Lose $7.9 billion? No problem, we'll...

Feedback.pdxradio.com message board: Archives: Politics & other archives: 2007: Oct - Dec. 2007: Lose $7.9 billion? No problem, we'll give you $161.5 million
Author: Vitalogy
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 3:30 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21549196/

NEW YORK - Merrill Lynch's departing chief executive, Stan O'Neal, will walk away with $161.5 million in stock, options and retirement benefits, the company said Tuesday.

O'Neal, the second-highest paid Wall Street CEO in 2006, retired from Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. on Tuesday, almost a week after the investment bank reported its largest-ever quarterly loss. The $2.24 billion loss was precipitated by a $7.9 billion third-quarter writedown, as the company revalued assets backed by shaky mortgages. O'Neal's ouster was expected after the loss.

-This is the kind of person that the GOP wants to see paying LESS taxes.

Author: Nwokie
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 3:38 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Your point, the company is worth billions more than it was when he took over. Your looking at one small period in time.

Author: Vitalogy
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 3:54 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

The company lost $2.24 billion in one quarter thanks to a write down on $7.9 billion due to bad leadership decisions. Those are not the kind of results that should allow a $161.5 million pay day. If I was a shareholder, I'd be pissed.

Author: Andrew2
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 3:58 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Merrill Lynch was going to grow anyway, to some degree, based on the business it was in and the decisions that had been made before this guy came on. So the question is, what is the real net effect of his tenure at ML? If his decisions overall (even with this huge loss) still translate to much higher profits than would been realized without his decisions, then he does deserve the bonus. But if ML would have grown and profited about the same amount (minus this huge recent loss) with just about any CEO at the helm, then no, he doesn't deserve the payout.

Andrew

Author: Shane
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 7:30 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

I'm sure they want to attract talented new potential CEOs in the future. A large severance package, the amount of which is publicized, is sure to attract more people to the job.

Author: Saveitnow
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 3:21 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

It's the usual rewards on the way up (even if your not 100% responsible) and rewards on the way down.

It's the joke of corporate America they lose more money than the government, ask for bail outs that they don't want to have to be pay for in the way of taxes.

It's amazing how inept corporate America is, yet you "righties" feel that only government makes mistakes, so you want to get rid of government.

If the CEO of ML lived in the 17th Century he would have spent the balance of his life in jail for what he did, but by today's standards he get $160 million dollars. Good Grief.

Author: Newflyer
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 6:31 pm
Top of pageBottom of page Link to this message

View profile or send e-mail Edit this post

Sounds like the Portland Public School Dist., times 100.
At the very least, if I don't want to do business with ML, I don't have to. I think most wish they could say the same about the school dist.


Topics Profile Last Day Last Week Search Tree View Log Out     Administration
Topics Profile Last Day Last Week Search Tree View Log Out   Administration
Welcome to Feedback.pdxradio.com message board
For assistance, read the instructions or contact us.
Powered by Discus Pro
http://www.discusware.com