Just how ***** is corporate America's thought process ?

[kevin1]

Blockbuster lost 1.25 B and he get's a raise ?

I know bupkus about how a corporation works ,
but if a guy running my company was in charge while I lost 1.25 BILLION dollars I'd fire his dumb *** , not give him a raise and options to cornhole me even deeper . Am I wrong on this one ?

[Cougar Mag]

Its called having power.

[:-]

[Coastie]

ORIGINAL: kevin1

Blockbuster lost 1.25 B and he get's a raise ?

I know bupkus about how a corporation works ,
but if a guy running my company was in charge while I lost 1.25 BILLION dollars I'd fire his dumb *** , not give him a raise and options to cornhole me even deeper . Am I wrong on this one ?

I don't have much use for corporate executitves myself, but in all fairness I have to ask a few things.
So what would you do, if by his efforts, he had saved the business from losing substantially more money and going out of business all together? Would that be worth anything? If his best efforts had taken a successful company and over night turned it into a loser, the situation would be different.
You realize of course, that the CEO while certainly a powerful figure in any corporation, does not have the final say in nearly anything that is of financial significance. There is a board of directors that must be answered to and often times must vote on anything of importance.
There is no individual responsible for hiring or firing a CEO, privately held companies ordinarily don't have one and publicly held corporations are run by the directors and majority stock holders.

[Scanr1]

I have to ask, what"™s it to you? That company what it will with it"™s money. If you don"™t like how it"™s run, don"™t invest with them, don"™t rent movies from there. There could be extenuating circumstances that were beyond the CEO"™s control as to why the company lost $1.25B and he minimized the damage that they could have lost and he earned his pay. Again I ask, what"™s it to you?

[tardfarmer]

That company what it will with it"™s money

Ummm, most companies are publicly owned.

These scumbag ceo's aren't the kings of the company.

[Scanr1]

ORIGINAL: tardfarmer

Ummm, most companies are publicly owned.

These scumbag ceo's aren't the kings of the company.

The board sets the pay for the CEO. If the shareholders do not like how the board is spending the money in the corporation, they can sell their shares in the company. It is not publicly owned, it's shares are publicly treaded, they have to operate with in FTC rules, but that is all. Companies publicly owned are owned by the government and that is communism. If you don't like these "scumbag CEO's" don't invest with them.

[vc1111]

The question of CEO compensation is subjective and debatable. The lifestyle of your garden variety CEO is one that most people would not want. Many work hours that would make your head spin. Every waking moment is business.

Same with a lot of physicians...

[Scanr1]

VC, your right. The money may be high, but you work 24/7 on call.

[kevin1]

ORIGINAL: Coastie

I don't have much use for corporate executitves myself, but in all fairness I have to ask a few things.
So what would you do, if by his efforts, he had saved the business from losing substantially more money and going out of business all together? Would that be worth anything? If his best efforts had taken a successful company and over night turned it into a loser, the situation would be different.
You realize of course, that the CEO while certainly a powerful figure in any corporation, does not have the final say in nearly anything that is of financial significance. There is a board of directors that must be answered to and often times must vote on anything of importance.
There is no individual responsible for hiring or firing a CEO, privately held companies ordinarily don't have one and publicly held corporations are run by the directors and majority stock holders.

I don't know the whole untold story either ,
but the thought occured to me that it may have been his decisions that caused the loss in the first place . Unlike the President of the US , a corporate CEO makes decisions that are primarily focused on a quarterly basis , so they rarely have to undo something that their predecessor may have done 6-8 years ago . If he caused the loss through ineptitude and bad decision making then the board should certainly entertain the idea of replacing him with someone more competant . If he truly plugged a financial hemmorhage that was not of his own making then he is to be commended .

[vc1111]

Could simply be the changing dynamics of the industry. Cable and satellite are making huge inroads into the "go to the video store and pick up a movie" demographic.