Boy he was soooo right back in December 2002. Isn't he the one during CNBC Maria Bartiromo(sp?) interview, before the Iraq war. Didn't she ask him, if a war in Middle East and specifically with Iraq, would it hurt oil company's profits? Didn't he say if anything it would help oil price and profits. Oil is much cheaper to produce down there than in US. 1-2 $/barrel vs 6-7$ avg here........Well he was right and that's why he gets paid the big $$$...... When it comes down to $$$ and oil, during the past few years doesn't everything seem to pivot around 9/11 ---> Invading Iraq----> $$$ Oil and more?....Shouldn't he be sending gifts to wtc survivor families??.....
Think about his public appearances. Aside from being kind of the hard nosed type, he really came off as Aw Shucks Golly Gee We're Really Just A Utility Company Going Where The Oil Is... Somebody Has To Do It... Now this. Breathtaking Pig Man. Somebody said that's around 1% of the company he raked in? Haven't done the math. And BTW, it doesn't feel like that 500% up figure in the article above is right even with the 2 splits in the 90s. I don't remember it that way.
Typically, the CEO selects the Board, who typically are his cronies. They get huge options themselves, so are grateful to him. I expect he orchestrated it behind the scenes. To answer your question however, no I don't expect him to turn it down. Few do. Yet most people consider it not only obscenely excessive, but just wrong. That's why I've reluctantly decided this is the sort of market failure that justifies government intervention. Put a cap on CEO compensation for public companies. Make it generous, say $5 mill a year. If they don't like it, let them start their own private companies and actually create wealth. Call me a socialist, but the fact is, it's a rare CEO who can justify his compensation package. This is opportunistc theft, pure and simple and it should be against the law.
Very good post. I don't know if and what the cap should be, but compensation should probably not be decided by board directors who play musical chairs at the director level in various companies and vote outsized compensation packages for one another with a nod and a wink. These guys can only be characterized as clean to the extent that one hand washes the other. The collusion may be legally deniable, but it is certainly palpable.
Ok, you're a socialist. I have max respect for both your intellect and ideas AAA, but that's the most inane idea I've ever heard from you. So if I'm a shareholder in a conglomerate that syndicates television shows I should freak out if my company pays Larry David a quarter billion? Even if we'd make money off the deal? I don't know where you get the idea that CEO's in well established publicly listed companies "select the board" but it's an erroneous notion.