Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

AP IMPACT: Market gains set up CEO pay bonanza

Mon May 10, 2010 6:45 AM EDT
us-news, business, us, pay, ceo-pay
Rachel Beck, AP Business Writer
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 2 photos
<p>ADVANCE FOR MAY 10; graphic shows highest and lowest CEO compensation packages</p>

ADVANCE FOR MAY 10; graphic shows highest and lowest CEO compensation packages

Advertise | AdChoices

NEW YORK — America's top CEOs are set for a once-in-a-lifetime pay bonanza.

Most of them got their annual stock compensation early last year when the stock market was at a 12-year low. And companies doled out more stock and options than usual because grants from the previous year had fallen so much in value that many people thought they'd never be worth anything.

But stock prices have generally surged ever since. Even with last week's sharp declines, CEOs still have enormous gains on paper.

"The dirty secret of 2009 is that CEOs were sitting on more wealth by the end of the year than they had accumulated in a long time," says David Wise, who advises boards on executive compensation for the Hay Group, a management consulting firm.

An Associated Press analysis of companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index shows that 85 percent of the stock options given to CEOs last year are now worth more than they were on the day they were granted. For some the value jumped by a factor of 10 or more. A year ago, after the stock market had collapsed, 90 percent of the options granted in 2008 were worth less than the original estimate, or were considered "underwater," according to the AP's analysis.

Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally's pay package illustrates this point. In March 2009, Ford granted 5 million stock options to Mulally. Using a complex formula, Ford assigned the options an estimated value of $5 million. At the time, Ford's shares were trading at $1.96. Since then, the stock has jumped nearly sixfold, and Mulally's options have a value on paper of about $48 million.

Mulally is also ahead on his 2008 options, which were valued at $9 million when they were granted two years ago. Now, they're worth close to $21 million.

Mulally's gains still exist only on paper, of course. The ultimate size of his payday will fall if Ford's stock falters. But his gains could just as easily march even higher if Ford's stock continues to rise. And they take the sting out of a 30 percent salary cut and the lack of a bonus. A Ford spokesman said the structure of Mulally's compensation means most of it is aligned with the interests of shareholders.

Overall, the AP analysis found that the median 2009 pay package for chief executives at companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index fell by about 11 percent to $7.2 million. That followed a 7 percent decline in 2008 in median pay. The median value is the midpoint in the AP sample, meaning half of the CEOs made more and half made less.

The total doesn't take into account the increase in value on paper of the stock and the options executives received. The median pay only reflects the value that companies must assign to stock compensation when it is initially granted.

Stock compensation in 2009 accounted for 58 percent of total pay for CEOs. Cash bonuses that CEOs received from meeting performance goals amounted to 20 percent and salaries represented 14 percent, with the rest from guaranteed cash bonuses and perks.

Other findings in the AP analysis:

— The highest-paid CEO in 2009 was Yahoo Inc.'s Carol Bartz, who received a $47.2 million compensation package during her first year on the job. Ninety percent of her pay came from stock awards and options that were all granted around the time she was hired in the winter of 2009.

— No financial companies were in the AP's top 10. Three were on the 2008 list. Citigroup Inc.'s Vikram Pandit went from No. 10 in 2008 to the third-lowest paid CEO in the AP analysis in 2009.

— The median value of performance-based cash bonuses rose 19 percent, making it the fastest-growing component of executive pay in the AP sample. CEOs generally had to meet goals for profits and stock returns in 2009 to receive the bonuses. Some companies made that easy. In early 2009, as the stock market was still falling and the economy was in a deep recession, many companies lowered the bar on the benchmarks for profit and stock returns. As profits began to improve with the economy and the market rebounded, many executives easily beat the stripped-down goals.

___

The AP's analysis found evidence that boards took some action amid a public outcry over executive pay following the financial meltdown and the onset of the Great Recession. The median amount CEOs received in perks fell by 15 percent in 2009, as companies cut back on benefits such as the use of corporate jets for personal travel. And fewer CEOs got a guaranteed cash bonus.

"There were deliberate efforts by companies to take away things that could get them noticed," says J. Robert Brown, a professor of business law and corporate governance at the University of Denver and an expert on compensation issues. "No one likes being an outlier."

Pandit's pay for 2009 consisted of $125,001 in salary and $3,750 in 401(k) benefits. Citigroup's board said he earned a bonus for his work in 2009, but Pandit said he won't take one until the company returns to profitability.

His compensation in 2008 was an estimated $38 million, mainly because of a large grant of stock awards and options in January 2008 shortly after he became CEO. That stock compensation was granted when Citigroup's stock traded around $23 a share. Today, it trades around $4 a share. Pandit still has time for Citigroup's stock to rebound. His options don't expire until 2018.

A few other CEOs, including General Electric Co.'s Jeffrey Immelt, turned down bonuses. United States Steel Corp. CEO John Surma took a salary cut and refused any stock compensation because of the difficult business climate.

But experts say those examples weren't typical. "There have been gains chipping away at the sides, but the real fundamental changes still need to be made," says Jesse Brill, chair of the website CompensationStandards.com and an expert on CEO pay.

Chief among those changes: Limiting how much wealth CEOs can accumulate through big grants of stock and options.

"The purpose of stock options was to create a nest egg that a CEO would receive after a successful career," Brill says. "Once that number is big, there is no reason to keep adding to it. Additional grants do not provide additional motivation."

___

The AP's analysis looked at 320 companies in the S&P 500 that filed proxy statements with federal regulators between Jan. 1 and April 30 and had the same CEO for the past two years. CEOs new to the job in 2009 were included on the AP's highest-paid list but were not used in the year-over-year analysis.

Stock market data were provided to the AP by Capital IQ, a unit of Standard & Poor's. The prices used in the analysis were as of the end of trading on May 7.

The AP formula captures how corporate boards value their executives' pay packages. It adds up salary, bonuses, perks and the company's estimate of the value of stock options and awards of restricted stock on the day they were granted. That value is intended to represent how much the executive could receive from exercising options in the future.

Consider this hypothetical example: An executive is granted options in 2009 to buy 300,000 shares at $40 each. The company puts a value on the options of $5 million. The options vest over three years, meaning in 2010 he can exercise 100,000 shares at $40 each and the same in 2011 and 2012. As at most companies, the CEO has 10 years to exercise the options.

The CEO would only exercise his right to buy those options if the stock was trading above the exercise price. In 2013, the stock has risen to $75 a share. The CEO decides to exercise all of the 300,000 options at $40 a share for $12 million. He then immediately sells at $75 a share for $22.5 million. His profit on those options: $10.5 million.

The example shows that the initial value a company puts on an executive's stock options, which is disclosed in company proxy statements and used in AP's calculation of annual compensation, probably won't be what the executive ultimately receives. In this hypothetical case, the initial value was $5 million and the executive made $10.5 million.

The AP analysis found that two-thirds of the stock compensation granted to CEOs was awarded in the first three months of 2009. That is the time of year when most boards typically make their annual compensation decisions, but in 2009 it happened as the market crumbled to a 12-year low. The Dow Jones industrial average bottomed out at 6,547 on March 9, 2009, the same day the S&P 500 index dropped to 676. Both were down more than 50 percent from records set in October 2007.

"When the Dow hit 6,600, we didn't know if it was going to 9,000 or 3,000 in the next three months. Boards and management were terrified," says Ira Kay, one of the nation's leading compensation consultants.

The fact that stock options awarded in early 2008 were so far underwater had a big effect on stock compensation that boards granted in early 2009. Some boards increased the amount of stock awards and options they gave CEOs, or granted special one-time awards.

"Everything was underwater," Kay says. "Executive teams had not been paid. The boards were trying to keep executives as whole as possible."

What no one knew was that the market would soon start a powerful rally. The Dow and S&P 500 have climbed about 60 percent since March 2009. The gains have left executives poised to win big unless the stock market nosedives.

So how big will the bonanza be?

Here's a clue: Last year, CEOs in the AP sample exercised options and had previous stock awards vest worth $1.72 billion, according to data provided to the AP by compensation research firm Equilar. If the market doesn't crater, as it did during the financial meltdown, the payouts will dwarf that total in the coming years.

"This shows you how executives are always taken care of," says Lisa Lindsley, director of capital strategies at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a labor group that is also an institutional shareholder with $850 million in assets.

___

Associated Press Business Writers Matthew Fordahl, Nicoletta Ratti, Erin Conroy, Tali Arbel, Emily Fredrix and Ashley Heher contributed to this report.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Rachel Beck's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: New York
  • Public Discussion (86)
deezeeeeDeleted
HappyToSeeYa

Main Street continues to be screwed by Wall Street while Wall Street profits mightily. The downside of Wall Street executive manipulations is not felt by them personally. I don't care about conservative or liberal ideology or political party with regard to financial reform. I want Main Street to beneft more than Wall Street executives.

BTW, the 1000 point drop on Wall Street last week because of a cyber machine glitch scared me. It was an up close example of how we can be destroyed via cyber terrorism.

  • 5 votes
Reply#2 - Mon May 10, 2010 7:30 AM EDT
deezeeeeDeleted
Jimster

Domestic Terrorists.

I hope, if we can't get into prison somehow, that they spend the rest of their lives looking over their collective shoulders wondering if one disgruntled Main St resident gets through their security screen.

CEO PTSD

  • 2 votes
#2.2 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:57 AM EDT
rkymtnwoman

9,867 for me, 1 for you, slave workers! And if you don't like it you are not a "team player"!!

  • 4 votes
#2.3 - Mon May 10, 2010 5:41 PM EDT
Reply
Lkessler

Please note two CEO's listed. Bank of America and Citigroup. Two companies that got bailout money. Any questions?

  • 8 votes
Reply#3 - Mon May 10, 2010 7:44 AM EDT
Rixar13

"Everything was underwater," Kay says. "Executive teams had not been paid. The boards were trying to keep executives as whole as possible."

I suppose they are in a higher class than middle America but working families are the productivity that makes these companies profitable...?

    #3.1 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:00 AM EDT
    Apples

    Please note two CEO's listed. Bank of America and Citigroup. Two companies that got bailout money. Any questions?

    Listed as the 2nd and 3rd lowest. Both made less money last year than I did. I think your example is off. Perhaps you should have read the article?

    • 1 vote
    #3.2 - Mon May 10, 2010 11:12 AM EDT
    Real World Engineer

    Please note two CEO's listed. Bank of America and Citigroup. Two companies that got bailout money. Any questions?

    Both at the bottom of the ranking making less to similiar pay as alot of normal professionals.

    I think you have mis-read or thought wrong.

    • 1 vote
    #3.3 - Mon May 10, 2010 5:38 PM EDT
    economics101

    The fundamental problem here is that they are using stock options to pay these guys. Stock options actually cost the company nothing. The problme is we know that paying these guys with stock options leads to very very undesirable, even criminal behavior which has directly and indirectly caused this mess - so a simple solution. Make stock options for executives and officers illegal. You want to give them 30 million Cash, fine. Not with stocks.

    • 2 votes
    #3.4 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:08 PM EDT
    Reply
    Sir. Thinkswaytoomuch

    And people have a problem with raising taxes for the super rich...

    • 11 votes
    #4 - Mon May 10, 2010 8:01 AM EDT
    Lkessler

    No, what I have a problem with is bailing out companies whose CEO's make out like bandits while the average American gets screwed with "bailouts" for their "struggling companies." That I have a problem with.

    If you can afford to give an extra-huge bonus, your company doesn't need to be bailed out. Hell, in my book, no self-respecting American company needs bailouts--this is America, darn it. Make it on your own, or die trying.

    • 3 votes
    #4.1 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:34 AM EDT
    Anathema6205

    Only the super rich have problems with raising taxes for the super rich...

    and they brainwash the ones beneath them to think it's evil too.

    • 7 votes
    #4.2 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:34 AM EDT
    Lkessler

    Well, then, Congress should be ok with screwing themselves... Because there are plenty of rich people in Capitol Hill. Starting with Mr. Obama and Mme. Pelosi.

    • 2 votes
    #4.3 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:39 AM EDT
    Anathema6205

    I don't see Palin giving any of her money away.

    Matter of fact, I see her sapping money and then making a run for it.

    • 4 votes
    #4.4 - Mon May 10, 2010 10:18 AM EDT
    Lkessler

    Anathema: well, apparently, you have no argument against liberals keeping their money (and for that matter, you cannot argue against conservatives keeping theirs).

    Thanks for making my point.

    • 2 votes
    #4.5 - Mon May 10, 2010 10:22 AM EDT
    Anathema6205

    Not at all; I'm just saying that the right needs to practice what they preach.

    I never said Obama shouldn't...but then, these CEO's are making more than he does.

    Who is REALLY at fault here?

    The president, who is trying to run a country, or the CEO's firing thousands just so they can get a hefty raise?

    • 3 votes
    #4.6 - Mon May 10, 2010 10:36 AM EDT
    Apples

    The president, who is trying to run a country, or the CEO's firing thousands just so they can get a hefty raise?

    You do realize they didn't get raises per say. Most of their earnings come from exercising stock options. So as their stock went up (stock obtained when the company was bleeding at the beginning of the recession), they got lucky. Of course, part of the reason the stock went up is due to layoffs and increased efficiency.

    • 3 votes
    #4.7 - Mon May 10, 2010 11:15 AM EDT
    Anathema6205

    Agreed, apples.

    They're still sapping the little people for their 50th yacht and their personal islands.

    • 2 votes
    #4.8 - Mon May 10, 2010 12:16 PM EDT
    economics101

    actually the main cause for the stock going up was government bailouts and welfare for the rich ..... That's the point of the GS mess ... they not only caused the mess by being negligent, they got paid . The rest of us had to pay them to both screw it up and "fix" it .... ki9nda like paying a thief to rob you, then hiring to tell you how not to be robbed!

    • 5 votes
    #4.9 - Mon May 10, 2010 1:52 PM EDT
    Davy-755715

    The execs do manage to invest some of that money into think tanks that come up with emotional labels in defense of their actions, such as "Class Warfare!" "Politics of Envy!" And hey, as we can see here, some people fall for it!

    • 1 vote
    #4.10 - Mon May 10, 2010 2:19 PM EDT
    Apples

    actually the main cause for the stock going up was government bailouts and welfare for the rich

    I don't recall Yahoo getting a bailout, but regardless. My point is they were paid in stock options. So if you bought as much stock 3 years ago as they had options (and ultimately had to purchase), you would have made as much as they did.

    Being paid with stock options provides incentive to ensure that a company grows and remains profitable into the future. People, including myself, have a problem with CEOs who make money regardless of running their companies into the ground (a la hedge funds, financial fund managers, bank ceos, etc). So in this instance the top CEOs were rewarded with stocks and those companies did better in 3 years... therefore they were doing their job. I don't begrudge them making money on stocks.

      #4.11 - Mon May 10, 2010 6:32 PM EDT
      economics101

      First of all, you don't have to buy the stocks. Secondly, the era of dot coms and the basis of stock option pay is over. This stupid nonsense of creating money from nothing that was practiced first through the 1990's and now into today directly caused the credit crash, the dot com crash. Whethers its a mortgage scam, a stock option scam, fraudulent reporting, derivatives, its all the same sideshow scam ... figuring out how to create money from nothing .... Now guess who is holding the bag??

      I think that plans like an employee share purchase plan, matched IRA or 401ks etc are far better both for the employee and the company than handing out "options" which may or may not be exercised one day....

      • 2 votes
      #4.12 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:12 PM EDT
      caltha-palustris

      economics101 @ 3.9

      they not only caused the mess by being negligent, they got paid . The rest of us had to pay them to both screw it up and "fix" it .... ki9nda like paying a thief to rob you, then hiring to tell you how not to be robbed!

      A nice way of saying "It's extortion, stupid." {chuckle}

      • 2 votes
      #4.13 - Mon May 10, 2010 10:25 PM EDT
      economics101

      You got it, we have Rubin, the same guy who lobbied for deregulation telling everyone how to re regulate? He made what 1Billion in the last 10 years ... how about we start by confiscating that for all those who lost their houses ... I would laugh, but it really isn't funny. I mean, we had a good warning in 2000 what happens when you create money out of nothing and give it to the wrong people - so what we forgot?

      • 4 votes
      #4.14 - Tue May 11, 2010 12:59 AM EDT
      Apples

      First of all, you don't have to buy the stocks

      I never implied that you did. You have the option to buy the stocks, hence the nomenclature. But, in order to actually make the money you're referring to in this article, you have to buy the stocks within the option period, usually between 3-7 years. Currently, the CEO compensation is based on market rates today if they exercised all available options rendered in 2009. Options are an incentive to ensure that the company remains profitable and successful- you know the job of the CEO.

      If you have 1 million options at $1 a piece, which you cannot exercise (i.e. purchase or sell) for 3 years, and 3 years from now your stock is selling for 0.5 cents, well you would be pretty foolish to buy 1 million stocks for a $1 wouldn't you? Thus, 90% of their compensation would be negated if they didn't successfully maintain their company. That seems more reasonable than just paying them 100 million in cash.

        #4.15 - Tue May 11, 2010 12:17 PM EDT
        Pete520

        Thus, 90% of their compensation would be negated if they didn't successfully maintain their company.

        And what are some of the most efficient ways to raise a stock price? Layoffs, outsourcing, and implementing other cost-cutting methodologies like six sigma.

        It's no longer about building up a company and its workers for a CEO to be deemed successful...it's about building up the stock price. You want a stock price to go up so that you can cash in the stock options, a CEO doesn't implement something like enhanced employee benefits; a CEO announces that X Thousand jobs are moving to India. Investors say, "hmmm...company A's expenses are getting reduced...time to invest."

        Benefactors - The CEO and major shareholders

        Losers - Employees and Customers

        • 2 votes
        #4.16 - Tue May 11, 2010 12:26 PM EDT
        Apples

        The job of a company is to be profitable for its shareholders, not its employees. If you want to stop off shore outsourcing, tax companies that outsource to the point where doing is isn't profitable, but how can you attack efficiency? Businesses are here to make money, not to provide jobs. At least these CEOs know that.

          #4.17 - Tue May 11, 2010 4:05 PM EDT
          Pete520

          The job of a company is to be profitable for its shareholders, not its employees

          A shift we saw in the latter half of the 20th century...and a very short-sighted shift at that. Great deal for the current CEO and executive committee...lousy for the company's (and country's) future.

          When employees are treated like cogs in the wheel rather than like members of our US society, then less people will have the resources to purchase houses, cars, and the goods produced by the very companies that are cutting jobs...

          • 2 votes
          #4.18 - Tue May 11, 2010 4:24 PM EDT
          economics101

          APPLES,

          The job of the CEO is not to make sure the stock price goes up in the near term so his options are worth more. I know what the stated objective is, but what has typically happened is all the officers adn directors have focused on stock price manipulation ahead of what good for either the shareholders or the employees ..... That is bad for business.

          Its completely irrelevant what they say it is going to do, it has had a highly negligent effect on corporate morality and even criminality and should be abolished.

          • 3 votes
          #4.19 - Tue May 11, 2010 11:57 PM EDT
          Apples

          Most options have a waiting period to exercise them, generally in years. So you can't just make the stock go up in the "near term."

            #4.20 - Wed May 12, 2010 12:04 AM EDT
            economics101

            yes I understand how they work .... My point is this. The stated reason for option compensation was to focus the executive on stock performance. The real reason is that stock options don't cost anything. The result of this behavior has been massive dilution of stocks (=inflation), a focus by everyone on short term price appreciations, even when options have not been exercised (or cannot yet be exercised), tax breaks and eventually monetary manipulation and destabilization.

            I am talking bout the macro effects of this situation, and none of them are positive - so why allow it?

            • 1 vote
            #4.21 - Wed May 12, 2010 10:03 AM EDT
            Reply
            blindsided-1194485

            While mainstream America is preoccupied with the salaries of unionized workers who are a shrinking segment of the workforce, the fatcats in America's boardrooms are making out like bandits...again. While the middle and working class continues to shrink, the top 1% continues to amass the bulk of this countries wealth. We protest in outrage over impoverished people on welfare, but we stand silent while banks and corporations are the chief benefactors of government handouts. Soon there will be only two classes of people in this country. those who have all the money, and those who have none. Odds are if you are reading this, you will be the latter. The SCOTUS giving corporations the same rights as people concerning elections was the final nail in the coffin. They own us and we don't even know it.

            • 8 votes
            Reply#5 - Mon May 10, 2010 8:02 AM EDT
            NJhome

            I wonder what the Tea Party thinks of a very few elite executives that ran their company into the ground and still taking the money they didn't earn?

            • 4 votes
            #5.1 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:49 AM EDT
            Apples

            NJ, the tea party people, to my knowledge, are adamantly against corporate bailouts. In fact, they voted out the Senator from Utah for this very reason.

            Conservative ideology, by definition, would adhere to the belief that companies should survive without government hand-outs. That's the very definition of a free market.

              #5.2 - Mon May 10, 2010 11:17 AM EDT
              economics101

              Yes by conservative practice (ie GOP) is very much to support the current wealth distribution model, and bailouts, untendered contracts, and of course the worlds biggest welfare programs, US Defense and banking industries (that would be banking for the rich of course),

              • 1 vote
              #5.3 - Wed May 12, 2010 10:05 AM EDT
              Reply
              1623 yankee

              All I can do is shake my head. I don't even know what to say with this horse@!$%# going on. How do you smack someone with, "Shame on you!", when they have none and don't even know what it means.

              • 3 votes
              Reply#6 - Mon May 10, 2010 8:07 AM EDT
              Rickeroo

              CEO's deserve every penny they get. They are leaders.

              People who complain about CEO's are "followers". These followers are known as "employees".

              To all employees who lacked vision to start their own companies - where would you be if you didn't have an Employer to beg a job from?

              • 7 votes
              Reply#7 - Mon May 10, 2010 8:13 AM EDT
              Onipupsac

              Bravo! Glad someone said this. If you want to change the compensation of a CEO, work hard and move up the ladder and when YOU are in charge, pay yourself $50k a year. The whining about what someone makes is really old.

              • 4 votes
              #7.1 - Mon May 10, 2010 8:26 AM EDT
              Little Sure Shot

              I think what has people upset is not that someone is rich. These people worked hard to be in the positions they are in. The complaint is that they receive mega bucks bonuses after we bailed them out. When all the bailouts are paid back, whatever is left should dictate those bonuses.

              • 2 votes
              #7.2 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:55 AM EDT
              NJhome

              The problem is these people did not provide goods or service to earn this money they set up the system to take money while their companies failed. At the same time they betrayed their country by sending jobs off shore; their employees are now in Mexico and China working in unsafe conditions for low wages.

              • 3 votes
              #7.3 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:56 AM EDT
              Jimster

              ntinRickeroo-

              Enjoy your toolhood.

              You think these CEOs started their own companies? Or even worked harder than anybody else? Cling to that myth dude. CEOs love carrot chasers like you.

              Work to the bone so they can get that $12,000 shower curtain the wifey's been wanting.

              These people drove their companies into the ditch, recieved our money to pull them out, and then proceeed to enrich themselves further.

              These are not people who have done great things and are deserving of reward for their sucess. They are @!$%#-ups who feel somehow they deserve this enrichment "just because" they are CEOs. Modern day royalty

              They are the scum of the earth, and the worst examples this country has to offer. At least they serve as examples of how not to live one's life.

              • 8 votes
              #7.4 - Mon May 10, 2010 10:17 AM EDT
              Rickeroo

              If a company wants to pay their CEO enough to put the company out of business, I have no issues with that. Pay them 10 trillion, whatever.

              "recieved our money to pull them out"

              I would certainly not write a check to a company that drove itself into a ditch. However, my goverment did write them a check. I did not authorize such a transaction, so therefore I can't vote for any 'bailout' type of legislator.

              I look at who took which amount money from me. The total cost of all the bailouts, versus the total salaries of all the CEO's from bailed out companies.

              The government gave out all the money. The fact that CEO's were paid with a minute percentage of that money is being penny wise and pound foolish.

                #7.5 - Mon May 10, 2010 2:07 PM EDT
                1623 yankee

                pucky!

                • 1 vote
                #7.6 - Mon May 10, 2010 3:14 PM EDT
                Reply
                TheSkeptic-1418965Deleted
                Bubba-939441

                Everyone in America had the chance to buy Ford at 1.96. PS, they didn't take any bailout money. Ford is still a bargain. For me it's a better investment than social security.

                • 4 votes
                Reply#9 - Mon May 10, 2010 8:27 AM EDT
                deezeeeeDeleted
                1623 yankee

                Welcome to the feudal world with corporate lords and their fiefdoms. Democracy is their enemy and they will do whatever it takes to drive it into extinction.

                • 2 votes
                #9.2 - Mon May 10, 2010 11:39 AM EDT
                Pete520

                Everyone in America had the chance to buy Ford at 1.96.

                Really?

                Everyone in America has the discretionary income to purchase stock?

                Say you had $1000 to invest, which is a lot more than most of the people around you have, and with that $1000 you purchased 500 shares of Ford. 18 months later, Ford goes to $12 per share, so your $1000 goes to $6000. So you made $5000 in 18 months...or about $280 per month.

                Great return on an investment? Absolutely.

                Enough to set up a nest egg for yourself? Not even close.

                Do you think that $5000 over 18 months is going to effectuate the American Dream for someone who had $1000 to invest?

                Yes, everybody (with discretionary income) could have purchased Ford at $2 per share...but unless you have wealth to begin with, you're really not making the American Dream happen if you scrape together $1000 - $2000 in the first place.

                • 5 votes
                #9.3 - Mon May 10, 2010 12:24 PM EDT
                economics101

                I think the concept of CEOs being paid based on stock "performance" has resulted in enough fraud, manipulation and quasi criminal behavior that the practice of granting options to insiders and officers should be made illegal - as a way to protect the public. If the corporation wants to pay them 30 million cash fine, but options technically cost the company nothing, and have cost the US taxpayer how much in the last 24 months? Billions? Trillions?

                • 3 votes
                #9.4 - Mon May 10, 2010 1:56 PM EDT
                Bubba-939441

                "and have cost the US taxpayer how much in the last 24 months?"

                Yes. The bailout should NEVER happen. You guys are against these high compensation packages for firms who make risky investments. If you let em go under they'll stop making risky investments. If you bail em out they'll have their hand out again and the government will give them more taxpayer money. And the cycle continues. We've seen it before in the 80's. Reform ain't happening. Goldmann was one of Obama's largest contributors. I thought Nancy was going to clean out the swamp and Obama was advocating a new transparency. It ain't happening. Wake up America. Get these bozo's out of office.

                  #9.5 - Tue May 11, 2010 8:53 AM EDT
                  Pete520

                  Bubba:

                  First, read my comment (12.4) below on the bailouts.

                  Secondly, do you think that the Goldman folks that contributed to Obama's campaign are democrats? Or do you think they saw an economy in a meltdown state and were contributing to the party that was inevitably going to gain power?

                  I'll give you a hint. I'm a VP in the financial services industry, and I work for a company with 300,000 employees. I have regular interactions with people at my level and higher, and I know of only one - ONE - other VP who supports the democratic party...I have not met a single Senior VP or Executive VP who supports the democratic platform.

                  Supporting Obama financially was a business decision. The writing was on the wall in 2008, so the financial services industry supported the dems...that's why the financial reform package will add a few necessary steps, but it will miss the boat on the regulation that's truly needed.

                  • 1 vote
                  #9.6 - Tue May 11, 2010 9:26 AM EDT
                  Bubba-939441

                  "Supporting Obama financially was a business decision. The writing was on the wall in 2008, so the financial services industry supported the dems..."

                  Absolutely and it was a good investment for them. My argument is with Obama's promise of change and new transparency and Nancy's promise to clean out the swamp. I don't blame the private sector. I blame the lying politicians.

                    #9.7 - Tue May 11, 2010 2:07 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    Beckyal

                    What are the people running fannie mae and freddie mac getting?

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#10 - Mon May 10, 2010 8:39 AM EDT
                    tyler

                    10 deleted, lovetheworld still grenade-trolls everyone:

                    I hope Beckyal and Bubba end up homeless some day, then they'll see reality. In truth they're probably just trolls looking for attenion, but if they actually believe what they say I hope every bad thing possible happens to them.

                    Banned.

                    deezeeee banned, rereg of multiple accounter expanded-foster, recently hondos.

                    • 1 vote
                    #10.1 - Mon May 10, 2010 3:36 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    lovetheworldDeleted
                    jwc2blue

                    Here is the real "re-distribution of wealth".

                    And it's people like them who coin phrases like "re-distribution" to the ignorant masses to keep them fighting amongst themselves instead of confronting the real issues.

                    Ford is still a bargain. For me it's a better investment than social security.

                    thanks to the government, you too, are an invester in GM. Only problem is, they're not paying you a dividend.

                    Wrong Bubba. Our "dividend" is American jobs saved, less money spent on unemployment and its attendant problems of crime and violence. Just because you can't put it in your pocket doesn't mean that it doesn't help the rest of America.

                    • 5 votes
                    Reply#12 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:16 AM EDT
                    nohandouts

                    It isn't the governments place to control wages for anyone. The board decides compensation. If your not happy with their salaries, then don't buy their products.

                    Americans forget to use the strongest power they have.

                      Reply#13 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:22 AM EDT
                      deezeeeeExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

                      Dumbass, haven't you figured out that the Government keeps giving them money for the "so-called profits"...

                      what an idiot.. some just can't get it

                      • 1 vote
                      #13.1 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:26 AM EDT
                      Apples

                      deezeeee. The government bailed out Yahoo and CBS? From the article it sounds like these CEOs made a profit from cashing in their stock options, stock prices being deflated 3 years ago when they received them.

                      • 2 votes
                      #13.2 - Mon May 10, 2010 11:24 AM EDT
                      Reply
                      deezeeeeDeleted
                      KyleN

                      The gains were made from increases in stock value. As a shareholder I like that just fine, they make the company better - and get paid, they don't and they lose their interest and mine are the same as it should be.

                      When calculating the average American's pay or average workers do they take into consideration increases in stock value from stock or options gained in previous years? No...then why are there here? Because it makes nice populist rabble rouser sentiment.

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#15 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:29 AM EDT
                      deezeeeeExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

                      You didn't enjoy it before all the Government Welfare now did you??? As a stock holder you AREN'T getting @!$%# compared to the "ones" at the top..

                      what a jackass

                      • 2 votes
                      #15.1 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:44 AM EDT
                      KyleN

                      I didn't have investments in failing companies, I don't claim to have any crystal ball but I do have the initiative to look up and understand debt to equity ratios. For the broader claim made first by President Bush then repeated by President Obama that their bailouts helps even the companies that didn't get direct aid - I say BS. Allowing the failing companies to die would have opened room for the responsible companies to flourish.

                      One of the cited examples in this article was the CEO of Ford who had made a fortune - and his company earned it, no handouts and a very strong showing. They did a good job and he lead the team.

                      For the ignorant stock options are granted on a certain market day value. In all the examples and indeed in most companies the public are capable and welcome to buy the same options on the same days and in many cases in the same quantities should they so desire. So if you like the stock grant some CEO gets, then match it.

                      On the contrary I got exactly what those at the top received, my stock appreciated exactly the same as their stock appreciated - that is both how stock works and it was my whole point about aligned interest.

                      • 4 votes
                      #15.2 - Mon May 10, 2010 9:58 AM EDT
                      nohandouts

                      this is over dz's head...if you don't use inflammatory words he won't understand.

                      • 3 votes
                      #15.3 - Mon May 10, 2010 10:07 AM EDT
                      deezeeeeDeleted
                      Pete520

                      Allowing the failing companies to die would have opened room for the responsible companies to flourish

                      While I agree with some of your post, if the banks were allowed to fail, the world economy would have dies a quick death.

                      Don't get me wrong...I hated the bank bailouts...but more for the fact that they were necessary.

                      I work for a bank/brokerage firm and manage an area that moves cash and securities from firm-to-firm on a daily basis...and billions of dollars move between all the firms on the street every day.

                      That said, it took us 18 months to clean up the Lehman failure...and they were a fairly small player from a transactional standpoint. During that clean up, thousands of customers were receiving statements indicating that they had no assets (even though they were millionaires a few weeks earlier). When SIFMA was charged with managing Lehman's accounts and Barclay's took over a piece of Lehman's business, client and firm-to-firm transfer activity was lost. As a result, customers began to panick at other firms, began to pull money out of the market, began to stuff cash under their mattresses.

                      It took 18 months for us to clean up all the customer / firm account breaks. If the rest of the street went down...and if teams like mine walked out of our buildings with boxes...the panic would have been devastating. Even people from 1929 would say, "so that's what a run on the banks look like."

                      All that said, I hated the necessity of the bailouts, and although it doesn't look like it's going to get accomplished, the size of the biggest banks should absolutely be capped. Because if you continue to allow six companies (that move cash and securities to each other daily) to hold over 60% of the country's cash and securities, if one goes down, they'll all go down...and the country and world economy will go with them.

                      • 4 votes
                      #15.5 - Mon May 10, 2010 12:38 PM EDT
                      Pete520

                      By the way, as a footnote to my post, in 2008, my company lost $27 billion, got purchased by another financial institution, and before the acquisition was finalized, the top 800 people at my company received $3.5 billion in incentive compensation.

                      That dollar amount was announced in the press two days before I had to lay off five people making less than $40k per year...

                      • 3 votes
                      #15.6 - Mon May 10, 2010 12:41 PM EDT
                      jwc2blue

                      That dollar amount was announced in the press two days before I had to lay off five people making less than $40k per year...

                      You sir, are lucky to be alive.

                      • 1 vote
                      #15.7 - Tue May 11, 2010 8:06 PM EDT
                      Pete520

                      You sir, are lucky to be alive.

                      You're right...and, fortunately, I had an HR rep in the room with me and a security guard right outside.

                      By the way, to add to the company's sensitivity of that crappy day, the company was replacing our old TV monitors and installing 46" flat screens throughout the building on THAT DAY! So people walking out of the building with their boxes had to sidestep the contractors who were putting up the new sets...the only thing that would have made it worse would have been if the sets were running the story of our senior management's bonuses.

                      That is an honest-to-goodness true story.

                      • 2 votes
                      #15.8 - Tue May 11, 2010 9:27 PM EDT
                      Reply
                      alag1909

                      We can all be mad as heck at this continuing 'in your face' behavior from these companies and CEO's, when are we going to stand up and fight back? We all complain and get upset -- but I am 57 and I see it all as business as usual and nothing ever changes. These are CEO's with NO CONSCIENCE, IT IS ALL ABOUT THEM, while thousands of people are out of work, many from their own companies. My hope and prayer is that the next generation of people working their way through these companies have the RIGHT CODE OF ETHICS, I.E. DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WANT DONE UNTO YOU. NOT DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO.

                      God bless all -- He is watching.

                      • 3 votes
                      Reply#16 - Mon May 10, 2010 10:05 AM EDT
                      GreedalitismDeleted
                      2TailPuppy

                      Some of this remuneration is simply theft. It's time our corporate laws were changed. They are basically 400 years old, before mass literacy and shortly after the printing press:

                      1.More corporate democracy and empowered shareholders. If this was the case we wouldn't need caps on CEO salaries and bonuses. Corporate law was developed around 400 years ago when there was a much more limited media and no internet.

                      2.No reciprocal board seats. That is management and boards can't serve on each other's boards.

                      3.The corporate veil needs to be much more permeable. When management screws up they can be fined and punished rather than the shareholders who have had nothing to do with it. As it is, management screws up and the corporation gets fined resulting in the shareholders paying.

                      Management paid bonuses based on 5- 7 year performance rather than year to year. This would eliminate the need for clawbacks and insure more long term management decisions rather than quarter to quarter and year to year.

                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#18 - Mon May 10, 2010 12:20 PM EDT
                      Kenneth-1693406

                      Bailout banks > money goes into the market > many spotted that angle and followed >

                      Present market is INFLATED so let's print some more $ so can buy more GOLD

                        Reply#19 - Mon May 10, 2010 7:06 PM EDT
                        Bighorn

                        Since the beginning of time there were haves and have nots. Suggest you read your European, Asian, Middle East, English, American and Mediterranean history if you can read.

                          Reply#20 - Tue May 11, 2010 9:59 AM EDT
                          Kenneth-1693406

                          Avid reader of history - especially economic sections. Romans "trimmed" their gold coins to debase

                          currency and we should not deny that the same is not happening thruout the world today - Europe just did it. Increase the amount of paper currency in monetary systems to prevent depressions.

                          $ up and Gold also - is a definite signal.

                          • 1 vote
                          Reply#21 - Tue May 11, 2010 10:28 AM EDT
                          Leave a Comment:
                          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                          You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                          (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                          Newsvine Privacy Statement
                          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                          FUN STUFF:
                          • Leaderboard |
                          • E-Mail Alerts |
                          • Top of the Vine |
                          • Newsvine Live |
                          • Newsvine Archives |
                          • The Greenhouse
                          COMPANY STUFF:
                          • Code of Honor |
                          • Company Info |
                          • Contact Us |
                          • Jobs |
                          • User Agreement |
                          • Privacy Policy |
                          • About our ads
                          LEGAL STUFF:
                          • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                          • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                          • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com