3 ms·
This is a guess, but maybe because CEOs are just trying to stall until they can secure a previously agreed upon exit package? Since prosecuting CEOs is so rare
by MegaButts 7y ago
This is a guess, but maybe because CEOs are just trying to stall until they can secure a previously agreed upon exit package? Since prosecuting CEOs is so rare these days (here is a great book on that subject https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute-Executives-ebook/dp/B06XBZFQR2 https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute...) it is in their best interest to just deny to avoid culpability.
- atonse 7y agoNot sure why this is getting downvoted. We see again and again that in spite of these kinds of disasters and callous disregard and fraud, CEOs don't actually get punished, instead are rewarded with massive exit packages.
- rocqua 7y agoWhilst the lack of prosecution of CEOs is disconcerting, I don't think it is fair to say that CEOs come out of a scandal better because of their exit package. Sure, its a nice sum of money, but I think most CEOs still prefer not having the money and the scandal not happening. That is not to say that current repercussions are enough, just that it is currently not net beneficial to have a scandal. Notably, with the current low levels of repercussions, it might still be net beneficial to risk a scandal though.
- MegaButts 7y agoWe're not discussing whether or not a scandal is good. We're discussing how a CEO behaves after a scandal has already been unveiled.
- atonse 7y agoCorrect. I assure you, at no point in any of these board rooms, are CEOs saying "let's not do that, it might land me in prison" – they're probably just saying "let's not do that because it'll depress the share price by 5%" – but in the case of Boeing and other similar companies, the "let's not do that" part is something that can result in deaths.