Wasting Money on CEOs
Rodney Johnson | November 07, 2019 | Last weekend, McDonald’s dismissed CEO Steve Easterbrook for having a consensual relationship with a subordinate. The relationship broke the rules, which Easterbrook admits. The company obviously fired him for cause. For his troubles, he walks out the door with $700,000 in severance, plus a potential $70 million in stock and options. It must be terrible to hang your head in shame while driving a Ferrari, eating in nice restaurants, and vacationing in Davos. The pot of gold Easterbrook inherited upon his exit brings up the wealth at the other end of the rainbow, when CEOs are hired. If you want to find an example of compensation inequality run amok, look no further than the corporate boardroom. For a bunch of people who are supposedly good at math, corporate boards of directors follow a logic that contains a serious flaw. Wanting to hire “great talent,” or “visionary leaders,” or whatever buzzwords they use that day, the boards appoint compensation committees to create pay packages for CEOs. The committees probably hire consulting firms, which survey similar companies to determine the going rate. But no one wants to pay the going rate. It would get you a run-of-the-mill, same-as-the-other-guy executive. So they set the compensation just above the average. Seems reasonable, until you realize that every time this happens it moves the average higher because each company sets the bar a little higher, driving up the overall number. And for what? | Man Who Predicted Trump’s 2016 Election Victory Makes Shocking New Prediction For 2020... He predicted 2008’s Great Recession... The devastating crash of oil prices in 2015... And Trump 2016 campaign victory... Now he’s making another shocking prediction... one that could bring America to its knees by early 2020... Click here to see it now >> | Did McDonald’s really need to pay Steve Easterbrook $1.3 million in salary last year, plus another $15 million in stock and options? Is there no one qualified to run the company who would work for less? Did Easterbrook bring some incredible knowledge of hamburgers and fast food service that no one else possessed? I’m not picking on Easterbrook, I’m just pointing out that most large companies are ongoing concerns with many functioning parts run by division heads with exceptional knowledge of their areas. They aren’t Apple relying on Steve Jobs to bless the next iPod or iPhone. Tomorrow, McDonald’s will still make fast food. It might try out meatless burgers. It might tweak the breakfast menu. But, surely, there’s someone who would take the management helm for a wee bit less than $16 million. And what about General Motors? Mary Barra earned $21 million last year, with more than $2 million in salary. This is a car company that was able to jettison its debt in 2009 and then have the U.S. government create demand by offering the cash-for-clunkers program. The “new” GM went public almost exactly nine years ago at $34. Today it trades just over $38, a whopping 12% gain when the S&P 500 gained more than 120%. Why are General Motors shareholders paying millions for that? Why do companies treat CEOs different from every other employee, where they try to get the most work for the lowest amount of compensation? I’d imagine there’s a person or two at GM – or Ford or Fiat Chrysler, for that matter – who would take the helm of GM for, say, $1 million. Maybe throw in a company car. But $20 million in stock? Not a chance. In the 1950s, the typical CEO made about 20 times what the worker on the line made. Last year, that number was 287 times. It’s hard to argue that we’re almost 15 times better off for paying these people that much money. Accountability is the hard part. No one wants to rain on the compensation parade. Why would board members, many of whom run other companies, want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg? And stockholders? The largest stockholders are institutions run by some of the very same people who benefit from the circular system. But this is where we need to be careful. In an election year with the word inequality thrown around, we’re likely to get a government solution to a private sector problem. The only thing worse than effectively letting CEOs set each others' compensation would be to require government approval. If that happened, we’d likely see many companies go private and IPOs dry up as managers and owners did their best to avoid the bright lights of big government. We wouldn’t be able to complain anymore but was also wouldn’t have many stocks in which to invest. Maybe I’ll just fill out my corporate voting ballots as they come in over the next year. I’ll cast my vote to throw out as much of the board as possible. It won’t help, but it will make me feel better. 
Rodney Johnson Trending Stories... I have shown conclusively in my ebook on gold, How to Survive & Thrive During the Next Gold Bust , and past newsletter issues that gold correlates primarily with inflation rates – not just in the past century, but back to the 1700s! I have also shown that inflation correlates most with workforce growth. We will... I grew up on the Gulf Coast, beginning in Florida, then over to Texas, then part way back to Louisiana. We weren't testing beaches, we were following boats. My stepfather joined our family when I was quite young, essentially becoming my parent. He took a job on a shrimp boat in the Florida panhandle and... When David Stockman spoke at our IES conference in October, he had a whole slew of charts that showed that the main street economy had nothing to do with the Wall Street one – and that there were more signs of weakening growth than strengthening. He recently showed some updates and these were the two... Today's rant covers an unusual topic: China. No, not Chinese trade. We talk about that plenty. Rather, today I want to talk about a new angle on Chinese real estate. Chinese Real Estate The Chinese are strange real estate investors, largely because its communist government had not broadly allowed real estate ownership until recently in... It's been two days since my movers met my contractors. I don't mean a "Hey-nice-to-meet-you" kind of greeting; it was more of a "get-out-of-my-way-I'm-working-here." My planned extrication from my old digs into my partially-renovated new home didn't go like I thought it would. The exercise brought to mind the paraphrased wisdom of Von Moltke: "No... | 
No comments:
Post a Comment