IBM chief's 2008 pay valued at nearly $21M

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Mar...sation,00.html

Quote: Palmisano, 57, got $1.8 million in base salary, the same as in 2007. He got a performance-based cash bonus of $5.5 million, which was $500,000 above his target for the year.

His perks totaled $1.4 million. That included $493,881 for expenses incurred on personal travel on the company's private plane, dividend equivalents of $453,397 on restricted stock, and $412,000 in company contributions to defined contribution plans.

Palmisano also got an award of performance-based stock that was valued at $12.2 million when it was granted in May. The number of shares he actually gets will depend on IBM's performance, and they won't be handed out until Feb. 1, 2011, the company said in its filing.

Palmisano's total pay package was valued at $20.97 million in 2008, according to the AP's calculations. In 2007, his compensation was $20.91 million, and in 2006 it was $18.77 million, also according to the AP's calculations.

----------------------------------------------------------

If employees could make some of the money like all these "bloated" CEO's, CFO's and etc... our economy sure would be a WHOLE lot better then it is now.

Base salary of $1.8MILLION!!! *I* don't believe anyone is worth that kind of salary... especially since most of their employees get paid shit for a salary.

<blah>

Is IBM asking for bailout money, though? I don't really have problems with CEOs making bloated salaries when they run successful companies. Let's put it in perspective.

This man is responsible for 300,000 employees worldwide. He has to direct the company through a recession, and if the company fails the public will place the blame on him. His company took its biggest hit in October, when the stock dropped roughly 25% in response to the worsening economy. Since then, the company has remained stable. The company's laid off employees, but that's not exactly unique. If you look at his salary profile, only the 1.8 million is guaranteed; everything else is either company stock or performance-based. It makes sense that he got a good bonus for 2008 because IBM had a decent year; you don't cut a performance-based bonus because the future looks grim (my company distributed performance-based bonuses to all employees despite other cost-cutting measures for this reason; 2008 was a good year until the last quarter.)

On the other hand, look at the 2008 salary lineup for the Atlanta Braves. Mike Hampton made $15,975,184 and what did he do? He pitched in 13 of the season's 182 games, meaning he stood in the bullpen and cheered for 93% of the season. In his 13 games, he pitched 78 innings (6 innings/game or only 2/3 of the game on average). He started all 13 of his games and finished 7 of them; of these 7 the team lost 4.

Why is it that the man who is responsible for the company that sets the table of 300,000 people does not deserve $1.8M, but a man who played 13 games of baseball and contributed to losing 4 of them deserves 10 times that?

If the ballplayer screws up, his team loses a game; if he's injured early in the season he gets a paycheck for watching a few hundred baseball games from great seats. Consistent failures can lead to cut salaries or termination, but he's made $60M since 2005; I think he'll live if he gets fired.

If the CEO screws up, he's charged with ruining thousands of lives and his career is ended. If the company folds, that $20M in stock becomes worthless; now he's got a ruined career. If we assume the performance bonus has been roughly the same, he made $29.2m (The stock options aren't cumulative; they are only worth money when he cashes them out.) in the same amount of time that Hampton made $60M, and he did it working 10-hour days throughout the year! (To be fair, Hampton had to be on the road and attend practices for most of the year. However, the MLB isn't known for emergency meetings with shareholders on major holidays or asking you to cancel vacations to make it to important games; the schedule is known well in advance.)

Unfair indeed.

Agree with Atma. I have no problem with this.

I agree with Bel and Atma on this - ridiculous performance-based payment isn't a problem at all. What's absurd is these companies who pay CEOs millions who basically just then run the company into the ground. Clearly those CEOs aren't worth what they're receiving. Not that it's any of our business or anything (though it does suck for the employees who lose their jobs over it), companies should run themselves however they see fit, and if they make bad decisions, well... those are their decisions to make.

It's fair, sounds like he earned that money. Why shouldn't he be rewarded for hard work?

I agree with Archibaldo, but not with Atma, Beldaran, or rocknog. Fuck them.

And I completely disagree with anything Masamune has ever had to say, ever! Also, the whole "head with nothing else but two feet-like appendages" thing really creeps me the fuck out.

This statement brought to you by Vodka.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rock_nog

companies should run themselves however they see fit, and if they make bad decisions, well... those are their decisions to make.

---

That's the problem with the bailouts. It rewards horrible decisions with free money. Obamanomics for the win!

Yeah, but Bel, what if you're an employee who just lost his job because his boss a hundred tiers further up on the ladder drove the company into the ground? Should you lose your job over something you had absolutely no control over or chance to prevent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beldaran

That's the problem with the bailouts. It rewards horrible decisions with free money. Obamanomics for the win!

---

Don't assume the point hasn't fallen on me. I've always thought the bailout business was completely fucked up - certainly at least when I saw the consequences.