7 ms·

Meanwhile, IBM's CEO Ginny Rometty not only pocketed a salary of $1.6M in 2015, but also took a bonus of $4.6M. Not bad for 16 straight quarters of shrinking sa

Meanwhile, IBM's CEO Ginny Rometty not only pocketed a salary of $1.6M in 2015, but also took a bonus of $4.6M. Not bad for 16 straight quarters of shrinking sales, evaporating profits and a falling stock price. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-ibm-s-ceo-writes-a-new-chapter-20160129-column.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-ibm-s-ceo-w...

komaromy 11y ago
That doesn't sound like all that much for the CEO of an IBM-sized company.
- ryandrake 11y ago
  $6.2M sounds like a lot for any single human being.
  - nickff 11y ago
    $6.2M is not a lot for a big company if the leader can increase sales or profits by even a few percent... which does not appear to be the case here.
    - fdej 11y ago
      Well, there was some recently published research that claimed to find that most of the effect attributed to CEO performance actually can be explained by random fluctuations. Make of that what you will.
      - nonanako 11y ago
        Well, there was some recently published research that claimed X actually can be explained by Y. X and Y are arbitrary
        Godel_unicode 11y ago
        I assume you're being down voted for being new, but I read your comment as a more verbose "citation needed"
        fdej 11y ago
        The paper: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2192 https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2192 The PR version: http://today.tamu.edu/2015/10/15/ceo-effect-on-firm-performance-mostly-due-to-chance/ http://today.tamu.edu/2015/10/15/ceo-effect-on-firm-performa...
        Conjoiner 11y ago
        It's not: 'citation needed' it's rather: 'research is unreliable and, one paper shows x, the next paper shows not-x'
        anonymousDan 11y ago
        So what, just ignore all research and go with your gut feeling?
        moonchrome 11y ago
        When talking about social science you might as well
        fdej 11y ago
        I would take one study with a grain of salt too. Even if the conclusions are correct in the setting of the study (and since most research findings are false, they probably aren't), it doesn't mean that you can extrapolate to every other setting, particularly the specific case of being the CEO of IBM. Hence "Make of that what you will." But there could be an element of truth to it, which might warrant further research. If CEOs really do have a much more limited influence than they are given credit (or blame) for, then incentives perhaps ought to be adjusted, not just in the interest of fairness but also in the interest of finding better ways to actually improve performance.
      - beambot 11y ago
        How do companies perform with no CEO? Regardless of the firm's performance, it's a difficult role to fill -- especially for a large, multi national conglomerate.
        biehl 11y ago
        Or "How did companies perform when absolute and relative CEO pay was lower in general"?
        alanwatts 11y ago
        If I'm not mistaken, a public corporation must have a CEO by law?
    - eru 11y ago
      Perhaps he kept them from shrinking faster?
      - ngoede 11y ago
        Not to nit-pick but the CEO of IBM is a woman.
        eru 11y ago
        Noted.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - mrow84 11y ago
      Why would you attribute an increase in sales or profits to the leader? Just because Pharaoh decides to build a pyramid, doesn't mean it will happen, however hard they think it, without an army of people doing the actual work. Also, after the fact, sure, you got a pyramid, but what might have happened if those people were doing something else? It is easy (and in leaders' interests) to take credit for non-negative changes, but it seems difficult to determine if there is any relationship between these changes and the actions of the leader (rather than some other effect), let alone establishing causality. note: apologies for off-topic rant
      - iofj 11y ago
        One thing's for sure. Drops in sales aren't being attributed to Ms. Rometty. Massive, prolonged drops. Worse than for her predecessor. September 2012 IBM stock 205.5 September 2013 IBM stock 192.75 September 2014 IBM stock 190 September 2015 IBM stock 145 March 2015 IBM stock 140 If the CEO pay logic even remotely applied this woman would never be employed by anyone again. I'd rather hire a pyromaniac that did 100 million dollar in fire damage to his last employer : it'd be far, far cheaper. Since she led IBM the stock has lost 11% of it's value every year, but it's not an average : the loss has accelerated over time. For her fifth year she's on track to have IBM stock lose 37% of it's value (trendline Sep 2015 to today, then see where that trendline is on Sep 2016. Where will it be ? 92 dollars). In absolute value, IBM shareholders have lost 62.4 billion dollars, about 1/3 of the total market cap. If you're right, and the CEO is responsible for this ... Just wondering: I'm not the CEO. Suppose I do something that loses my company 46% of it's total stock price, damage sufficient assets to cause 60 billion dollars in damage. What will happen to me ? 16 million dollars extra pay ? Or something else ...
        mrow84 11y ago
        I'm not sure if you meant to reply to my comment - yours sounds much more relevant to the topic at hand. As for the content of what you've said, if it's true, then it's quite terrifying! But it hardly seems unusual [0]. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/04/bp-chief-executive-20-per-cent-pay-package-hike-record-loss-axed-jobs http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/04/bp-chief-exe...
    - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
      It's a lot when you're one of those laid off engineers with 30+ years of experience. It's an outrageous salary in general.
    - alanwatts 11y ago
      This is assuming those increased sales and profits are disproportionately attributable solely to the executive. In reality it is the army of sales reps and engineers which do the vast majority of this.
- alayne 11y ago
  17.9 million total compensation for 2014, 19.9 for 2015 http://www.businessinsider.com/ibm-ceo-ginni-rometty-gets-a-raise-2015-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/ibm-ceo-ginni-rometty-gets-a-...
  - x5n1 11y ago
    Only? Poor CEO.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  I could run IBM, Yahoo and Nokia to the ground for penny on the dollar that the corresponding executives made/are making. You don't need to pay me Elop level money to destroy something like Nokia - I would happily do it for 100K per year. I may not do it as well, and could probably have the unfortunate success story here and there. But I am capable - just give me a chance.
  - chiph 11y ago
    Hey buddy - get in line. I can destroy shareholder value less rapidly than you or Ginni, and do it for less.
Florin_Andrei 11y ago
Well, renting a place on Elysium must be pretty expensive.
- megrimlock 11y ago
  Thankfully the executive health plan has 100% coverage so the dna regen and orbital massage treatments are gratis. It's the little things.
meggar 11y ago
Watson should take over the CEO role.
- chillingeffect 11y ago
  underrated comment :) But just to really dogfood it, Watson should drive itself to work, too, not just hang out in server room :)
vannevar 11y ago
CEO pay is generally not correlated with performance: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-07-22/for-ceos-correlation-between-pay-and-stock-performance-is-pretty-random http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-07-22/for-ceos-cor... . Most likely it's based on a hodgepodge of past performance, convention, social connections, and emotional factors within the company's board.

komaromy 11y ago

That doesn't sound like all that much for the CEO of an IBM-sized company.

ryandrake 11y ago
$6.2M sounds like a lot for any single human being.
- nickff 11y ago
  $6.2M is not a lot for a big company if the leader can increase sales or profits by even a few percent... which does not appear to be the case here.
  - fdej 11y ago
    Well, there was some recently published research that claimed to find that most of the effect attributed to CEO performance actually can be explained by random fluctuations. Make of that what you will.
    - nonanako 11y ago
      Well, there was some recently published research that claimed X actually can be explained by Y. X and Y are arbitrary
      - Godel_unicode 11y ago
        I assume you're being down voted for being new, but I read your comment as a more verbose "citation needed"
        fdej 11y ago
        The paper: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2192 https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2192 The PR version: http://today.tamu.edu/2015/10/15/ceo-effect-on-firm-performance-mostly-due-to-chance/ http://today.tamu.edu/2015/10/15/ceo-effect-on-firm-performa...
        Conjoiner 11y ago
        It's not: 'citation needed' it's rather: 'research is unreliable and, one paper shows x, the next paper shows not-x'
        anonymousDan 11y ago
        So what, just ignore all research and go with your gut feeling?
        moonchrome 11y ago
        When talking about social science you might as well
        fdej 11y ago
        I would take one study with a grain of salt too. Even if the conclusions are correct in the setting of the study (and since most research findings are false, they probably aren't), it doesn't mean that you can extrapolate to every other setting, particularly the specific case of being the CEO of IBM. Hence "Make of that what you will." But there could be an element of truth to it, which might warrant further research. If CEOs really do have a much more limited influence than they are given credit (or blame) for, then incentives perhaps ought to be adjusted, not just in the interest of fairness but also in the interest of finding better ways to actually improve performance.
    - beambot 11y ago
      How do companies perform with no CEO? Regardless of the firm's performance, it's a difficult role to fill -- especially for a large, multi national conglomerate.
      - biehl 11y ago
        Or "How did companies perform when absolute and relative CEO pay was lower in general"?
      - alanwatts 11y ago
        If I'm not mistaken, a public corporation must have a CEO by law?
  - eru 11y ago
    Perhaps he kept them from shrinking faster?
    - ngoede 11y ago
      Not to nit-pick but the CEO of IBM is a woman.
      - eru 11y ago
        Noted.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrow84 11y ago
    Why would you attribute an increase in sales or profits to the leader? Just because Pharaoh decides to build a pyramid, doesn't mean it will happen, however hard they think it, without an army of people doing the actual work. Also, after the fact, sure, you got a pyramid, but what might have happened if those people were doing something else? It is easy (and in leaders' interests) to take credit for non-negative changes, but it seems difficult to determine if there is any relationship between these changes and the actions of the leader (rather than some other effect), let alone establishing causality. note: apologies for off-topic rant
    - iofj 11y ago
      One thing's for sure. Drops in sales aren't being attributed to Ms. Rometty. Massive, prolonged drops. Worse than for her predecessor. September 2012 IBM stock 205.5 September 2013 IBM stock 192.75 September 2014 IBM stock 190 September 2015 IBM stock 145 March 2015 IBM stock 140 If the CEO pay logic even remotely applied this woman would never be employed by anyone again. I'd rather hire a pyromaniac that did 100 million dollar in fire damage to his last employer : it'd be far, far cheaper. Since she led IBM the stock has lost 11% of it's value every year, but it's not an average : the loss has accelerated over time. For her fifth year she's on track to have IBM stock lose 37% of it's value (trendline Sep 2015 to today, then see where that trendline is on Sep 2016. Where will it be ? 92 dollars). In absolute value, IBM shareholders have lost 62.4 billion dollars, about 1/3 of the total market cap. If you're right, and the CEO is responsible for this ... Just wondering: I'm not the CEO. Suppose I do something that loses my company 46% of it's total stock price, damage sufficient assets to cause 60 billion dollars in damage. What will happen to me ? 16 million dollars extra pay ? Or something else ...
      - mrow84 11y ago
        I'm not sure if you meant to reply to my comment - yours sounds much more relevant to the topic at hand. As for the content of what you've said, if it's true, then it's quite terrifying! But it hardly seems unusual [0]. [0] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/04/bp-chief-executive-20-per-cent-pay-package-hike-record-loss-axed-jobs http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/04/bp-chief-exe...
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    It's a lot when you're one of those laid off engineers with 30+ years of experience. It's an outrageous salary in general.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    This is assuming those increased sales and profits are disproportionately attributable solely to the executive. In reality it is the army of sales reps and engineers which do the vast majority of this.
alayne 11y ago
17.9 million total compensation for 2014, 19.9 for 2015 http://www.businessinsider.com/ibm-ceo-ginni-rometty-gets-a-raise-2015-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/ibm-ceo-ginni-rometty-gets-a-...
- x5n1 11y ago
  Only? Poor CEO.
venomsnake 11y ago
I could run IBM, Yahoo and Nokia to the ground for penny on the dollar that the corresponding executives made/are making. You don't need to pay me Elop level money to destroy something like Nokia - I would happily do it for 100K per year. I may not do it as well, and could probably have the unfortunate success story here and there. But I am capable - just give me a chance.
- chiph 11y ago
  Hey buddy - get in line. I can destroy shareholder value less rapidly than you or Ginni, and do it for less.

Florin_Andrei 11y ago

Well, renting a place on Elysium must be pretty expensive.

megrimlock 11y ago
Thankfully the executive health plan has 100% coverage so the dna regen and orbital massage treatments are gratis. It's the little things.

meggar 11y ago

Watson should take over the CEO role.

chillingeffect 11y ago
underrated comment :) But just to really dogfood it, Watson should drive itself to work, too, not just hang out in server room :)

vannevar 11y ago

CEO pay is generally not correlated with performance: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-07-22/for-ceos-correlation-between-pay-and-stock-performance-is-pretty-random http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-07-22/for-ceos-cor... . Most likely it's based on a hodgepodge of past performance, convention, social connections, and emotional factors within the company's board.