I just heard on Business Channel the CEO's and upper mgt of most corp's are receiving more pay and benefits than they were before the onset of the recession. I think this is unjust and unfair to the share holders since they and the B of D's reduced the dividend by about 80%. When earnings go up, all the new income should not go just to upper mgt alone.
"When earnings go up, all the new income should not go just to upper mgt alone."
Scarbrobill: While I agree with you, this scenario would be much preferable to one in which earnings per share fell 63% and cash dividends to shareholders were cut 66% in the most recent fiscal year compared to the fiscal year ending three years in the past. During the same period, compensation paid to the "Named Executive Officers" increased by 30%.
Sound ridiculous? This is BB&T's record for the 2007 - 2010 time period. Makes one think that BB&T Board of Directors meetings are preceeded by two-hour wine tastings.
The medium pay for the Fortune 500 CEO is $9 million per year. Bbt is # 220. Although I too have issues with King's pay, it's competitive. Think many here are shortsighted over the good loans produced over the last 2 1/2 years which imo should drop charge-offs down to 50 to 75 bsp by year end.
I have to disagree. Just because historic pay ratcheting has landed median pay at $9M (I'll take your word for it, but that sounds low), doesn't mean it's right. $9M is better than most lotteries. At some point the gawk factor outweighs the competitive argument.
Not that there is a solution -- if any one company pays less then yes, they'll lose their "talent." Just part of the economic stratification effort we're pursuing.