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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (50063)	8/2/2013 4:10:35 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

You don't know the stock, but are able to surmise that even though the job description of a very highly paid CEO is to account for "exogenous factors"(otherwise they could just hire a mail room clerk if the company can run on autopilot), he should still be paid for what was contracted. He didn't say that it was, because of other factors, he said it could be. And if it was, that would not imply that the mail room clerk could do just as well. Its possible (which is not to say its likely) that the CEO actually did a good job and that the decline in the market cap would have been larger with someone else at the helm. The only information you give us about the company is the market cap. That can go down even if the company was executing well, if the company was initially overvalued, or if investor sentiment swung against the industry. Maybe it wasn't just the market cap, maybe revenue, and profit went down, debt went up, investment in new product was reduced or done poorly.... Or maybe not, you don't post anything about that. Or about how other firms in the industry did at that time. If all those things happened it still could be largely because of exogenous factors, even if its less likely. You have to know a lot about the company and its circumstances to be at all sure. If I had to guess, I'd guess he did a poor job, but you haven't posted sufficient information to lead to a firm conclusion that he did a poor job. If he did do a poor, or even horrible job, he would still be entitled to his contracted for pay, unless the company went bankrupt, or unless he defrauded the company or otherwise violated the terms of his contract.