You are correct on the dividend, but the point I was making is that if you bought the stock in January,1999 and you still own it your overall return is much less than 3%. The dividend has increased over the last 4 years, but the price per share of stock has decreased from over $40 a share to $36.75 today on line at this time. So if one figures their overall return it would be far less than 3% annually and the top six executives haven't suffered with the sharholders.( Who supposely own the company and benefit from the profits.)
I can give you lots of examples of banks that have done better by their dividends. Check out the increase that NB gave this year.
The second question is how many times do you pay the same executives to help get the stock price to where it was previously? Seems to me like these same executives were well paid when the stock price increased to over $40 in 1999. Does this mean that if the price drops again that they will once more be paid to get the price back to $36 a share? It appears that is what is happening.
Hope this clears up the points I was trying to make,
A very well thought out reply, particlarly about the issue "The second question is how many times do you pay the same executives to help get the stock price to where it was previously?" I hadn't thought about it that way before and this is a very valid question.
Not to belabor the points you make, BB&T execs suffered the same total return loss on their shares we did. JAA et al still are paid less than peers at comparable size banks. I by no means argue they're underpaid 'cause they're not. Fact is when our price resumes it's inevitable rise all this will be academic. Regards,