Posted by moy23 on 10/25/2014 2:37:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/25/2014 2:02:00 PM (view original):Posted by moy23 on 10/25/2014 1:32:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/25/2014 12:30:00 PM (view original):Posted by moy23 on 10/25/2014 9:00:00 AM (view original):Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2014 7:14:00 AM (view original):Sounds like those companies are making money. Shareholders are generally happy when they get money. Yep. So are any of those top paid, worse performing ceos not pulling a profit for their shareholders? There are lots of different ways to measure 'performance' but really, in the end, all that matters is profitability. The highest paid CEOs were 22% worse than their peers in terms of shareholder value. What industries were these 'peers' in? Different industries have different risks, different upsides and downsides. Banking is a mature industry and is more predictable whereas tech or pharma have higher upside and downside depending on what their next innovative idea or drug may be. Its the same reason I don't invest in all large cap stocks.... While more stable the return may be lower... Whereas small cap and growth companies may have more upside but are also more likely to go bankrupt. And if they are in the same industry.... Jamie Dimon manages over a $1 trillion in deposits and provides far more actual profit in 1 quarter that Kevin Kabat does at Fifth Third in 2 years. Is that taken into consideration? I would take that study with a grain of salt. Feel free to read the study. It's linked in the Forbes article. I've read that article and its vague (I have no interest in digging through the actual study). The article suggests Jamie Dimon who manages $2 trillion in assets is paid too much in comparison to lesser paid peers who 'outperform' him. So let's suppose you take the top 20 banks in the USA. Dimon and his $2 TRILLION represents the top 5% while the #20 largest bank is MUFG Union Bank with $108 BILLION in assets. Dimon manages 20x the assets that the CEO of MUFG does. Dimon has a much more responsibility.... Its not an accurate depiction (especially when only 4 bankers in the entire USA actually have experience managing over $1 trillion in assets).
Posted by bad_luck on 10/25/2014 2:02:00 PM (view original):Posted by moy23 on 10/25/2014 1:32:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/25/2014 12:30:00 PM (view original):Posted by moy23 on 10/25/2014 9:00:00 AM (view original):Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2014 7:14:00 AM (view original):Sounds like those companies are making money. Shareholders are generally happy when they get money. Yep. So are any of those top paid, worse performing ceos not pulling a profit for their shareholders? There are lots of different ways to measure 'performance' but really, in the end, all that matters is profitability. The highest paid CEOs were 22% worse than their peers in terms of shareholder value. What industries were these 'peers' in? Different industries have different risks, different upsides and downsides. Banking is a mature industry and is more predictable whereas tech or pharma have higher upside and downside depending on what their next innovative idea or drug may be. Its the same reason I don't invest in all large cap stocks.... While more stable the return may be lower... Whereas small cap and growth companies may have more upside but are also more likely to go bankrupt. And if they are in the same industry.... Jamie Dimon manages over a $1 trillion in deposits and provides far more actual profit in 1 quarter that Kevin Kabat does at Fifth Third in 2 years. Is that taken into consideration? I would take that study with a grain of salt. Feel free to read the study. It's linked in the Forbes article.
Posted by moy23 on 10/25/2014 1:32:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/25/2014 12:30:00 PM (view original):Posted by moy23 on 10/25/2014 9:00:00 AM (view original):Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2014 7:14:00 AM (view original):Sounds like those companies are making money. Shareholders are generally happy when they get money. Yep. So are any of those top paid, worse performing ceos not pulling a profit for their shareholders? There are lots of different ways to measure 'performance' but really, in the end, all that matters is profitability. The highest paid CEOs were 22% worse than their peers in terms of shareholder value. What industries were these 'peers' in? Different industries have different risks, different upsides and downsides. Banking is a mature industry and is more predictable whereas tech or pharma have higher upside and downside depending on what their next innovative idea or drug may be. Its the same reason I don't invest in all large cap stocks.... While more stable the return may be lower... Whereas small cap and growth companies may have more upside but are also more likely to go bankrupt. And if they are in the same industry.... Jamie Dimon manages over a $1 trillion in deposits and provides far more actual profit in 1 quarter that Kevin Kabat does at Fifth Third in 2 years. Is that taken into consideration? I would take that study with a grain of salt.
Posted by bad_luck on 10/25/2014 12:30:00 PM (view original):Posted by moy23 on 10/25/2014 9:00:00 AM (view original):Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2014 7:14:00 AM (view original):Sounds like those companies are making money. Shareholders are generally happy when they get money. Yep. So are any of those top paid, worse performing ceos not pulling a profit for their shareholders? There are lots of different ways to measure 'performance' but really, in the end, all that matters is profitability. The highest paid CEOs were 22% worse than their peers in terms of shareholder value.
Posted by moy23 on 10/25/2014 9:00:00 AM (view original):Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2014 7:14:00 AM (view original):Sounds like those companies are making money. Shareholders are generally happy when they get money. Yep. So are any of those top paid, worse performing ceos not pulling a profit for their shareholders? There are lots of different ways to measure 'performance' but really, in the end, all that matters is profitability.
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/25/2014 7:14:00 AM (view original):Sounds like those companies are making money. Shareholders are generally happy when they get money.
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/26/2014 3:53:00 PM (view original):LOL. Yes, if I choose to invest in Basic Materials and you choose to invest in Healthcare, I should be mad at my CEO because you made twice as much off your investment.
Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement
© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.