I'm a BB&T retiree and its interesting to me that KK gets a 100% raise in one year when the stock price is tanked and can't get any traction. I understand fully the dynamics that have kept the stock price depressed and I don't have unrealistic expectations that management, BOD or anyone else can do anything that would cause the value of our stock to suddenly return to its previous trading ranges (mid 30's to low 40's). What I do remember very well as a former employee is hearing KK state that we were compensated on results, not efforts. I can now speak for all of the active employees who would dare not criticize KK's huge raise for fear of reprisal, my life's savings is invested in BB&T stock so I have skin in the game and I'll say whatever I want to! What we have here is a clear double standard where management, totally supported by the BOD, puts the hammer down on the employees to produce then uses shortfalls in the targeted goals to compensate. Not completely unreasonable or unfair, again, the mantra is you are rewarded for results, not efforts. I actually buy into that (assuming that the targets set are fair and reasonable), but if its such a good practice, why isn't it uniformly applied? I need for someone to explain to me where, under KK's leadership, the results acheived by this organization that could be directly attributable to him, warrant a 100% increase in pay. It would be interesting to know what the average salary increase will be for the employees in 2011. Its apparent that the BOD and senior management play by an entirely different set of rules. Perhaps the "Aristotlic" principals established by JA left with his departure. One thing is for certain, they were completely abandoned by KK and the BOD in granting a 100% increase in KK's compensation. It is my belief that this organization began losing ground and has never recovered from the retirement of Henry Williamson.
Bbt has not been cooking the books. Yes, they have been managing earnings but virtually all public traded companies do this. Accounting is based on estimates. Each estimate has a range. Kelly King has never been out of bounds. You may disagree with the particular point in the range he picked but that's not cooking the books. My objection has been that he should have been more transparent with his assumptions and let investors decide on risk.