4 ms·

Why not just invest in a company where the CEO and board take no salary to begin with? They exist.

highwaylights 2y ago
Wouldn’t be relevant here, as there are no CEOs anywhere who don’t take compensation. If they’d been taking their compensation as stock grants then they’d want that back instead.
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  Many founder CEOs take little or no salary or direct compensation for their jobs. Owning a big percentage of the stock is enough motivation to make the company more valuable. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs and Jack Dorsey have all at times taken $1 annual salaries.
  - ponector 2y ago
    But Zuckerberg still received more than 24 million in benefits from Meta. Another bluff. It is like saying you have 1$ salary while company is covering all your personal expenses. Actually it will be better, more transparent if he received 24M salary instead of using benefits and bragging about $1.
    - missedthecue 2y ago
      Wasn't that all security
      - spacebanana7 2y ago
        It seems so, in so far as that it’s roughly the same as the number in this 2021 article. https://www.thetimes.com/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-security-travelling-at-home-xdjhb787q#:~:text=Mark%20Zuckerberg%20may%20have%20a,security,%20money%20appears%20no%20object https://www.thetimes.com/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-se.... Note that is a pretty comfortable form of security, including jets.
      - ponector 2y ago
        I'm sure you can call everything a security expense. I need a secure housing. I need a secure meal. I need a secure car, jet, yacht. I need a secure sweatpants...
    - oytis 2y ago
      I guess that's very tax-efficient too.
  - matwood 2y ago
    Owning company stock or getting a salary doesn't really matter in this case. Both are compensation. People also get up in arms on stock grants. Look at the recent Musk case. Regardless of what you think of Musk, any TSLA investor should be ecstatic with what he did with the stock. He took most of his salary in stock and now they want it back. The main reason the numbers sound big is because the stock grew so much.
  - fastball 2y ago
    Don't forget Jeff Bezos – he took 80k/year the whole time he was CEO of Amazon.
    - coliveira 2y ago
      If I was the owner of Amazon I would also "pay myself" $1. It doesn't make any difference.
      - fastball 2y ago
        Yes, that is the point being made.
  - risyachka 2y ago
    It has nothing to do with motivation. They have $1 salary and then get a ton of dividends or sell stock (both of which are taxed at waay lower rate than salary) So they are very well compensated at all times. I honestly don’t understand why they like to mention this $1 bs all the time.
chollida1 2y ago
Interesting. Which boards take no salary?

Wouldn’t be relevant here, as there are no CEOs anywhere who don’t take compensation. If they’d been taking their compensation as stock grants then they’d want that back instead.

spacebanana7 2y ago
Many founder CEOs take little or no salary or direct compensation for their jobs. Owning a big percentage of the stock is enough motivation to make the company more valuable. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs and Jack Dorsey have all at times taken $1 annual salaries.
- ponector 2y ago
  But Zuckerberg still received more than 24 million in benefits from Meta. Another bluff. It is like saying you have 1$ salary while company is covering all your personal expenses. Actually it will be better, more transparent if he received 24M salary instead of using benefits and bragging about $1.
  - missedthecue 2y ago
    Wasn't that all security
    - spacebanana7 2y ago
      It seems so, in so far as that it’s roughly the same as the number in this 2021 article. https://www.thetimes.com/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-security-travelling-at-home-xdjhb787q#:~:text=Mark%20Zuckerberg%20may%20have%20a,security,%20money%20appears%20no%20object https://www.thetimes.com/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-se.... Note that is a pretty comfortable form of security, including jets.
    - ponector 2y ago
      I'm sure you can call everything a security expense. I need a secure housing. I need a secure meal. I need a secure car, jet, yacht. I need a secure sweatpants...
  - oytis 2y ago
    I guess that's very tax-efficient too.
- matwood 2y ago
  Owning company stock or getting a salary doesn't really matter in this case. Both are compensation. People also get up in arms on stock grants. Look at the recent Musk case. Regardless of what you think of Musk, any TSLA investor should be ecstatic with what he did with the stock. He took most of his salary in stock and now they want it back. The main reason the numbers sound big is because the stock grew so much.
- fastball 2y ago
  Don't forget Jeff Bezos – he took 80k/year the whole time he was CEO of Amazon.
  - coliveira 2y ago
    If I was the owner of Amazon I would also "pay myself" $1. It doesn't make any difference.
    - fastball 2y ago
      Yes, that is the point being made.
- risyachka 2y ago
  It has nothing to do with motivation. They have $1 salary and then get a ton of dividends or sell stock (both of which are taxed at waay lower rate than salary) So they are very well compensated at all times. I honestly don’t understand why they like to mention this $1 bs all the time.

chollida1 2y ago

Interesting. Which boards take no salary?