|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 24 2014 11:32 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2014 09:59 Gorsameth wrote:
How the fuck do you fail a lethal injection? seriously how incompetent are the people who deal with this? I seem to recall hearing (CBC?), that what they normally used to lethal inject can't be used because it was manufactured in Europe, and Europe refused to sell it if was going to be used for lethal injections. So in the interim, there have been some American companies that have been trying to find a replacement... not all of which work so well- as in this case. It's also something drug manufacturers don't exactly advertise: "We invent drugs for executions." Not the PR most companies want.
The lethal injection problem goes hand in hand with the massive drug shortage problems occurring in the U.S. Take a look at the FDA's "critical drug shortage database." This isn't even half the drugs that are on back order/difficult to get, just the ones where manufacturers were kind enough to inform the FDA.
Tons of drugs that are critical for various purposes, including lethal injections, aren't profitable to manufacture or were manufactured by companies that have gone out of business. As a result, people simply aren't making them or distributors aren't stocking them. They are trying to use substitutes as much as possible in both inpatient settings and executions, but they simply don't work as well.
|
|
|
Norway28747 Posts
wtf, it's like there's no pattern at all.
|
On July 26 2014 04:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
wtf, it's like there's no pattern at all.
and that is the miracle of boards of directors who dont do anything to police their CEO and the shareholders who do nothing to patrol their boards of directors.
|
|
|
The managerial ideology will, alas, not disappear so easily.
|
On July 26 2014 04:02 IgnE wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T7JPwnq.png) That's a funny image that Business Week posted.
Well we are constantly told how we are all invested in these companies so doesn't it make sense that we should all collectively be upset that there is no obvious correlation (let alone causal link) between performance of ones job and compensation?
Being a great leveraged negotiator seems to be more important to compensation than performance from the bottom to the top?
I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but we should probably tell kids that your ability to negotiate is probably as, if not more important, than your ability to do a job well.
Should we deem that we would rather reward negotiating skills over quality/quantity of work performed (as it seems we have) I suppose there is nothing there to be upset about.
|
No correlation?!? There is clearly a solid 1% correlation! 
|
On July 26 2014 04:20 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 04:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
wtf, it's like there's no pattern at all. and that is the miracle of boards of directors who dont do anything to police their CEO and the shareholders who do nothing to patrol their boards of directors.
Agreed. There should be a more organized system whereby shareholders can more easily influence the company.
However, does that chart include salary and stock compensation, or just salary? Most CEOs, especially of large companies, are primarily compensated with stocks. So the CEOs of Penny Stock Scams International and Google might both get paid less than 100,000$/year in salary, but have wildly different actual incomes.
|
On July 26 2014 05:40 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 04:20 Sub40APM wrote:On July 26 2014 04:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
wtf, it's like there's no pattern at all. and that is the miracle of boards of directors who dont do anything to police their CEO and the shareholders who do nothing to patrol their boards of directors. Agreed. There should be a more organized system whereby shareholders can more easily influence the company. However, does that chart include salary and stock compensation, or just salary? Most CEOs, especially of large companies, are primarily compensated with stocks. So the CEOs of Penny Stock Scams International and Google might both get paid less than 100,000$/year in salary, but have wildly different actual incomes.
The chart takes into account total compensation.
|
On July 26 2014 05:40 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 04:20 Sub40APM wrote:On July 26 2014 04:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
wtf, it's like there's no pattern at all. and that is the miracle of boards of directors who dont do anything to police their CEO and the shareholders who do nothing to patrol their boards of directors. Agreed. There should be a more organized system whereby shareholders can more easily influence the company. However, does that chart include salary and stock compensation, or just salary? Most CEOs, especially of large companies, are primarily compensated with stocks. So the CEOs of Penny Stock Scams International and Google might both get paid less than 100,000$/year in salary, but have wildly different actual incomes.
Like with most 'miracles' I think it can be easily explained. I would be willing to wager that if you looked at the same graphs for lots of top exec's and board members it would look similar.
The lack of shareholder action can be explained pretty easily too. Firstly, it's nearly impossible to get an accurate picture handed to you like the image shown. Secondly, provided you get the information it's hard to get much done with the ~30-40% (at best) of the company the people not in on the game typically own. So moves are generally only made when a mistake can be capitalized on by another board member (who unsurprisingly) just ends up screwing the shareholders harder for a bigger paycheck (there are comparatively rare exceptions to this).
I would love to see names on those data points. Shareholders in those companies should be getting an email about how much bang for the buck they are getting out of their CEO and probably take a close look at the whole board.
Going to have to dig into this myself and see if I own any shares of any of the poorer performing CEO's companies, as it might spark my motivation to create something around the related information
|
It's worth a chuckle but it's a fairly meaningless graph. There's really no reason for CEO pay to be strongly correlated with stock returns.
|
On July 26 2014 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It's worth a chuckle but it's a fairly meaningless graph. There's really no reason for CEO pay to be strongly correlated with stock returns.
Think there is a pretty huge canyon between 'strongly' and 1% that shows something is wrong? Given that there are all sorts of circumstances like being in the process of saving failing companies, that might not reflect well in a graph like that, I think it shows something worth paying attention to.
You can chop the information a lot of different ways but the story stays the same.
|
On July 26 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It's worth a chuckle but it's a fairly meaningless graph. There's really no reason for CEO pay to be strongly correlated with stock returns. Think there is a pretty huge canyon between 'strongly' and 1% that shows something is wrong? Given that there are all sorts of circumstances like being in the process of saving failing companies, that might not reflect well in a graph like that, I think it shows something worth paying attention to. You can chop the information a lot of different ways but the story stays the same.
I'll amend my wording. There's not reason for CEO pay to be correlated with stock returns at all.
|
On July 26 2014 07:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2014 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It's worth a chuckle but it's a fairly meaningless graph. There's really no reason for CEO pay to be strongly correlated with stock returns. Think there is a pretty huge canyon between 'strongly' and 1% that shows something is wrong? Given that there are all sorts of circumstances like being in the process of saving failing companies, that might not reflect well in a graph like that, I think it shows something worth paying attention to. You can chop the information a lot of different ways but the story stays the same. I'll amend my wording. There's not reason for CEO pay to be correlated with stock returns at all.
From the article:
If “pay for performance” was really a factor in compensating this group of CEOs, we’d see compensation and stock performance moving in tandem.
Well yeah if you start from the assumption "we are not intending to 'pay for performance' " Then no, it shouldn't, otherwise I think you need to explain.
|
On July 26 2014 07:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2014 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It's worth a chuckle but it's a fairly meaningless graph. There's really no reason for CEO pay to be strongly correlated with stock returns. Think there is a pretty huge canyon between 'strongly' and 1% that shows something is wrong? Given that there are all sorts of circumstances like being in the process of saving failing companies, that might not reflect well in a graph like that, I think it shows something worth paying attention to. You can chop the information a lot of different ways but the story stays the same. I'll amend my wording. There's not reason for CEO pay to be correlated with stock returns at all.
Note that it's not even stock returns. It's stock return RANK vs pay RANK. So it's not only meaningless, it's misleading.
|
On July 26 2014 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 07:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 26 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2014 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It's worth a chuckle but it's a fairly meaningless graph. There's really no reason for CEO pay to be strongly correlated with stock returns. Think there is a pretty huge canyon between 'strongly' and 1% that shows something is wrong? Given that there are all sorts of circumstances like being in the process of saving failing companies, that might not reflect well in a graph like that, I think it shows something worth paying attention to. You can chop the information a lot of different ways but the story stays the same. I'll amend my wording. There's not reason for CEO pay to be correlated with stock returns at all. From the article: Show nested quote +If “pay for performance” was really a factor in compensating this group of CEOs, we’d see compensation and stock performance moving in tandem. Well yeah if you start from the assumption "we are not intending to 'pay for performance' " Then no, it shouldn't, otherwise I think you need to explain.
Lol, well off the top of my head:
Stock performance is impacted by more than just the CEO.
CEO performance is more than just "stock returns".
CEOs at larger firms get paid more than CEOs at small firms.
I can go on, but the chart is meaningless. It doesn't compare CEO pay to performance in any meaningful way.
|
On July 26 2014 07:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2014 07:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 26 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2014 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It's worth a chuckle but it's a fairly meaningless graph. There's really no reason for CEO pay to be strongly correlated with stock returns. Think there is a pretty huge canyon between 'strongly' and 1% that shows something is wrong? Given that there are all sorts of circumstances like being in the process of saving failing companies, that might not reflect well in a graph like that, I think it shows something worth paying attention to. You can chop the information a lot of different ways but the story stays the same. I'll amend my wording. There's not reason for CEO pay to be correlated with stock returns at all. From the article: If “pay for performance” was really a factor in compensating this group of CEOs, we’d see compensation and stock performance moving in tandem. Well yeah if you start from the assumption "we are not intending to 'pay for performance' " Then no, it shouldn't, otherwise I think you need to explain. Lol, well off the top of my head: Stock performance is impacted by more than just the CEO. CEO performance is more than just "stock returns". CEOs at larger firms get paid more than CEOs at small firms. I can go on, but the chart is meaningless. It doesn't compare CEO pay to performance in any meaningful way.
Well no doubt the chart fits the narrative and what many people perceive as reality, so given that, are you suggesting otherwise?
Are you suggesting if we refined how we were measuring, that we would see a greater link between top board members/CEO compensation and company performance? If so how much greater?If we were to adjust for the things you outlined and more?
Because there is chart after chart and story after story about how the compensation of top officers is wildly out of proportion with the people on the front lines and this is just another piece that (while admittedly misleading) shows that. I haven't really seen a whole lot of stuff showing how there is a close tie between (true, not the bonuses paid for fraudulently selling crap) performance and pay at the top levels?
So I hear assertion after assertion that the liberal charts that show the problem, are wrong, but I rarely hear or see anything showing the contrary.
Admittedly, since the crash, some companies have started moving in the right direction (which is an implicit acknowledgement that there was a problem).
|
On July 26 2014 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2014 07:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 26 2014 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2014 07:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 26 2014 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2014 07:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:It's worth a chuckle but it's a fairly meaningless graph. There's really no reason for CEO pay to be strongly correlated with stock returns. Think there is a pretty huge canyon between 'strongly' and 1% that shows something is wrong? Given that there are all sorts of circumstances like being in the process of saving failing companies, that might not reflect well in a graph like that, I think it shows something worth paying attention to. You can chop the information a lot of different ways but the story stays the same. I'll amend my wording. There's not reason for CEO pay to be correlated with stock returns at all. From the article: If “pay for performance” was really a factor in compensating this group of CEOs, we’d see compensation and stock performance moving in tandem. Well yeah if you start from the assumption "we are not intending to 'pay for performance' " Then no, it shouldn't, otherwise I think you need to explain. Lol, well off the top of my head: Stock performance is impacted by more than just the CEO. CEO performance is more than just "stock returns". CEOs at larger firms get paid more than CEOs at small firms. I can go on, but the chart is meaningless. It doesn't compare CEO pay to performance in any meaningful way. Well no doubt the chart fits the narrative and what many people perceive as reality, so given that, are you suggesting otherwise? Are you suggesting if we refined how we were measuring, that we would see a greater link between top board members/CEO compensation and company performance? If so how much greater?If we were to adjust for the things you outlined and more? Because there is chart after chart and story after story about how the compensation of top officers is wildly out of proportion with the people on the front lines and this is just another piece that (while admittedly misleading) shows that. I haven't really seen a whole lot of stuff showing how there is a close tie between (true, not the bonuses paid for fraudulently selling crap) performance and pay at the top levels? So I hear assertion after assertion that the liberal charts that show the problem, are wrong, but I rarely hear or see anything showing the contrary. Admittedly, since the crash, some companies have started moving in the right direction (which is an implicit acknowledgement that there was a problem).
There should certainly be a correlation between CEO pay and whatever performance metrics are associated with their compensation package. To check that, you'd have to look at each CEOs pay package separately and also try to figure out if the metrics used made sense or not.
Most charts on CEO pay show the pay of a select group of CEOs (say, top 40 companies) then compares that pay to average employee pay. All that really shows is a growing divide between superstar pay and average pay, which is true for a variety of positions and not just CEOs.
For CEOs specifically, pay packages at closely held firms, where owners have more control over pay, tend to be similar to pay packages at public firms. CEO pay at US firms is also similar to CEO pay internationally.
|
I will note for the chart that CEOs and companies are not uniform, they're all in different situations. Let's take a few examples and look at why:
High-ranking pay and low ranking performance
Oracle, CEO Larry Ellison - Ellison founded the company
Disney, CEO Bob Iger - Iger just named CEO of the year for his turnaround of Disney from its woes in 2005, taking the stock from stagnant to all-time highs
Low-ranking pay and high ranking performance
Dreamworks, CEO Jeff Katzenberg - Katzenberg founded the company
E-Trade, CEO Paul Idzik - Idzik took over in 2013, the 7th CEO since 2007 for a money-losing company. His mantra has been cost cutting and the stock has soared for his efforts.
High-ranking pay and high ranking performance
United Therapeutics, CEO Martine Rothblatt - Rothblatt founded the company
LinkedIn, CEO Jeff Weiner - he started early and guided the company through its IPO in 2011. The IPO went well, the stock has done well, and Weiner was rewarded handsomely for it.
Low-ranking pay and low ranking performance
FedEx, CEO Frederick Smith - Smith founded the company
Intuit, CEO Brad Smith - Smith is well regarded and Intuit is solid but not spectacular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
