There had to be a study to figure this out? There is virtually no accountability among CEOs. And there has been virtually no effort to hold them accountable. We live in the Corporate States of America.
On the other hand, the study also suggests that a good CEO has an enormous impact on the bottom line. This undermines the populist belief that “CEOs make too much money”.
Another example of waste in our university systems. A study to determine a stupid or arrogant boss with decision power can bring a company down? Again…No S—.
The real stupidity is in house…the board of directors who put him/her there.
On the whole, it is an interesting premise. I don’t think that it is incompetence that brings down a firm (ex. AIG) as the company had trained underwriters who were able to get quickly hired at competing firms. The managers who were culpable had large rolodexes and were able to use their contacts when parachuting out of their respective organization (ex. Greenberg taking large numbers of AIG executives to CV Starr).
The thrust is agency costs where managers often have different objectives than investors. Unless management has a stake in the firm over the long term, nothing will change. Greed and the quick dollar will remain king.
Before you decry this study for stating the obvious, note that they actually came up with quantifiable benefits of having a strong CEO…I am not sure I have seen that done before, so while the premise states the obvious, the information also contained provides additional insight.
And I recently read another study that ndicates that in most cases, the most lavishly rewarded CEOS are more often found in the companies that are tanking or doing poorly rather than the companies that are doing well. I guess the “rats leaving the sinking ship” analogy may well hold and Fuld is certainly an example of that.
These CEOs that cashed out and let the company fall to ruins behind them and the Boards that support them and scratch each others’ backs, have absolutely no shame. While they get theirs, all others, including stockholders and employees, and, by inference, the American taxpayer, all suffer.
I am all in favor of clawback laws. I am more in favor of regulation of these outrageous salaries and perks that bear no relation to worth because regulation will stop these abuses before they occur rather than after the fact, like a clawback.
While there are those that will say that regulating top CEO pay will hinder “free trade” do you really, really think that some of these outrageous sums are truly operating in a free market? if so, you are laboring under severe myopia; these guys get that money because they can…not because they should or because they have brought that amount of value to their companies. If companies can break contracts with labor unions and other non union workers over paying retirement benefits and retiree healthcare, then most assuredly the golden parachute contracts can and should be broken. These fools are laughing all the way to the bank.
Well, anyone care to chime in now that the ex-CEO of Lehmann Bros. recently testified to Congress that his company’s bankruptcy”it wasn’t my fault”?
I believe he was blaming short sellers & bad performance by the stock market as being the reason the company failed… then that the federal government didn’t bail them out.
I think many individuals with a fair amount of work experience could agree that leaders of organizations, including CEOs, can directly impact the direction and results of an organization.
I, for one, am convinced that organizations tend to mirror the personal characteristics of its leader. This applies to organizations of all types and sizes including corporations, small businesses, clubs and athletic teams.
Results are certainly driven by more than simply the CEO or leader of an organization, but it is hard to deny that the leader can influence events and, therefore, results.
Regulating the salaries of CEOs, though? I think not!! Getting government involved will only make things worse.
One of the problems in corporate America today is, in fact, government intervention. The government usurps power and lords over private enterprise via the tax code and government spending (e.g. subsidies, corporate welfare, so-called stimulus, unnecessary regulation), so it forces business to adopt strategies and lobby in order to gain the most advantage under such a system. In other words, business is forced to pay homage at the government altar.
If we simplified the tax code and spent public dollars in accordance with the Constitution, lobbying and jockeying for position would diminish greatly or disappear altogether.
To many, the formulas are simple:
Current government = bad
More government = worse
Less government = better
Constitution-based government = best
Until we recognize the above, we will continue to argue about symptoms and never solve the real problem.
There had to be a study to figure this out? There is virtually no accountability among CEOs. And there has been virtually no effort to hold them accountable. We live in the Corporate States of America.
On the other hand, the study also suggests that a good CEO has an enormous impact on the bottom line. This undermines the populist belief that “CEOs make too much money”.
the same researchers also determined that men like boobs.
Another example of waste in our university systems. A study to determine a stupid or arrogant boss with decision power can bring a company down? Again…No S—.
The real stupidity is in house…the board of directors who put him/her there.
WOW !!! What an eye opening study by the University of Iowa. Now I understand what IOWA stands for: Individuals Out Wandering Around.
On the whole, it is an interesting premise. I don’t think that it is incompetence that brings down a firm (ex. AIG) as the company had trained underwriters who were able to get quickly hired at competing firms. The managers who were culpable had large rolodexes and were able to use their contacts when parachuting out of their respective organization (ex. Greenberg taking large numbers of AIG executives to CV Starr).
The thrust is agency costs where managers often have different objectives than investors. Unless management has a stake in the firm over the long term, nothing will change. Greed and the quick dollar will remain king.
Before you decry this study for stating the obvious, note that they actually came up with quantifiable benefits of having a strong CEO…I am not sure I have seen that done before, so while the premise states the obvious, the information also contained provides additional insight.
And I recently read another study that ndicates that in most cases, the most lavishly rewarded CEOS are more often found in the companies that are tanking or doing poorly rather than the companies that are doing well. I guess the “rats leaving the sinking ship” analogy may well hold and Fuld is certainly an example of that.
These CEOs that cashed out and let the company fall to ruins behind them and the Boards that support them and scratch each others’ backs, have absolutely no shame. While they get theirs, all others, including stockholders and employees, and, by inference, the American taxpayer, all suffer.
I am all in favor of clawback laws. I am more in favor of regulation of these outrageous salaries and perks that bear no relation to worth because regulation will stop these abuses before they occur rather than after the fact, like a clawback.
While there are those that will say that regulating top CEO pay will hinder “free trade” do you really, really think that some of these outrageous sums are truly operating in a free market? if so, you are laboring under severe myopia; these guys get that money because they can…not because they should or because they have brought that amount of value to their companies. If companies can break contracts with labor unions and other non union workers over paying retirement benefits and retiree healthcare, then most assuredly the golden parachute contracts can and should be broken. These fools are laughing all the way to the bank.
Well, anyone care to chime in now that the ex-CEO of Lehmann Bros. recently testified to Congress that his company’s bankruptcy”it wasn’t my fault”?
I believe he was blaming short sellers & bad performance by the stock market as being the reason the company failed… then that the federal government didn’t bail them out.
I think many individuals with a fair amount of work experience could agree that leaders of organizations, including CEOs, can directly impact the direction and results of an organization.
I, for one, am convinced that organizations tend to mirror the personal characteristics of its leader. This applies to organizations of all types and sizes including corporations, small businesses, clubs and athletic teams.
Results are certainly driven by more than simply the CEO or leader of an organization, but it is hard to deny that the leader can influence events and, therefore, results.
Regulating the salaries of CEOs, though? I think not!! Getting government involved will only make things worse.
One of the problems in corporate America today is, in fact, government intervention. The government usurps power and lords over private enterprise via the tax code and government spending (e.g. subsidies, corporate welfare, so-called stimulus, unnecessary regulation), so it forces business to adopt strategies and lobby in order to gain the most advantage under such a system. In other words, business is forced to pay homage at the government altar.
If we simplified the tax code and spent public dollars in accordance with the Constitution, lobbying and jockeying for position would diminish greatly or disappear altogether.
To many, the formulas are simple:
Current government = bad
More government = worse
Less government = better
Constitution-based government = best
Until we recognize the above, we will continue to argue about symptoms and never solve the real problem.