1) This article is guilty of using million and billion in the same sentence as if the numbers were comparable. Drop in the bucket.
2) $2 million of this compensation was in the form of stock options, which are likely to expire worthless if Hartford doesn’t turn around next year.
3) AFAIK, Hartford hasn’t received billions in government aid (aka taxpayer money), so no one who’s not a stockholder should care about the CEO’s pay.
4) Ayer is compensated according to the contract he signed when taking the job. I suppose the writer thinks Hartford should have broken the contract and paid him less.
5) This figure is 1/3 of Ayer’s 2007 compensation, but that’s not in the first paragraph. You have to dig through the entire text to find it. Notice the headline isn’t “Hartford CEO takes 67% pay cut.” Betcha a similar article next year says “Hartford CEO takes 100% pay raise.”
Now i’m not 100% on this so don’t crucify me if i’m incorrect. Didn’t Hartford buy a small bank so they could access the Tarp funds? I’m just curious b/c Ratemaker stated that Htfd rec’d no govt funds.
Listen…a few of those 500 folks who lost their job could have stuck around if good ole’ Ramani had taken a bit more of a cut.
Also, Hartford is able to use TARP money, it just has not yet taken any of it….yet.
Lastly, if Ramani and the other high paid execs really wanted to, and if they really cared, they could have given most if not all of their money back to save face, for good PR, and most importantly for a great moral boost in the company.
Instead, you know have the impression that the rats are jumping off the ship and taking all the can before they jump in the life raft.
Better brush up on your German Hartford folks….the whole thing stinks…
As a former Hartford shareholder who took more than a bit of a beating this past year, I guess I care that the clowns that ran the company almost into the ground were compensated better than I think they deserved, based on the miserable performance shareholders have experienced.
Stckbyr-presuming your loss was based on the stock price. How much of the stock price drop was driven by the economy and not by the performance of Hartford?
I have not looked up Hartfords ratios but the are very likely not much different than any other carrier of similar size.
So the loss in stock price was driven by market conditions more than by performance.
Truth is … that there are some tremendous purchase (stock) opportunities out there right now for those with some cash and who keep their eyes on the long term.
Not bad for an allowance of $6,333.34/mth for car service. At that price, you can get youself a pretty nice luxury car.
Don’t be daft — a luxury car simply cannot drive itself. Pity the poor CEO who then has to drive at the end of a long day. Shudders…
yellow journalism at its best:
1) This article is guilty of using million and billion in the same sentence as if the numbers were comparable. Drop in the bucket.
2) $2 million of this compensation was in the form of stock options, which are likely to expire worthless if Hartford doesn’t turn around next year.
3) AFAIK, Hartford hasn’t received billions in government aid (aka taxpayer money), so no one who’s not a stockholder should care about the CEO’s pay.
4) Ayer is compensated according to the contract he signed when taking the job. I suppose the writer thinks Hartford should have broken the contract and paid him less.
5) This figure is 1/3 of Ayer’s 2007 compensation, but that’s not in the first paragraph. You have to dig through the entire text to find it. Notice the headline isn’t “Hartford CEO takes 67% pay cut.” Betcha a similar article next year says “Hartford CEO takes 100% pay raise.”
Now i’m not 100% on this so don’t crucify me if i’m incorrect. Didn’t Hartford buy a small bank so they could access the Tarp funds? I’m just curious b/c Ratemaker stated that Htfd rec’d no govt funds.
Listen…a few of those 500 folks who lost their job could have stuck around if good ole’ Ramani had taken a bit more of a cut.
Also, Hartford is able to use TARP money, it just has not yet taken any of it….yet.
Lastly, if Ramani and the other high paid execs really wanted to, and if they really cared, they could have given most if not all of their money back to save face, for good PR, and most importantly for a great moral boost in the company.
Instead, you know have the impression that the rats are jumping off the ship and taking all the can before they jump in the life raft.
Better brush up on your German Hartford folks….the whole thing stinks…
Didn’t Hartford just take some stimulus money? Wait until Obama hears about this.Geitner isn’t going to be happy.
As a former Hartford shareholder who took more than a bit of a beating this past year, I guess I care that the clowns that ran the company almost into the ground were compensated better than I think they deserved, based on the miserable performance shareholders have experienced.
Stckbyr-presuming your loss was based on the stock price. How much of the stock price drop was driven by the economy and not by the performance of Hartford?
I have not looked up Hartfords ratios but the are very likely not much different than any other carrier of similar size.
So the loss in stock price was driven by market conditions more than by performance.
Truth is … that there are some tremendous purchase (stock) opportunities out there right now for those with some cash and who keep their eyes on the long term.
Once again Id just like to apologize for not knowing the facts – Or my head from my azz for that matter.
“no bailout funds” was prefaced with an “as far as I know.” I admit to not taking the time to go look it up.