The parasitic executive scum thread

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Sandman
I've been toying with the idea of a maximum wage. Nothing austere, say twenty times the minimum wage, so we can still have incentives to excel. However, I have no idea about how to actually implement such an idea.

25 times the salary of the lowest paid person in the corporation would be better. If everyone contributing to the produce and/or service is making money that's cool.

How to implement: Get elected to Congress, turn to your legislative aid, and say, "Draft me a bill that does [insert terms here]."

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The fact that they get paid a lot doesn't worry me so much as the "no failure" contracts they get. If I'm grossly useless I'd get sacked with 3 months pay. These tossers can get years of pay plus as-yet unearned bonuses (regardless of performance) plus stock options, plus consultancy positions- all written into the contract.

The incentive to actually break into a sweat just isn't there. They're taking the piss. Shareholders beyond the board don't get any say on it, usually.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Sten Sture
Overpaid parasitic corp execs are a stain that should be wiped clean.

(Interestingly most corporate organizational structures look like the old Russian communist party.)


I wouldn't want you all to infer, though, that corp execs in the States are self agrandizing arsewipes as a class. I have had a number of positive experiences in my career. Including senior execs that took $0 pay for more than a year to keep lower level employees, exec funded vacations for sick employees, and substantial personal gifts for needy employees. For every thief that makes the news there are several Robin Hoods that are using their skills to contribute to society.

Thank You Sten....

I coming from former Yugoslavia - the communist state can confirm that big corps (being in both) are EXACTLY the same structure like good old communist state - to be more precise like a communist party.

You have the CEO, the board of directors and everyone else saying YES to the one above him in the pecking order. And commites are meeting all the time to decide what to do . (and on 90% of these the senior person speaks and everyone else says yes with some figurative questions) As for some good CEO's well you can have some heads of state (or dictators) that are good too .

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Japher
Mainly beacuse, I hope to one day reap the benefits of doing nothing and taking home the lions share for it.

I really just hope that you are just jesting.

[Provost Harrison]

Yes, the further you stretch that elastic band, the bigger the resulting twang will be...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

We've got another good one here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2003/03/17/ccneil17.xml&sSheet=/money/2003/03/17/ixcoms.html

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Spare a thought this morning, if you will, for Peter Ellwood. Mr Ellwood is the chief executive of Lloyds TSB, and the prospect in front of him today is not a pretty one.

In the six years since he took the job, the bank has gone from being the one the others had to catch to the lame duck. The shares have fallen by two thirds, and are now on the sort of junk rating which implies seriously bad news ahead.

Yet is Mr Ellwood downhearted? Not a bit of it. The shareholders have just received the glossy report and accounts for 2002, complete with upbeat statements from him and his chairman, under headings like "First choice for our customers" and "Driving down our day-to-day costs".

Ah yes, the costs. Every banker likes to say he's driving down costs. It plays well with the shareholders. Lloyds, says Mr Ellwood, is bearing down on costs, so much so that it managed to shed 4,000 jobs last year.

Earlier in his tenure he bore down on costs by closing the bank's final salary pension scheme to new employees. Fortunately for him, the existing employees were not affected and, at the end of May, he passes 60 and will retire, after 14 years' service with the bank. Others may be worrying about their old age, but he won't be.

Were his grateful employer to buy his pension in the open market, it would cost £7,093,775 - the sum which at the end of last year would have been needed to buy his pension of £393,875. Since then, he has accrued further rights, and the combination of falling interest rates and rising life expectancy will have levered up this "transfer value" still further.

By any standards £7 million is an awesome sum. It is based on his December salary of £700,000, which in turn is set by Lloyds's remuneration committee under Clive Butler, corporate development director of Unilever. The committee, shareholders are told, sets pay "to attract, retain and motivate executive directors of the highest calibre".

This is all very fine, except that even Mr Ellwood's best friends could not, hand on heart, argue that his performance has been much cop. On his watch, Lloyds made a disastrous foray into life assurance with the purchase of Scottish Widows.

Rather like those hapless members of the other Lloyd's (of London) whose capital was made to work twice, once in the stock market and again to underwrite insurance policies, Lloyds has discovered that twice the "work" means twice the risk.

It could have been even worse. Last year Mr Ellwood tried to take over Abbey National, which successfully ran his bid into the sinking sands of the Competition Commission. Then the Abbey discovered that it was deep in the mire itself, and had to jettison both the chief executive and the dividend.

As it is, Scottish Widows has turned into a black hole, down which the Lloyds share price has disappeared. All the bank's post-tax profit was used to pay the dividend last year, and nobody can see how the payment can be maintained.

Cutting the dividend would be the ultimate indignity for a bank which had ambitions to call the shots in pan-European banking. It's now far more likely that, should any truly European banks emerge, Lloyds will be taken over.

You would not discern anything so unpalatable in the accounts, far less any suggestion that the bank's low state has anything to do with the highly paid men at the top.

These days the remuneration committee, whose job is to think of a number and double it for the salaries of the executives, have to disclose their policy. Lloyds, we are told, is for "total direct compensation (basic salary, annual incentives and the value of long-term incentives) to be at the upper quartile of the market place, provided that performance justifies the amount".

This statement really does let the fat cat out of the bag. Note, in passing, the absence of the word "pay", before considering the phrase "upper quartile". In English, it means the committee wants to ensure the pay of its executives is in the top quarter of the league. Many other such committees have similar targets.

You do not need to be a mathematician to see that only a quarter of the teams can be in the top quarter of the league table, and that the target is a guarantee of inflation in executive pay, come boom or slump. As for the suggestion that the performance should justify the amount, that's mere lip-service.

Mr Ellwood's performance surely cannot justify still more money, but his basic salary was raised from £660,000 to £700,000 last December. Oh, and he also got £73,000 in benefits and "performance-related payments" in 2002.

Yet it's unfair to pick on him, since everyone is doing it. Mr Butler's pay at Unilever is similarly determined by a remuneration committee, whose policy is that executive rewards should be "in line" with pay at other big international companies. His "emoluments" were £989,985 in 2001.

Last year's accounts are out next week and, like those for Lloyds, will have, for the first time, to show the cost of matching his pension entitlements.

It is likely to be even higher than Mr Ellwood's, but Unilever has signalled its determination to keep its final salary scheme open to all British employees, and its board has done far better for shareholders than the wretched performance of Lloyds TSB.

Lucky for Mr Ellwood, then, that unlike most of us, his retirement prospects don't depend on how he did the job.

[Provost Harrison]

Long, long dp...

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind getting that kind of money when I don't even have to live up to my expectations and get to piss around all day eating lunches and playing golf...

[Urban Ranger]

I sense angry people. This is good for the Revolution.

[Provost Harrison]

Their unadulterated greed should be enough to trigger a revolution...

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Yeah, I wouldn't mind getting that kind of money when I don't even have to live up to my expectations and get to piss around all day eating lunches and playing golf...

You don't really think these guys get these jobs on merit? They are major stockholders and this is part of their profit taking, thats why they can screw up major.

My wife's cousin was a lowly accountant until she inherited 5 million, bought 5 million in stock in the company she worked for, now she's the CEO.

Edit: formating

[Japher]

What good is money if it can't inspire terror in your fellow man?

-Charles Montgomery Burns


A wise man.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ozz


You don't really think these guys get these jobs on merit? They are major stockholders and this is part of their profit taking, thats why they can screw up major.

Wrong. Read the article.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ozz


You don't really think these guys get these jobs on merit? They are major stockholders and this is part of their profit taking, thats why they can screw up major.

My wife's cousin was a lowly accountant until she inherited 5 million, bought 5 million in stock in the company she worked for, now she's the CEO.

Edit: formating

I think you've just answered the question for me...