(10-18-2011, 09:23 PM)Concillian Wrote: On one hand, you point out a comparison that's irrelevant, then on the other you make a comparison that's irrelevant.You are right.
Quote:I don't know the answer to those qeustions, but I suspect it's a single digit percentage for the CEO and somewhere on the order of 50% of the average employees.Having witnessed it numerous times for the fortune 500 I've worked at... What they tend to do is give the new CEO a signing bonus of preferred stock (let's say $4 million, like Meg Whitman just got). The idea then is that they hang around long enough for that to vest, and the person then has a stake in the outcome of the corporation. When they leave, they usually get some severance parachute to help them along to their next fiasco (Leo Apotheker got $7.2 million after just 11 months on the job). But, HP is an unusual case. More like comparing the New York Yankees, to the Charleston River Dogs. There are probably oodles of River Dogs, for every Yankee. I have more of a problem with the exit bonuses, than with the signing incentives. Failures should fail. That is fair.
Quote:This conveniently plays right into your other point, which I completely agree with... that everyone needs to be suspect about any and all data presented. How it's presented, who's presenting it, what is the exact wording used, and how are they trying use all of these hard facts to deceive you.Yes. I try to supply sources so people can reach their own conclusions. In this case, I omitted what the Feds omit, which are all the various perks and special benefits with which executives are curried.