Author: Vitalogy Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 3:30 pm |
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21549196/ |
|
Author: Nwokie Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 3:38 pm |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
Author: Shane Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - 7:30 pm |
|
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 |
|
It's the usual rewards on the way up (even if your not 100% responsible) and rewards on the way down. |
|
Author: Newflyer Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 6:31 pm |
|
Sounds like the Portland Public School Dist., times 100. |
|