CEO refuses 25 million salary

[feelgood]

Link

Morgan Stanley CEO shuns pay guarantee
Mack says he won't accept assured $25M a year, will tie pay to investment bank's performance.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - John Mack, the new chairman and chief executive officer of Morgan Stanley, told employees Friday he will no longer accept a guaranteed minimum of $25 million a year of pay, and instead will tie his compensation to the investment bank's performance.

Mack announced his decision after he had earlier this week signed a five-year contract that linked his compensation to that received by CEOs of Morgan Stanley's (Research) four big Wall Street rivals.

Under that contract, he would have received a minimum of $25 million in both 2005 and 2006 had Bear Stearns Cos.' (Research) James Cayne, Goldman Sachs Group Inc.' (Research)s Henry Paulson, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (Research)'s Richard Fuld and Merrill Lynch & Co. (Research)'s Stanley O'Neal averaged that much.

"I don't want anyone to think that I am entitled to something that others are not," Mack said in the letter. "That is why I have decided ... that I will amend my employment agreement. No guarantee. No industry benchmark."

Mack, saying he had received questions in the last day about his own compensation, added: "This business is built on trust."

Reuters obtained a copy of the letter. A spokesman for Morgan Stanley confirmed the letter's contents.

Mack, named CEO June 30, is trying to restore morale and improve performance after his predecessor, Philip Purcell, announced his retirement under pressure from shareholders, and amid a wave of defections of senior bankers.

Last year, the four other CEOs averaged about $28.2 million in compensation, regulatory filings show. Cayne's compensation totaled $24.7 million, Paulson's $29.8 million, Fuld's $26.3 million, and O'Neal's $32 million, the filings show.

The median U.S. household salary from 2001 to 2003 was $43,527, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

"It is not clear whether Morgan Stanley shareholders should be happy," said Jesse Fried, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and executive compensation expert.

"The devil is in the details," Fried added. "Shareholders are better off when CEOs are paid $100 of equity instead of $100 of cash because equity provides better incentives. But Mack may be giving up $100 of cash for equity compensation that is worth much, much more, in which case the additional incentives may come at too high a price."

On Thursday, Morgan Stanley said it had awarded Purcell a severance package worth more than $113 million. It also said Stephen Crawford, named co-president in March, would be paid at least $16 million in each of fiscal 2005 and 2006, or receive $32 million if he were to resign within the next 30 days.

In his letter, Mack said he would not second-guess compensation and personnel decisions made by others before he joined the company. Top of page

Smart man, I've seen too many companies paying CEO and executives millions for poor performance. Almost every single worker in the world is paid based on the work they've done, not based on what they will do.

[DEI37]

$25m/year!!! Just think about THAT for a minute.

[MSD]

Assuming a 40 hour work week and two weeks vacation you would have to be paid $500 per hour to make $1M per year. Now multiply that by 25, divide by 3600, and you're making $3.47 per second.

[Seanland]

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

Assuming a 40 hour work week and two weeks vacation you would have to be paid $500 per hour to make $1M per year. Now multiply that by 25, divide by 3600, and you're making $3.47 per second.

Its sad when people in some countries dont even make that an hour

[feelgood]

Originally Posted by DEI37

$25m/year!!! Just think about THAT for a minute.

Naw buddy, the previous CEO? Got paid 113 million just to get rid of him. Now, think about that one...you can make more money just to quit a company

[filtherton]

I sure am glad our free market system isn't broken.


Wait, it is. Sorry.

[KellyC]

Originally Posted by Seanland

Its sad when people in some countries dont even make that an hour

Even sadder is the fact that my cousin in Vietnam earn that much in a DAY...with a college degree.

[feelgood]

Originally Posted by KellyC

Even sadder is the fact that my cousin in Vietnam earn that much in a DAY...with a college degree.

Do you have any idea what's it like in Canada? Where new people from other countries that have arrived with a doctor's degree and the government is desperately trying to find more doctors and nurses as our country is running out of them but are actually giving the new immigrants a taxi driver job or something similar.

[maleficent]

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

Assuming a 40 hour work week and two weeks vacation you would have to be paid $500 per hour to make $1M per year. Now multiply that by 25, divide by 3600, and you're making $3.47 per second.

When I worked at the brokerage firm, the ceo didn't come close to working 40 hours a week - they worked more like 60 -70 or more hours a week...

PLUS -- even at a low rate of 10 percent (and that's lowballing - so I can figure out the percentage easily) he would have paid 2.5 million dollars a year in taxes... there are people who won't pay that over their lifetime... Think about that..

I dont care what these people get paid, as far as I am concerned, they are taking the risks, they take the rewards... I object to people getting paid to leave a company (same way I object to welfare and other entitlement programs)

[Nisses]

he might actually be smart enough to be at this position...

Given that he refuses his fixed income, if he does well, he might make a lot more than that fixed number. Especially if morale and performance is low among the employees.

He's actually boosting their confidence and performance by dropping some security of his own, in order to reap a bigger benefit in the end.

I say it's a daring but smart strategy. If it pays off, more power to him.

[Suave]

Originally Posted by KellyC

Even sadder is the fact that my cousin in Vietnam earn that much in a DAY...with a college degree.

Direct comparisons of exact wages/salaries between countries aren't very accurate, as I'm sure one can buy a substantial amount more in Vietnam with 3.50 than one can in the United States. I'm not saying it's not still less, but the effect is much decreased when one looks at the purchasing power generated by the money, rather than the absolute dollar amount.

[OFKU0]

John Mack, the new chairman and chief executive officer of Morgan Stanley, told employees Friday he will no longer accept a guaranteed minimum of $25 million a year of pay, and instead will tie his compensation to the investment bank's performance.

Of course this is cynical Sunday for me, but when people in business say they want to get paid for their performance or the performance of the company, that usually means they can do better than what is guaranteed. I'd like to find out what his performance based salary is a year from now.

[guthmund]

Originally Posted by maleficent

When I worked at the brokerage firm, the ceo didn't come close to working 40 hours a week - they worked more like 60 -70 or more hours a week...

PLUS -- even at a low rate of 10 percent (and that's lowballing - so I can figure out the percentage easily) he would have paid 2.5 million dollars a year in taxes... there are people who won't pay that over their lifetime... Think about that..

I dont care what these people get paid, as far as I am concerned, they are taking the risks, they take the rewards... I object to people getting paid to leave a company (same way I object to welfare and other entitlement programs)

So, you're okay with the guy getting paid 25 million a year? I'm all for people getting ahead and being paid what they're worth, but don't you think $25 million is a bit...excessive?

It's not like this guy is handling dangerous chemicals in an attempt to cure cancer or kill off the AIDS virus. He's not braving the cold frontier of space to settle new worlds for future generations. He's working in an office. And while I'm sure the stress of running such a large company is tremendous, I don't really think it's worth $25 million.

By the way, under the guaranteed contract this guy is going to earn $25 million dollars this year (he'll probably earn more, like OKFU0 said, he wouldn't turn down $25 million unless he knows he can do better.)

In one year he'll make about 5 times what a taxpayer earning $100,000 a year will earn in a lifetime (47 (18-65 years old) * 100,000 = 4,700,000, right?)....think about that.

[maleficent]

Originally Posted by guthmund

So, you're okay with the guy getting paid 25 million a year? I'm all for people getting ahead and being paid what they're worth, but don't you think $25 million is a bit...excessive?

It's not like this guy is handling dangerous chemicals in an attempt to cure cancer or kill off the AIDS virus. He's not braving the cold frontier of space to settle new worlds for future generations. He's working in an office. And while I'm sure the stress of running such a large company is tremendous, I don't really think it's worth $25 million.

By the way, under the guaranteed contract this guy is going to earn $25 million dollars this year (he'll probably earn more, like OKFU0 said, he wouldn't turn down $25 million unless he knows he can do better.)

In one year he'll make about 5 times what a taxpayer earning $100,000 a year will earn in a lifetime (47 (18-65 years old) * 100,000 = 4,700,000, right?)....think about that.

I honestly don't care what this guy earns, he pays more than his fair share of taxes. This is a brokerage house, with play money, it's not like the cost of what tehy are selling (tehy don't sell a product) is going to raise exponentially because of his astronomical salary.

I work under the belief that every cuts their own deal when they walk in the door, if he can make more than 25 million a year because of the way the company performs - more power to him...

I know brokers who got in bonuses, 100K + a year - in addition to an astronomical salary, and perks.... it's a high stress job, and if they can do it -- who am I to say anyhing.

I'll say again what I object to... people who get something for nothing... his predecessor shouldn't get squat for leaving, the company didn't perform under his care, so he should be shown the door... If the new guy thinks he can kick ass and take names.. .well then- -give him that big fat check... I really don't care...

[Leo]

Sorry, but I just don't get ridiculously high compensation packages. I'll be (very slightly) more impressed if he doesn't already have squillions.

[kutulu]

Originally Posted by maleficent

I know brokers who got in bonuses, 100K + a year - in addition to an astronomical salary, and perks.... it's a high stress job, and if they can do it -- who am I to say anyhing.

I see no reason to object to the old CEO getting paid to leave. He had a contract with the company for a certain $ amount over a period of years. The company wanted to go somewhere else and they had to buy him out. It's their own stupid fault for giving a contract like that out.

I do have a problem with people making that kind of money though. NOBODY does a sufficient amount of work to be worth even $1M. The reason that half of the country makes less than $30k/year is because corporate jackasses make multi-million dollar salaries.

Lots of people work high stress jobs and long hours for shit money. They get shit money because those at the top are greedy SOBs.

Also, this whole story is PR crap. He gets to look like he's some sort of hero and will probably make more than the $25M offerred.

[odu_sonar_AE]

Originally Posted by kutulu

Also, this whole story is PR crap. He gets to look like he's some sort of hero and will probably make more than the $25M offerred.

Of course it is. He looks like the good guy. People who are "on the fence" with which company to use, might use this piece of info as the tie breaker. Other people who use them now might be inclined to pump more money intot he company.

On the other hand, it is a smart business move. Not only the "good guy" publicity, but the fact that his large salary isn't a guaranteed number.

[BBtB]

What I find so funny is why people are so concerned with what he makes. Its a common fact that big buisness ceos and coos and all the other titles make money out the wazoo. What they don't tell you is that the money he is paid is only half the story. I bet he is getting a good 15 million in stock and options and benifits and free trips on the company jets thats not even included in that figure. Again though he is far from exclusive. Publicly traded companies are required to release finical reports and part of that includes ceo pay and incentives. Alot of them have them on their websites. Look for invester relations or things like that if you are curious. One of the real issues that has been raised on this post is the class struggle in the world today. Now not to sound callous or jaded on this whole subject but my general advice is to get over it. This is be no means an American invention or a new thing. Its the way of the world. It has been too, maybe not always but atleast since we decided to organize into tribal systems.

Was that a rant? A note on the actull article here.. This man is by no means Robin Hood but if this move does in fact raise morale and increase his companies worth and in effect his pay... Well more power to him. Its his job and he earned it.

[DazednConfused]

I whole-heartedly agree with those that say that no one should be paid that obscene amount of money. As a matter of fact, I think that no one should be paid more than the salary of the President. To me, it doesn't make sense that certain members of this society are valued more. Every job needs to get done regarless of what it entails. After listening to many interviews with author of Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, Barbara Ehrenreich, most Americans aren't even being paid a living wage. The federal minimum wage, presently $5.15 an hour, would need to be raised to $8.20 an hour simply to meet the federal poverty level according to Responsible Wealth http://www.responsiblewealth.org/living_wage/. It would just be right for people to not have to rely on the system because they are being provided for by working an honest job for reasonable compensation. John Mack garners no sympathy from me for turning down a guaranteed $25 million when he is going to be making something comparable to that or more with all the perks of being a CEO for a top financial corporation.

[Martian]

Welcome to capitalism. This is a system that is much touted in the United States and other western countries and under this system a company is theoretically paid what their services or products are worth. The reality is that they actually get what people are willing to pay for it, which is a subtle but important difference. This guy, as head of the company, makes an amount of money proportionate to the welfare of the company (although the number now is much more directly tied to the company's well-being than previously) and makes, surprise, what the people who handle the decisions (ie shareholders and/or the board of directors) are willing to pay him. It's not obscene or absurd or anything else, it's simply how the system works. If you want an alternative, I hear China thinks they've got a better way worked out, although asking the average chinese commonor might not immediately reveal that sentiment.

[DJ Happy]

I don't have a problem with people getting paid huge amounts to do very important jobs (although I do feel the world would be a better place if people realised that $20 million is more than enough to suit anyone's needs for their entire lives), but what really irks me about this is that they get massive cheques even when they underperform. A severance package of $113 million is obscene.