5 ms·
On top of that, it looks like the bonuses were not cash but mostly company shares. I don't see what's the problem with that...
by kgantchev 5y ago
On top of that, it looks like the bonuses were not cash but mostly company shares. I don't see what's the problem with that...
- Aeolun 5y agoThe optics are the problem. Lay off thousands of people, and get paid huge bonuses?
- kgantchev 5y agoIt is, for people who don't really understand how company, executives, and employees incentives align.
- mypalmike 5y agoWhy does the asset class matter?
- kgantchev 5y agoIt matters what they got paid in. If they got paid in anything other than shares, I would agree. But the point of shares is that it aligns the economic incentives for the executives and the company. Shares are directly dependent on the economic success of the company. And the ability to employ people and pay them salaries is also directly dependent on the economic success of the company. If they sell shares and pay employees, then they're not helping the long-term sustainability of the company and its ability to continue hiring people and paying them.
- GordonS 5y agoShares can easily be exchanged for money. Paying execs huge bonuses (whether in cash, gold, shares or whatever), while taking huge sums in state aid and laying off thousands of employees is morally despicable behaviour at best.
- kgantchev 5y agoIt does matter what they got paid in. If they got paid in anything other than shares, I would agree. But the point of shares is that it aligns the economic incentives for the executives and the company. Shares are directly dependent on the economic success of the company. And the ability to employ people and pay them salaries is also directly dependent on the economic success of the company. If they sell shares and pay employees, then they're not helping the long-term sustainability of the company and its ability to continue hiring people and paying them.