Ford: Mulally 's salary

96DXCivic wrote: Damn Land Rover. And why is despite all the proof saying that BMW and Mercedes Benz being better, do I want a Jaguar more then those marques?

Could have something to do with what's indicated by our avatar picture. An MG on blocks?

Passion baby. Passion. It overrides all logic. Says the guy who has the monetary equipvalent of two Miatas worth of modifications in one Miata.

RossD wrote:

That's an Australian Cattle Dog in the pic. If you want one talk to these guys:

ACD Rescue Assocation.

I don't know where to get a Mullaly.

The only time I gripe about executive pay is when you have a company floundering or dead and still have CEOs etc. raking in outrageous sums. It makes me laugh (mostly a reaction out of frustration) when I hear dead companies justify these enormous payouts with "We have to because it's the only way we can get quality people." Um, you DO realize you're bankrupt, right? Those "quality" people are what put you there. Pay me half...no...a quarter of what you pay them and I'll bet I can get you precisely the same results.

I think Mr. Mullaly is doing his job and if Ford can pay him that kind of money and still turn a decent profit, continue to develop a quality product, and all the present employees keep their jobs, then so be it.

Considering they just paid back some ungodly sum of debt in cold hard cash instead of the vapor "stock options" that most businesses do, I'd say he is steering them the right way...

TJ wrote: I don't see how his value to the company is equal to 360 workers making $50,000 a year.

I understand you're not singling him out, but if he is keeping the company headed in a good direction, he's worth 2,000 line workers making $50k a year, because those line workers wouldn't have a job if he wasn't doing his.

didn't he go without pay when times were hard? Or do I have him confused with someone else???

stuart in mn wrote: Well, he could be like Stephen Hemsley, the CEO of United Health Group (an HMO based in Minnesota) - his pay package for 2009 was $102 million.

Without quite revealing how I know this, he's not worth it, but he's a lot better than McGuire was.

If that was his 2009 salary then he was paid around $30 per vehicle sold.

Someone making more like $100,000 per year made about $0.15 per vehicle sold.

Hey if all the success is due to this one man's awesome leadership and without him the entire company would go under then ok. Just think how much better the company would be if he made a paltry $8,000,000 per year (about $22,000 a day - not too bad) and used the other $10M to develop even better cars?

TJ,

Remember that most of his pay is in stock though, which was nearly worthless before he took over. It's because of his hard work that Ford stock is worth something. You can't build cars on stock (see GM and Chrysler, RE: Bankruptcy), but you can pay CEO's with it.

TJ wrote: If that was his 2009 salary then he was paid around $30 per vehicle sold. Someone making more like $100,000 per year made about $0.15 per vehicle sold. Hey if all the success is due to this one man's awesome leadership and without him the entire company would go under then ok. Just think how much better the company would be if he made a paltry $8,000,000 per year (about $22,000 a day - not too bad) and used the other $10M to develop even better cars?

For the line worker, think of how many cars that person was responsible for. For a given plant, I'd bet they helped put together something close to 20-50k cars, so that's $2-5/vehicle made. Although, I'm not sure how many cars go on one shift, in particular.

(and $10M seems like a lot- it's not so much in this business, in terms of development. I'd take it, for sure, but it would't buy nearly what most would think. Add two more 0's to the end, and that will be most of a new car)

P71, I didn't take that into account. Since I am vehemently opposed to any type of government regulation limiting executive pay (at least for companies not owned and/or bailed out by the government) I'm going to let this one go and say good job to Mr. Mulally.

I hope he continues to make decisions on what is right and not what will cause his million shares of stock to do well.

Otto_Maddox wrote: Executive pay is a very complicated issue. It isn't determined by the free market or your average shareholders. It is generally determined by board members and other people who have a vested interest in paying all executives as much as possible regardless of their actual worth. Seems like Mulally is doing a great job, though.

^^this. exec pay is usually set by the board, all of whom are either in or are hoping to land similar jobs. they all take care of each other, and are responsible to no one.

that said, Mulally seems to have earned his money.

Well, someone has to be in charge, right? And often these salaries are based less on the actual value of their work, and more on how badly things would get berkeleyed up if they left. I'd be more concerned as a shareholder if the CEO was paid so little that another company could easily entice him away.

And you have to remember the enormous pressure these guys are under. It's not like you can go home, wash your hands and be done for the day. It's a job that doesn't stop until you retire or move on. You have to live and breath it. Ask anyone that's run a business, and then multiply it by a bizzilion when the company is that large. Most of the CEO's I've met of larger corporations do worry a great deal about keeping the company profitable and keeping employees happy...or in the case today, keeping them period.

Given what Ford is doing, I'd say he's earned every penny!

I'm so glad he got run out of Boeing. I mean, how can they run themselves into the ground any better. Mullaly didn't agree with the hole they were flying Boeing into. Apparently neither did anybody else except for upper management. He didn't share the vision and now Ford is doing great and Boeing is just now starting the recovery process after admitting indirectly that Mullaly was right and the rest of the leadership was stupid.

If you don't like a publicly held companies executive pay strategy I suggest you buy some shares and show up at the shareholder meeting and protest the pay. If you don't own any Ford stock it shouldn't bother you what the CEO is paid as you aren't in any position of gain/loose money on the CEO's decision making process.

That's my point - we all own shares or partial shares through 401k's and the like. Everyone owns large publicly traded companies, but in reality nobody owns them and the Board of Directors can pretty much do whatever they want.

It's like when gas prices were so high a few years ago and everyone wanted to crucify Exxon-Mobil for making too much profit...all the while the largest shareholder was a public teachers' retirement account. They are owned by us. It's the same with BP. The same people who want to take every dime the company has to put towards the cleanup effort will not be happy when their retirement account drops in response or if they get a state pension and the fund goes broke.

Like I said, nothing against Mulally or the job he's doing....I just get frustrated at the whole system. Of course if I was on the inside and was one of the elite few who sit on a bunch of boards and take home millions every year I guess I'd like the system ok. I can not buy new cars, I can not watch professional sports, I can choose how I spend my money, but it's harder to not play in their sucker game by putting money every month into my 401k.

What a lot of people miss is the downward flow of money. Lets take a sports star for example. City "Y" pays him several million dollars a year because he elevates the team and they win. The local bars get more people in on game day, the stadium sells more tickets, more tee shirts and swag are sold, etc. This means more people make money off what he does, and more people are employed.

Now consider his personal spending habits. He now has the ability to buy a big house, a boat, specialty cars, and loads of other crap that is someone's dream to produce or build. What if no one had that kind of spending money, then some guys dream to restore old cars never gets to fruition, or the guy that wants to build boats.

I used to have a problem with people making a lot of money, until I really studied to see where it ends up. It always flows down.

TJ wrote: It's like when gas prices were so high a few years ago and everyone wanted to crucify Exxon-Mobil for making too much profit...all the while the largest shareholder was a public teachers' retirement account. They are owned by us. It's the same with BP. The same people who want to take every dime the company has to put towards the cleanup effort will not be happy when their retirement account drops in response or if they get a state pension and the fund goes broke.

this is a little OT, but i've heard this argument several times. that risk comes with ownership; when things go well, shareholders benefit. it stands to reason that when things go badly, shareholders suffer. if the fund is properly hedging its risks, BP's problems should not cause that much damage; and if the fund is indeed being run that poorly, well.

that isn't a reason not to hold corporations accountable for their actions, just like individuals should be. that money is going to come from somewhere; the only fair place is from BP (and Transocean, and Halliburton, however they finally figure it out among each other).

Buzz,

I didn't mean to imply that BP shouldn't pay for their mess. Just find it funny when people root against themselves without knowing it.

Rqacerdave, that sounds nice, but makes no sense. Do NBA team owners just get money delivered by a money fairy out of the blue for it to nicely flow down to us? I don't have a problem with people making a lot of money. I think people should make as much as they can - if I had the skills to be an NBA star I wouldnl't insist on my current paycheck. Not blaming the individuals - I just choose to not fund their large salaries as much as I can help it - I need my money more than they need my money.

racerdave600 wrote: I used to have a problem with people making a lot of money, until I really studied to see where it ends up. It always flows down.

Sure! Want to buy a bridge?

Xceler8x wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: I used to have a problem with people making a lot of money, until I really studied to see where it ends up. It always flows down.

Sure! Want to buy a bridge?

OK-Gonna use lots of stereotypes here:

NBA players are about the best example of "trickle down" because they make lots of money and then spend it.

Examples:
-clothes
-Jewelry
-Cars
-Houses
-Hired Help
-Dogs
-House for mom
-playstation/cell phone/ipod/televisions
-exotic vacations
-VIP rooms (Bars and strip clubs)
-etc...

Basically, anyone who makes money circulates money back into society by spending it, and therefore gives you the chance to earn it. It's the crazy neighbor who works his butt off so he can stuff all his money in the mattress who doesn't "trickle" that money to someone else.

TJ wrote: Buzz, I didn't mean to imply that BP shouldn't pay for their mess. Just find it funny when people root against themselves without knowing it. Rqacerdave, that sounds nice, but makes no sense. Do NBA team owners just get money delivered by a money fairy out of the blue for it to nicely flow down to us? I don't have a problem with people making a lot of money. I think people should make as much as they can - if I had the skills to be an NBA star I wouldnl't insist on my current paycheck. Not blaming the individuals - I just choose to not fund their large salaries as much as I can help it - I need my money more than they need my money.

How are you funding an NBA player? Unless you buy their products or attend a game, you won't be funding one. That or unless the state, federal or local government is paying their salaries, which the last time I checked, isn't happening.

You also aren't funding any CEO salary unless you buy a product or purchase stock. So if you don't want to fund them, don't do it, it's as simple as that.

But to think money doesn't flow down nonsense. Anytime they purchase a product or service it flows down, and the more they spend on items, the more so that happens. And the more they buy, the more jobs it creates. This is true of anyone of course, but the more disposable income people have, the more products can be sold and the more jobs can be created.

It's very simple, and regardless of what people tell you, is how free enterprise works and how economies can function the best. Governments can create good economies, they can create atmospheres that economies can function within.

So the answer here is, any CEO is worth the money if he creates an atmosphere where his company prospers and people buy their products, and one where the stockholders receive satisfactory dividends.

Unless you're on the board of directors at Ford, own controlling shares of their stock, or are funding their production with your tax dollars via gov't bailouts, I don't really think it's any of your damned business whether or not it's "justified," and quite frankly, a waste of your time.

You become "the man" by climbing the ladder, not by knocking the guy on top down a peg.

As a whole of ford corporate spending 20million isn't much consider billion dollar contracts. I'm sure some of the executive compensation package included stock options. If the CEO runs the company into the ground the stock price will reflect the state of the company, and the board of directors will be very upset with the CEO and can make him/her resign. There are tons of activist investors and to say a shareholder has no say in executive pay is just wrong. To claim a "partial" ownership in stock through a 401k plan doesn't give you enough exposure to potential gains losses of the company to say the executive compensation is wrong. To actually hold Ford stock holds much more sway. If a mutual fund owns tens of thousands of shares of a company they'd damn well better keep an eye on it. If not it is up to you to redistribute your assets to better performing investments.

The whole trickle down thing is another discussion, if you want to talk executive pay strategy keep the argument simple.

Why does it matter if I hold stock in a tax deferred retirement account or just a normal brokerage account? I still get the same voting rights.