Look, I'm as eager as the next guy to pounce on news that objective studies have found CEOs a) useless, and b) overvalued, but this study seems, from what I can tell, to not say anything at all about the actual deservedness of executive pay. At the very least you should be grouping companies by market cap, and frankly companies like Microsoft are in a league of their own and shouldn't really be compared against other companies in this respect. Microsoft shares have dropped by 20% in the last 6 months. So? That doesn't mean Microsoft is doing _badly_, per se. They're fucking huge. They still make more money than Google does in a day (I'm talking about revenues here, people...not imaginary, stock market, "we're going to buy Google's overvalued stock because we didn't learn a goddamn thing from the tech bubble" money). Do you really think you can get significant growth out of a company that already makes money on nearly every computer sold anywhere in the world? No. Frankly, you're doing well if you maintain your position in the market.
I'm sure CEOs _are_ largely overpaid. Their judgment is questionable, and company boards are both nepotistic and don't get objective guidance (I can't find that link about how firms that recommend CEO salary are often in a position to then get lucrative contracts from the CEO). But this study doesn't tell me anything useful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment