Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

1. 

   Scott, 28 Aug 2001 @ 3:25pm

   
   

   No Subject Given

   Well, I think you are thinking like a techie. Typically CEO's are carriers of the touch and negotiators. If given the task of turning around a company that has an unlikely chance of success, he will negotiate what ever he wants to get for the risk. The BOD's will likely pay out even if the likelyhood of success is low. If the BOD says no thank you then they don't have any CEO. It is just the way it works.
   
   

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

   sb, 28 Aug 2001 @ 5:14pm

   
   

   No Subject Given

   CEO's are no differnet than you and me,
   Corporate America is one giant ponzi scheme.
   And all the chumps who bot dotcom stocks are at teh bottom of that pyramid. Once you figure that out, it all makes sense.
   
   Have a nice f'ing day!

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

3. 

   Mike (profile), 28 Aug 2001 @ 5:57pm

   
   

   Re: No Subject Given

   Scott, I completely understand that. But, most of these guys weren't turn around experts. They were, instead, people who drove a company into the ground, but had created severance packages that gave them no incentive to actually do a good job.
   
   Anyway, a Board's job is to figure out what's in the best interests of the company's shareholders (fiduciary interest) and as such they shouldn't accept a CEO who rapes them. There's nothing wrong with making pay conditional on performance. If more BOD's forced that condition on some of these turn around artists there would be a lot more reasonable deals.
   
   If the potential CEO's first thought is how he or she can guarantee a huge payout for him or herself (no matter how good or bad a job they do), rather than feeling confident about how good a job they can do fixing the company, the board shouldn't hire them. It's that simple, whether you're a techie or an MBA who understands fiduciary responsibility.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]