kallend 2,184 #26 November 27, 2007 QuoteQuote Neither O'Neal nor Prince kept their jobs. They just kept $(tens of millions). In Prince's case he got a performance bonus after Citi lost $(tens of BILLIONS). So when exactly did Citi lose tens of billions of dollars, John? I think you need to find a grad student to be your fact checker. http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/press/2007/071015a.htm FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Citigroup Inc (NYSE: C) October 15, 2007 Citi Reports Net Income of $2.2 Billion, Earnings Per Share Of $0.44 And as he awaits his official retirement next month, Mr. Prince can rest assured that he will leave with $68 million, including his salary and accumulated stockholdings; a $1.7 million pension; an office, car and driver for up to five years — all in addition to the bonus. That is on top of $53.1 million he has taken home in the last four years, a period when $64 billion in the company’s market value has evaporated. From the New York Times.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 November 27, 2007 Quote And as he awaits his official retirement next month, Mr. Prince can rest assured that he will leave with $68 million, including his salary and accumulated stockholdings; a $1.7 million pension; an office, car and driver for up to five years — all in addition to the bonus. That is on top of $53.1 million he has taken home in the last four years, a period when $64 billion in the company’s market value has evaporated. From the New York Times. The company didn't lose money, shareholders did. Market cap is a very different animal. It's only lost if you sold now. All of the financials lost a good chunk of their market cap in the past 6 months. JPM is -15%, BAC is -20%, C is -43%. OTOH, if you bought in 1990, C is the king with a 2000% gain, even with the current drop. The other 2 are at 500% or less. C definitely has underperformed over the past 4 years, but most of that loss happened in the last couple months, in part due to the fear of the bad loans, and in part because they had to fire their CEO. A lot of this cap loss will come back if the investors are confident in the new leadership, so long as it keeps making money, which so far is true. Some people are questioning if Citi can afford to keep paying the dividend in the near term. I personally do feel that any options granted to execs should have a moving strike price tied to an appropriate benchmark. There shouldn't be any reward for 5% growth in stock value, unless the industry was flat that year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #28 November 27, 2007 Quote Quote And as he awaits his official retirement next month, Mr. Prince can rest assured that he will leave with $68 million, including his salary and accumulated stockholdings; a $1.7 million pension; an office, car and driver for up to five years — all in addition to the bonus. That is on top of $53.1 million he has taken home in the last four years, a period when $64 billion in the company’s market value has evaporated. From the New York Times. The company didn't lose money, shareholders did. . From the OP: "Isn't it time shareholders held them truly accountable?"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 November 27, 2007 Quote "Isn't it time shareholders held them truly accountable?" Which ones? The ones that lost 40%, or the ones that gained 2000%? How should they do it? Your proposal? The only one offered was to jail them, though for what offense I still don't know. CEO's can't control the stupidest of the investors who buy high and sell low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #30 November 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteThey also make obscene billions making right decisions for their investors. No CEO can always make a right decision. IF we put an addendum in their contracts that would hold them 100%accountable to the shareholders (keep in mind we put a lot of demands on them to succeed 100% of the time anyway, even though it's impossible) we probably will have to pay them a much higher salary to stay on to conpensate for the losses they will have on their down times. What? You could pay them 1/4 of their current salary and have them lining up. KInd of like with lower court, JP's and Muni's, judges make 80k+ and most aren't even lawyers, some have no college, and they are lining up. Point is, overpay unqualified people and they will line up. Thx for being the, uh, devil's advocate. Laws of Supply and Demand also pertains to employment and bonuses. Just paying 1/4 salary just doesn't work in the CEO market. As far as Judges and other things related to govt service and pay: dont confuse buisness with Government pay scales. They are two completely different animals achieving two different means._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
