3 ms·

Which players are going to aggressively lobby for this? Only ones who are in the early stages of declaring bankruptcy (not the deepest pockets). Whereas credito

Which players are going to aggressively lobby for this? Only ones who are in the early stages of declaring bankruptcy (not the deepest pockets). Whereas creditors (big banks) probably have more sway, and would benefit from chapter 11 to be weaker. What you're saying is intellectually lazy and bordering on /r/conspiracy. You shouldn't stop identifying, understanding, and petitioning to fix the problem simply because you think you might get some pushback.

rectang 6y ago
> Which players are going to aggressively lobby for this? Corporate executives, of course. It is in their interest to ensure they maximize their benefit at all stages of the business life cycle. Any attack that could negatively affect executive compensation at any time will be staunchly opposed, out of principle. Their arguments we can anticipate, we have seen already in this thread: the business needs their unique talent and deep knowledge, they are doing the business a favor by not jumping ship, it is only just that they be compensated... > What you're saying is intellectually lazy and bordering on /r/conspiracy. You shouldn't stop identifying, understanding, and petitioning to fix the problem simply because you think you might get some pushback. I believe the more fundamental problem is mythologizing of corporate executives, and I am not afraid of pushback, such as I am receiving in this very exchange.
- lend000 6y ago
  I think you overestimate how many executives think bankruptcy "could happen to them." It's almost as if you are mythologizing them as some omniscient, conniving villains. In any case, this is a very strange justification for doing nothing (instead of advocating to fix chapter 11).
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Shareholders don’t pay these packages out of a sense of justice. They do it because it’s the best business option they see as available.
fredophile 6y ago
There is a very high correlation between board membership and CEO experience. Who decides CEO compensation? The board. The players are making the rules and they're choosing rules that favour themselves.
- lend000 6y ago
  [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/HTZ/holders?p=HTZ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/HTZ/holders?p=HTZ
  - fredophile 6y ago
    Not really sure what your point is.
    - lend000 6y ago
      Hertz insiders control less than 1% of voting shares. You will see similar numbers amongst most of the other older companies doling out executive bonuses. They did not have any power to grant themselves the bonuses. Keep in mind their overall compensation with the retention bonuses might still be significantly lower than their expected compensation pre-bankruptcy, due to the stock portion of their comp being near worthless now.
      - fredophile 6y ago
        Every member of Hertz board has been in a Cxx position with most of them having been CEOs [0]. Some of them may want to be CEOs again someday so it's in their best interest to keep executive compensation high. [0] http://ir.hertz.com/board-of-directors http://ir.hertz.com/board-of-directors

rectang 6y ago

> Which players are going to aggressively lobby for this? Corporate executives, of course. It is in their interest to ensure they maximize their benefit at all stages of the business life cycle. Any attack that could negatively affect executive compensation at any time will be staunchly opposed, out of principle. Their arguments we can anticipate, we have seen already in this thread: the business needs their unique talent and deep knowledge, they are doing the business a favor by not jumping ship, it is only just that they be compensated... > What you're saying is intellectually lazy and bordering on /r/conspiracy. You shouldn't stop identifying, understanding, and petitioning to fix the problem simply because you think you might get some pushback. I believe the more fundamental problem is mythologizing of corporate executives, and I am not afraid of pushback, such as I am receiving in this very exchange.

lend000 6y ago
I think you overestimate how many executives think bankruptcy "could happen to them." It's almost as if you are mythologizing them as some omniscient, conniving villains. In any case, this is a very strange justification for doing nothing (instead of advocating to fix chapter 11).
sokoloff 6y ago
Shareholders don’t pay these packages out of a sense of justice. They do it because it’s the best business option they see as available.

fredophile 6y ago

There is a very high correlation between board membership and CEO experience. Who decides CEO compensation? The board. The players are making the rules and they're choosing rules that favour themselves.

lend000 6y ago
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/HTZ/holders?p=HTZ https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/HTZ/holders?p=HTZ
- fredophile 6y ago
  Not really sure what your point is.
  - lend000 6y ago
    Hertz insiders control less than 1% of voting shares. You will see similar numbers amongst most of the other older companies doling out executive bonuses. They did not have any power to grant themselves the bonuses. Keep in mind their overall compensation with the retention bonuses might still be significantly lower than their expected compensation pre-bankruptcy, due to the stock portion of their comp being near worthless now.
    - fredophile 6y ago
      Every member of Hertz board has been in a Cxx position with most of them having been CEOs [0]. Some of them may want to be CEOs again someday so it's in their best interest to keep executive compensation high. [0] http://ir.hertz.com/board-of-directors http://ir.hertz.com/board-of-directors