<p>No downside risk for these guys anymore. </p>
<p><a href=“Merrill’s departing chief to get $160m”>Merrill’s departing chief to get $160m;
<p>Yes, but part of that package ($90 mil) was deferred compensation. In other words, he already earned it. Being a big time CEO is a very difficult job. If he had been a good CEO, $48 million per year would have been pretty reasonable. And who knows how good a CEO will be until we know how good the CEO actually was.</p>
<p>Isn’t America wonderful? A lot of mutual back scratching.</p>
<p>If I was a client of ML, …</p>
<p>“Being a big time CEO is a very difficult job. If he had been a good CEO, $48 million per year would have been pretty reasonable”</p>
<p>and you actually wrote this with a straight face? 
</p>
<p>The other choice was…</p>
<p>“$48 million per year would have been pretty reasonable”</p>
<p>Yea but can he hit to all fields?</p>
<p>Most of that deferred money was based on “profits” booked on these bad debt deals. In other words they were crap.</p>
<p>Subprime lending and speculator greed; the gift that keeps on giving.</p>
<p>What are you talking about…the subprime business has affected every single bank, except Goldman ( they offset their balance sheet)…The guy actually got screwed… he got know severance because he had no employment contract with Merrill. The 160mm has been accumulated over 21 years of service. Its all money he contributed and the firm contributed like (stock options, pension, 401k) combined.</p>
<p>That is not any different from what any regular person would leave with…obviously his is more b/c he can contribute more. Its like an account set aside accumulating interest.</p>
<p>Barrons, I’m not saying Oneal is personally greedy, or that Merrill Lynch is an exceptional example. In fact, this situation is likely quite typical of the circumstances of the fall of a CEO.</p>
<p>Sorry Barrons, I meant to address post #7</p>
<p>ML had by far the worst losses and it was reported that it was his decision to pursue this level of bad business so he should suffer the consequences. All bonuses and other perks earned due to the “profits” booked in prior years for this business should be returned based on a look back. Sometimes it takes time for the real investment results to surface. Sure he can keep the earlier monies.</p>
<p>“already earned it” really? and being a CEO is a hard job? harder than being a surgeon, harder than being an inner city teacher, harder than being a soldier in the war?</p>
<p>48million is obscene</p>
<p>citygirlsmom, your comparison is ridiculous … theres always going to be something someone can say is alot tougher depending how u define hard …however do not underestimate how much your daily life is impacted economically by the good and bad decisions CEO’s make.</p>
<p>If you really want to complain talk about A-rod gettin a 250mm baseball contract, or lebron james, or brad pitt anjulia roberts whp get like 35mm a movie!! That should ne considered obsene. How hard os oprah and jay leno’s job</p>
<p>Let’s not toss around descriptions like “ridiculous” so casually.</p>
<p>The people who are paid $20 million+ per movie are only paid that much as long as they are financially worth it, i.e. their presence in the movie guarantees X million in sales. If your face doesn’t move product, the money dries up overnight. Remember Kevin Costner? If you don’t, that proves my point.</p>
<p>If anything, the example of movie stars is a model of pay tied to performance. I’d love to see CEO’s held to movie star profit standards in order to make their millions.</p>
<p>The hard part with evaluation of a ceo’s worth is if the bottom line is profit how do you compensate a manager that keeps a loss small? or an idiot who happens to be lucky? </p>
<p>Executive compensation is waay out of whack basically because they have no objective review. Usually it is almost peer driven as many bod members are ceo’s elsewhere. </p>
<p>I’ve worked for some of the dumbest people in the world who because the product was hot or a natural sale made money hand over fist and in fact would have made more had they not been in charge. I’ve also seen someone keep a company (and jobs) afloat when it gets tough and have the company lose money, but not really LOSE MONEY…</p>
<p>The problem in business is you can’t get an honest assesment of ceo worth. What accounting firm or consultant is going to tell the board the ceo is an idiot if they aren’t 100% sure the board will act??</p>
<p>Yes, and as alluded too, in some businesses like finance your money is at risk after the initial profits on fees and such are booked. As in the case of ML massive losses of capital can occur years after the initial loans were booked. In this case the same CEO was still around. The really smart ones move on before the S hits the F.</p>
<p>RU Kidding me!!! the turnover in the financial services industry is UNBELIEVABLE. At the hedge fund i intern at they always say “your only as good as your last deal” Hanna you apparently don’t know anything about finance. Why do you think its so tough to get into I banking or S&T, they only take the best and the brightest…if your not that don’t waste your time.</p>
<p>“In this case the same CEO was still around. The really smart ones move on before the S hits the F.”</p>
<p>hahaha…i would of def moved before s hit hit the fan</p>
<p>ixjunitxi - some of the best and the brightest may not have any judgment at all. Remember “the brightest guys in the room”?</p>
<p>But since you think Hanna et.al. don’t know anything about finance, let’s quote someone who has an inkling, Warren Buffet. According to Buffet the most lucrative position in America today is to be “a failed CEO”. Don’t think it was a compliment to his peers.</p>