enlightened interest of investors set salaries. If you want a say, buy stock.>>> I think that is pure bs. Take baseball as an example. They let the market dictate what each ballplayer is worth or how much a manager should be paid. What happens? The ball players and managers are overpaid. Thye have to raise ticket prices to meet payroll. Nowadays, it will cost a family of four, several hundred dollars to see a baseball game. Could there be a better system? Put a cap on payroll. Where are these players going to go to make the kind of money? Same goes for managers? Is ARod or Manny Ramirez worth more than $20 m a year. Is Joe Torre worth $8m to manage? If you put a cap on the system - arbitraily set team payroll at $50M a year, would the quality of baseball suffer. I don't think so.

To: TimF who wrote (92590)	10/31/2008 1:00:26 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541695

>>The answer is deceptively simple:You have to pay an executive more than he could make running his own private company. Anyone capable of running a large corporation could also run his own business. Anyone capable of convincing a group of investors to let him run a publicly traded company could just as well convince a group of investors to fund a private venture. << Tim - It's not quite so simple, I don't think. If they start their own company, they won't get the guaranteed salary, bonuses, or a golden parachute if it fails. There is much more risk involved in a startup, no matter how talented the CEO might be. - Allen