Subscribe via RSS Feed

Golden Parachutes

[ 23 ] September 30, 2011 | Scott Lemieux

But how could companies compete if they couldn’t lavishly reward failed executives? It’s the magic of the unfettered free market!

Comments (23)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. R. Porrofatto says:

    These guys are very small peas. William McGuire, former CEO of United Healthcare, unsatisfied with his $1.4 billion in exercisable stock options*, eventually had to settle with the SEC for illegally backdating his stock options to reap an extra $400 million. Despite this, McGuire “retired” with a $1.1 billion golden parachute, the largest ever in corporate America at the time, which also included lifetime payments for an office, secretary, paid life and disability insurance premiums and health care for his family, etc., ad infinitum.
    Even the guy at the top of the Times’ list only got a measly $49.9 million. I almost feel sorry for him.

    *Just one of the reasons healthcare insurers need to double and triple their rates.

  2. c u n d gulag says:

    So, it’s not just demand – our new Galts can’t hire any more people because they’re too busy paying off the last failed Galt’s Golden Parachute.

    This way, he/she saves money for their own Golden Parachute when they fail.

    Nice work, if you can lie, cheat, backstab, and lay-off your way to get it.

  3. howard says:

    the only way to have a market setting prices for ceos would be for the ceo candidates to submit sealed bids so that comp can be compared against comp.

    what happens instead, of course, is that the board decides who it wants and then pays that person whatever he or she asks for. i can’t ever remember reading of a single major corporation that decided to move on to their second choice for ceo because the first choice wanted too much money.

    which may be reality, but of course is not market-based in the slightest, much as they would like to pretend otherwise.

    • Joshua says:

      The board, of course, is made up of CEOs from other companies, so they’re all just doing each other a favor.

      • DrDick says:

        Often personally picked (and serving at the discretion of) the CEO they are nominally supervising.

        • howard says:

          well, if we really want to drill down into it, it’s not even the board, it’s the comp committee, which absolutely is filled with friends and mutual back-scratching colleagues.

          • Rob says:

            Whose own compensation in their main job is based upon “comparables” that they help to set.

          • jackd says:

            You don’t even need self-serving behavior from the comp committee. All it takes is a mindset that says $XXmillion is the average for comparable companies to pay their CEOs and we believe (and want to signal to others) that we have a much better CEO candidate, therefore our guy should get $XX + $YY million. And it keeps ratcheting up.

  4. Joshua says:

    If a Galt is proven to be a total incompetent who risked putting his company in a tailspin, he gets a huge reward from the company.

    If a Galt is proven to be a total incompetent who actually put his company in a tailspin, he gets a huge reward from the government.

    It must be nice being rich.

  5. Ugh says:

    Er, the article isn’t exactly clear, but it seems that the facts suggest these sort of severance deals are set up when the CEO signs on to the company; while the article seems to want to imply that the Board is just lavishing fired CEOs after the fact when they don’t have to.

    • actor212 says:

      Usually, they are agreed upon ahead of time, yes. However, that does not abrogate the responsibility of the board to make sure the parachute is earned with specific performance evaluations that are not tied to the price of the stock

  6. DrDick says:

    Based on actual performance. at least as well, if not better than under the current system and for a whole lot less money.

  7. actor212 says:

    Y’know, there are some corporate greed things that, while odious, I can at least understand the logic of: giving big bonuses to brokers, as an example (even tho a very strong argument can be made that ultimately they are detrimental to not just that firm but the entire economy at large.)

    Golden parachutes never made any sense to me, whatsoever. To have a severance package that in no way, shape or form was tied to a performance justification is the height of stupidity.

    • Brian says:

      Or at least a major peak in the Idiotic Mountains.

    • howard says:

      it doesn’t make it any better, actor212, if i tell you why: it’s a payoff for the opportunity cost.

      that is, we are supposed to believe that ceo candidates are in such amazing demand that really, they are foregoing untold opportunities elsewhere just to come work with you, and if things don’t work out, well hell, they forewent untold opportunities elsewhere that would have worked out, so you should pay up anyhow.

      i swear: that is the argument.

      p.s. and just to show that i’m a fairminded soul, there are some isolated occurences where that is true, typically in a case where a lead candidate for the ceo slot in one company is lured to another with which he has no experience, but as a general rule, it’s ridiculous.

      • actor212 says:

        Yes.

        Where have we head that argument before?

        Was it when Goldman paid out billions in bonuses from the bailout money they were given?

        Bonuses to the same asshats who put us in bankruptcy in the first place?

  8. EndOfTheWorld says:

    But never forget! Executives are paid many, many times more than their laborers due to the terrible amount of risk they assume. Why, if they screw up, all they’ll be left with is a multi-million dollar severance package. Oh what a labor you assume, Atlas.

  9. cpinva says:

    these people are all just higher class grifters. they are the failed coaches of the fortune 500 who, much like failed coaches for professional athletic teams, just move on to the next franchise. once you break in to circle, you never really get fired, you just become the flavor of the month for another company/team.

  10. Ken says:

    Missing from the report: Whether any of these companies, as a result of “difficult economic times and a change in business outlook,” have modified their pension plans for non-executives. It greatly irritates me when the sanctity of contracts only applies to some contracts.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • blogroll

  • Brad Delong
  • Crooked Timber
  • Daily Kos
  • Danger Room
  • Eschaton
  • Ezra Klein
  • Feministe
  • Talking Points Memo
  • Feministing
  • Glenn Greenwald
  • Juan Cole
  • Monkey Cage
  • Switch to our mobile site