CEO pay #3 on the list

[Anonymous]

Good work Ian!

 

[Anonymous]

$25,000,000 in 2012

 

[Anonymous]

$25,000,000 in 2012

Repulsive.

 

[Anonymous]

It's called capitalism at its best

 

[Anonymous]

It's called capitalism at its best

It's also called typical compensation for a CEO of a major corporation. Like the salaries of top athletes. Ridiculously high.
It's evident our sense of value is messed up.

 

[Anonymous]

It's also called typical compensation for a CEO of a major corporation. Like the salaries of top athletes. Ridiculously high.
It's evident our sense of value is messed up.

Is Ian not the CEO of a top 3 pharmaceutical company? This compensation is fairly typical.

If you really want to open your eyes, check out what we paid former CEO McKinnell when he "left": $180 million. That was on top of his CEO salary. Say it slowly and let it sink in: we asked him to leave the building, and gave him almost $200 million as a SEVERANCE package. All told, between salary/ bennies/ severance, for being CEO for less than 10 years here, Mr McKinnell made a QUARTER of a BILLION dollars in those years alone!

Kinda makes you want to get your MBA from a top 5 school, and then run a major department overseas for a few years, eh?

 

[Anonymous]

Is Ian not the CEO of a top 3 pharmaceutical company? This compensation is fairly typical.

If you really want to open your eyes, check out what we paid former CEO McKinnell when he "left": $180 million. That was on top of his CEO salary. Say it slowly and let it sink in: we asked him to leave the building, and gave him almost $200 million as a SEVERANCE package. All told, between salary/ bennies/ severance, for being CEO for less than 10 years here, Mr McKinnell made a QUARTER of a BILLION dollars in those years alone!

Kinda makes you want to get your MBA from a top 5 school, and then run a major department overseas for a few years, eh?

You under estimated his exit package. It was $200 million, and not almost $200 million. Excerpt from Business Week magazine in 2006:

Back in April, shareholder groups at Pfizer's annual meeting made it abundantly clear that they'd had enough with the rich payouts to then-CEO Hank McKinnell. Groups, led by the AFL-CIO, staged a raucous protest. As they handed out fliers, chanted, and held up signs to demand McKinnell return part of his pay, an airplane circled the company's annual meeting in Lincoln, Neb., with a banner reading, "Give it back, Hank!" The protesters were upset that one of the top-paid pharmaceutical executives was also going to be granted an $82 million lump sum if he ever stepped down.

But on Dec. 21, Pfizer (PFE) revealed that McKinnell, who did give up the CEO post in 2006, is getting even more money than originally thought. He'll receive a total of $122 million in retirement, as well as deferred compensation worth an additional $78 million.

The sum total of $200 million isn't going over too well among investors. "It's not reasonable to pay someone who failed as CEO this much; he's the poster child for pay-for-failure," says Daniel F. Pedrotty, director of the investment office of the AFL-CIO, whose member unions' funds hold about $568 million in Pfizer shares."

 

[Anonymous]

yeah, this company is the best. The crew at the top keeps filling their pockets, issuing out ridiculous slogans that the underlings inanely repeat, and making poor decision after poor decision. Arrogant and entitled. It's no wonder the entire medical field view pfe and the rest of pharma as dubious at best and evil at worst. keep up the mergers where all the talent leaves when they hear pfe is knocking, keep up the realignments and job title changes so you can keep laying off people w/o getting in trouble with the gov, and keep betting on loser drugs and loser companies. It really is amazing to watch.

 

[Anonymous]

Is Ian not the CEO of a top 3 pharmaceutical company? This compensation is fairly typical.

If you really want to open your eyes, check out what we paid former CEO McKinnell when he "left": $180 million. That was on top of his CEO salary. Say it slowly and let it sink in: we asked him to leave the building, and gave him almost $200 million as a SEVERANCE package. All told, between salary/ bennies/ severance, for being CEO for less than 10 years here, Mr McKinnell made a QUARTER of a BILLION dollars in those years alone!

Kinda makes you want to get your MBA from a top 5 school, and then run a major department overseas for a few years, eh?

I'm sure Ian has a generous departing gift negotiated as well. The problem is we are paying the top management way too much.

Tie all executives salaries to the 50 times the average full time employees salary. That includes compensation. Award stock options/grants but cap those at 25 times average FT employee salary. Also put a 5-10 year vesting window on stocks with a claw back option if poor behavior exposed after departure.

Thing about what 50 times means. If an employee can support a family on the "average salary" pfizer offers, 50 times should be plenty. Want a raise? Give your employees a raise.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm sure Ian has a generous departing gift negotiated as well. The problem is we are paying the top management way too much.

Tie all executives salaries to the 50 times the average full time employees salary. That includes compensation. Award stock options/grants but cap those at 25 times average FT employee salary. Also put a 5-10 year vesting window on stocks with a claw back option if poor behavior exposed after departure.

Thing about what 50 times means. If an employee can support a family on the "average salary" pfizer offers, 50 times should be plenty. Want a raise? Give your employees a raise.

Doesnt Japan do it this way? Regardless, its not going to happen. All Board members belong to each other's boards, and are often EVPs, CFOs, COOs and the like. For this crew, limiting executive pay is like a district voting to limit raises and bonuses for district members at the end of each POA.

 

[Anonymous]

...and worth every penny of it...

 

[Anonymous]

Most of you will never understand why things like this happen but do not blame the CEOs, blame general counsel because these packages are tailored into their "offer" letters but when you get an offer letter your employment is "at will" theirs is not. These packages are already hard wired into the executives offer letters. Who makes the letters? Attorneys. It is unfortunate but these packages are already pre negotiate before people like this even get their corner offices.

 

[Anonymous]

hahahahahahahahaha - don't blame the CEO's hahahaha... Like they didn't retain the 'counsel' and negotiate these offers themselves through their attorneys. Get real. hey, I have an idea, let's blame it on rainy days b/c everybody hates those too.

 

[Anonymous]

hahahahahahahahaha - don't blame the CEO's hahahaha... Like they didn't retain the 'counsel' and negotiate these offers themselves through their attorneys. Get real. hey, I have an idea, let's blame it on rainy days b/c everybody hates those too.

So whenever a CEO is hired he brings his own attorneys? Like a cleaning crew does?!?! "I'll only work here if Jim comes with me." Get a grip on reality.

 

[Anonymous]

brings his own attorneys in house? I'm not sure why I'm responding to you but click on the link and educate yourself. Page 237.

http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law Review/Schwab-ThomasPublished.pdf

 

[Anonymous]

Most of you will never understand why things like this happen but do not blame the CEOs, blame general counsel because these packages are tailored into their "offer" letters but when you get an offer letter your employment is "at will" theirs is not. These packages are already hard wired into the executives offer letters. Who makes the letters? Attorneys. It is unfortunate but these packages are already pre negotiate before people like this even get their corner offices.

nonsense

 

[Anonymous]

Few things about the link. First and foremost, an incumbent cEO that has been successful WILL have more negotiating power. A brand new CEO will not as he brings in his own independent attorney. If the CEO is brand new, he or she still has to negotiate the terms with the board as well as the COMPANY'S counsel. In this case the CEO doesn't have a leg to stand on unless he is a long time child hood friend of the board and its counsel. In order to end this debate and find out whether or not I am right or you are right depends on the CEOs relationship with the counsel and the board before he was brought on, which is what my original argument was about, it wasn't centered around an existing CEO. This house of cards happened when he originally took the post. If these were the terms of his contract than blame the stories and board like I said originally. I wasn't speaking About his negotiating power during his employment.

 

[Anonymous]

Repulsive.

What do these top executive guys and gals really do. They are so far removed from reality it's not even funny. I say have the guts to go into a vacant sales territory for six months and get a reality check of what sales is really like. All this other stuff they talk about is just babble. Nobody is worth that kind of money unless they started and own the company!

 

[Anonymous]

What do these top executive guys and gals really do. They are so far removed from reality it's not even funny. I say have the guts to go into a vacant sales territory for six months and get a reality check of what sales is really like. All this other stuff they talk about is just babble. Nobody is worth that kind of money unless they started and own the company!

Agreed! Executive leadership is over paid and sig. under delivers. Here is a typical boardroom conversation.

CEO: hey guys, I brought you all in to point out the obvious, sales are down since loe lipitor. i have some ideas to turn things around. First, lets sell some assets! We can take the cash and do a stock buy back. We collectively own 10m shares of stock so if we get the price up, I'll make more money.
Second, lets cut R&D! Who needs new products. Expenses go down stock goes up, I make more money
Third, let's cut the sales force! They don't sell worth a shit anyway. Hell they're a liability. But don't cut management, I have some buddies in the field still. I know we'll have 4 Reps per DBM and 4 DBM's per RD, but what the hell. Expenses go down, stock goes up I make more money.
Forth, cut T&E! and increase car expense. Expenses go down stock goes up, I make more money
Fifth, if what little R&D we still engage in develops anything make it for some rare disease. Wall street is dumb as hell. As long as we say a new drug was approved our stock will go up and I'll make money
sixth, over estimate and over project all new drug sales. We can blame the sales force when they miss. Makes it easier to iniatiate my third idea. Stock may go down, but we'll put my second idea in place to distract people
Lastly, from this day forth, we will have two 7% avg. price increases per year.

 

[Anonymous]

...and worth every penny of it...

Amen to that. I'll work - anyday! - for a CEO who brings our stock from 16 up to 29 in just 2 years. You might also want to look at how his pay compares to most CEOs across industry (it's low). Given the level of responsibility the CEO of this company has, in my opinion, you cant pay them enough - especially when they are performing as well as Ian.

If you dont believe a CEO's level of talent and skill has an impact on the company, you weren't here for the two prior CEOs. I've been here for many, many years. Put simply, it's been a long time since we had a CEO like Ian. I say - pay him more. Rest assured that if he ever smartens up and decides he has made enough money and doesnt need this place anymore, this company will suffer. Rest assured, we need him more than he needs us.