Intel makes it harder for Gelsinger to earn beaucoup bucks as CEO Intel is making it more difficult for CEO Pat Gelsinger to earn a significant portion of his compensation package, even as such awards have become increasingly out of reach due to a tanking stock price. The x86 giant on Tuesday announced amendments to how and when Gelsinger can receive payouts from the new hire performance- …
So it looks like Pat wasn't taking a cut for himself after all the firings and downsizing... But but but just wait... Columbus Ohio will become the Semiconductor Fab centre of the world... yeah and JUMBO the elephant will not be hit by a Train. Carnival Barkers are the same old self-dealing scammers...
Plus, we're told, CEOs are such rare birds that they simply *must* be worth paying massive paychecks and loads of stock.
After all, it takes real skill and intelligence and insight and so on to layoff employees. Brilliant!
It's also important to make sure the CEOs face no real-world consequences by contractually guaranteeing them a huge departure payout, even if it happens because they've bungled things and the board of directors show them the door. Can't have the execs worrying about their own performance!
If the stock price goes up by 50%, is it necessarily a C-suite executive that does that? Certainly a C-suite executive can sabotage a company and prevent success, but not all success is attributable to the CEO and that is the issue I have with these awards.
Stock price fluctuations (up or down) are more likely to be a result of overall economy and market fluctuations than anything a given CEO does.
... unless of course the CEO is an unbalanced egomaniac desperately trying for attention and fame, then there's practically no limit to how badly they can tank things.
Intel is a prime example of how a CEO can indeed contribute remarkably to development of the stock price. Couple of previous CEOs were so extraordinary in their execution of the strategy that the company value still hasn't stopped sliding.
"Shareholders had voted in a nearly two-to-one ratio against the compensation packages for the chipmaker's top execs."
I vote against any executive compensation rise on every ballot, every time, as a matter of course. Regardless of company performance.
I harbor no illusions that my vote ultimately matters, but I do it anyway because I believe executives are grossly overcompensated, even if they're doing a passable (let alone good) job. Search for ceo vs. worker pay ratio, you'll find it's been on a steady uptrend for years, lately 300x or more, sometimes much more depending on whose report you read. In several decades of working in tech, I have yet to see a ceo worth 300 of their employees every day.
Plus, even if the ceo is complete bollocks, most of them still walk out with a guaranteed severance package that most members of the rank and file could comfortably retire on.
It's not the fact that execs make more money which is appalling, it's that the amount and disparity is so shamelessly over-the-top.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
