next time you hear how widows and children are being put out of their homes by the real estate meltdown, tell 'em about this stupid shit...
tam is fond of calling for wind chimes to be made from the hides of scalawags and scoundrels...none are more deserving of such ignominious fate than the geniuses who are responsible for this...right after i let them negotiate a contract for me.
What would you suggest as an alternative--Put a cap on CEO pay? Refuse to honor the contract? The right CEO can make or break a company--Steve Jobs and Apple, for example. (on the other hand, Jobs may be a better CEO for having been fired and rehired)
The good ones are going to be good negotiators, and it will cost serious money to attract them.
surely you're being facetious...comparing real capitalist/entrepreneur icons like jobs to larcenous evil pieces of shit like this is beyond naive.
People of Jobs caliber aren't even close to common--He's got a company to run already, and he's apparently devoted to it. The people with that combination of loyalty and track record are simply unavailable except in rare cases from within.
There's also the problem that Jobs and people like him aren't likely to make things comfortable for a potential successor. (This is especially true for Jobs, since he was already ousted)
The best you can find outside is a skilled mercenary, and the trick is to find one whose skill is in running a company, not in self-promotion. You'll have to pay, but the alternative is worse.
I've got a hard time blaming Fishman, assuming his intent was to make a good faith attempt to save WaMu in exchange for lots of money. I'd be happier if he did a modest base salary and lots of performance-based future bonuses, but would he or anyone qualified have signed up with that sort of pay package?
pay him in stock; he saves 'em he hits it big, he flops (or .gov orchestrates a liquidation), and he couldn't trade all his shares for a ragged old pickup truck...
Sure, if you can find someone who's good, AND willing to work for a potential return with no guarantee, AND can't get a better offer somewhere else. Salary negotiations would be insanely complicated, and the candidates would be well aware that situations far out of their control may make all their effort worthless.
I don't disagree with the basic premise--Somehow we need a way to pay executives in general (and not just of failing companies) based on long-term performance. Execs now don't have enough incentive to mentor successors (who may become rivals), or to sacrifice short term profits for long term stability. If I were in charge of executive compensation, they would get substantial profit sharing for years after they weren't with the company, regardless of their reasons for leaving
Post a Comment