The $145 Million CEO

[dmcowen674]

More targets for the Occupy Movement

It's a lot more than just higher fuel costs driving up the price of everything.

In this case Health Care costs.

It is the fattening of personal pockets

The article of the title is off, he has actually pulled in $750 million

So Republicans instead of trying to blame Obama, here is the real culprits of soaring costs and the Occupy Movement and Americans are starting to realize it.

1-2-2012

http://news.yahoo.com/145-million-c...BzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

The $145 Million CEO


James Reda thought he was beyond surprise when it came to executive pay.


But then Reda, a New York–based compensation consultant who sometimes puts together mega-pay packages on behalf of publicly traded behemoths, learned about John Hammergren, the CEO of the McKesson Corp., a giant medical-supply company in California. Hammergren is the $145 million man, top dog on the latest listing of the country’s highest-paid chief executives.

But so what if he made $145 million in a single year?

Hammergren’s annual total compensation payouts, taken from the company’s public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission: $46 million in 2011; $55 million in 2010; $37 million in 2009; another $41 million in 2008.

His haul in the 13 years he has been running McKesson?

More than $750 million, according to data provided by Equilar, an executive-compensation data firm.

Among the other perks he enjoys: a chauffeur to drive his company car, free use of the corporate jet for personal travel, and an extra $17,000 a year to pay for a financial planner.

The company discontinued its pension program for ordinary employees in 1997 but not for top executives. If Hammergren quit tomorrow, according to company filings, he would receive a pension valued at $125 million.

The party won’t stop once the 52-year-old Hammergren retires. Among his lifetime benefits: a personal assistant and office, which the company figures will cost more than $200,000 a year, and the services of a financial counselor—a perk that will eat up $350,000 in profits, according to company estimates. The goodies keep coming even after he dies. If his wife survives him, she will continue receiving his base salary for six months and will also get $2 million in cash. That cash bonus would actually cost the company nearly twice that amount, as it's promised to cover the widow’s cost of paying taxes on that money.

If Hammergren loses his job due to a change in ownership, he receives an immediate $469 million payout

Hammergren, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment for this article. And the company declined to make any employee or board member available for an interview.

Hammergren’s also served as chairman of the board, meaning he runs the body that decides what the company pays him and his top people.

America’s newest poster boy for the sense of entitlement rampant among the top 1 percent is thin and bespectacled, a studious, blue-eyed man from a small town in Minnesota.

 

[zsdersw]

What the Occupy people and you fail to understand is that no one is entitled to determine the pay of anyone in a private company except those in charge of that private company.

If that private company receives public money there is a valid claim that the public money should be paid back in full before anyone in that company gets a raise, but that's not what the Occupy movement (or idiots like yourself) is limited to; it's an attack on anyone who makes much more money than you do... as if you're somehow entitled to more money and others must surrender more of theirs.

 

[blackangst1]

What the Occupy people and you fail to understand is that no one is entitled to determine the pay of anyone in a private company except those in charge of that private company.

If that private company receives public money there is a valid claim that the public money should be paid back in full before anyone in that company gets a raise, but that's not what the Occupy movement (or idiots like yourself) is limited to; it's an attack on anyone who makes much more money than you do... as if you're somehow entitled to more money and others must surrender more of theirs.

+1

 

[SamurAchzar]

http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp...1573&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:MCK&ntsp=0

It's a profitable company with a stable dividend, and the stock price has nearly quadrupled in the 13 years he's been CEO showing investor confidence.
If you don't like his compensation, sell his stock or avoid his product. Too simple?

 

[zsdersw]

Smart and savvy consumers vote with their wallets; Occupy protesters want to vote with others' wallets.

 

[TheSlamma]

Smart and savvy consumers vote with their wallets; Occupy protesters want to vote with others' wallets.

QFT

 

[palehorse]

Sounds like a great company and a very effective CEO! Good for him (them), sincerely.

I have no regrets about a life of moderately-paid service to our Nation; but, I often wonder how successful I could have been in high-power business. Hmmm, if I still have the energy, maybe I'll give it a shot after my second 20-yr retirement (at age 57)...

I love this country.

 

[BoberFett]

A quick glance shows that McKesson does over $100B a year in revenue. This guys compensation averages out to $57M/yr. That's 0.05% of the companies revenue. Barely a scratch in their financials.

Another way to look at is that they employ (according to Wikipedia) roughly 32,500 employees. This means that he makes about $1,750 per person the company employs. He just employs a lot of people. If the average small business owner only made $1,700 per employee they wouldn't be able to feed their family. So this CEO actually is riding less on the backs of his employees than the guy that owns the little shop the left would call an ethical businessman.

Finally, if you took away everything from this man, everything he had ever collected in incom and redistributed it, each American would receive about $2 plus change. Now spread that payment out over 13 years. Less than $0.20/yr. The average American probably loses more change than that in seat cushions.

Is it a lot of money? Sure. But put it in perspective. The left loves to demonize CEO compensation, but in the grand scheme of things there are far worse problems with our economy.

 

[Nebor]

He's steered that company into profitability so great that they can afford to pay him that much.

 

[WHAMPOM]

What the Occupy people and you fail to understand is that no one is entitled to determine the pay of anyone in a private company except those in charge of that private company.

If that private company receives public money there is a valid claim that the public money should be paid back in full before anyone in that company gets a raise, but that's not what the Occupy movement (or idiots like yourself) is limited to; it's an attack on anyone who makes much more money than you do... as if you're somehow entitled to more money and others must surrender more of theirs.

Logic Gaps in your tirade: #1 if a corporation receives Tax breaks, refunds , or just pays no Tax the compensation for that loss of Public Funds must be taken from your taxes, your wallet. #2 if a minimum wage law is legal why not a maximum wage law? #3 "as if you're somehow entitled to more money and others must surrender more of theirs." pretty much sums up the Occupy Movement arguement against CEO pay.

 

[waggy]

hell of a CEO. Sounds like the company got a deal with him. He was worth EVERY penny they paid him!

 

[zsdersw]

Logic Gaps in your tirade: #1 if a corporation receives Tax breaks, refunds , or just pays no Tax the compensation for that loss of Public Funds must be taken from your taxes, your wallet.

So corporations/companies should receive no tax breaks or refunds? Fine... then all the tax breaks and refunds built in the tax code for single and married people should be eliminated too.

#2 if a minimum wage law is legal why not a maximum wage law?

Never said or suggested there should be a minimum wage.

#3 "as if you're somehow entitled to more money and others must surrender more of theirs." pretty much sums up the Occupy Movement arguement against CEO pay.

Complete fail. Everyone's pay is determined by their boss, whether it's a manager/supervisor/owner for ordinary employees or shareholders for CEOs. The Occupy movement argues that CEO pay should be determined by someone else. That is a fundamental change in the nature of accountability, responsibility, and governance.

 

[Anarchist420]

If society doesn't want them to be rich, then society won't buy their product.

OWS doesn't represent "the 99%".

 

[Patranus]

Yawn.

The guy runs a 20 billion dollar company with 117 billion in sales.

There are not many people who can do that. Supply and demand for the talent available.

Always, those who argue that his company contributes to high medical costs are wrong (as usual).

The company has a 2% profit margin.

Like I said, wrong again, but why should we be surprised.

 

[Vic Vega]

A quick glance shows that McKesson does over $100B a year in revenue. This guys compensation averages out to $57M/yr. That's 0.05% of the companies revenue. Barely a scratch in their financials.

Another way to look at is that they employ (according to Wikipedia) roughly 32,500 employees. This means that he makes about $1,750 per person the company employs. He just employs a lot of people. If the average small business owner only made $1,700 per employee they wouldn't be able to feed their family. So this CEO actually is riding less on the backs of his employees than the guy that owns the little shop the left would call an ethical businessman.

Finally, if you took away everything from this man, everything he had ever collected in incom and redistributed it, each American would receive about $2 plus change. Now spread that payment out over 13 years. Less than $0.20/yr. The average American probably loses more change than that in seat cushions.

Is it a lot of money? Sure. But put it in perspective. The left loves to demonize CEO compensation, but in the grand scheme of things there are far worse problems with our economy.

Thanks for posting this. Lots of really good posts in this thread from logical, rational, sane people.

Good shtuff! :thumbsup:

 

[ultimatebob]

If you don't like a CEO's compensation package, don't do business with the company. I'll bet that there is some hospital or drugstore out there doesn't buy stuff from McKesson... if you feel that strongly about it, do business with them instead. Tell your friends to do the same. Start a boycott if you really want to get some attention.

Grr... Why do people feel the need to whine about things that annoy them rather than trying to do something about it?

 

[silverpig]

Complete fail. Everyone's pay is determined by their boss, whether it's a manager/supervisor/owner for ordinary employees or shareholders for CEOs. The Occupy movement argues that CEO pay should be determined by someone else. That is a fundamental change in the nature of accountability, responsibility, and governance.

It's not actually a complete fail. One of the issues that the OWS people (should) have is the issue of corporate governance. CEOs shouldn't be on the board of directors (at least, they shouldn't have a voting seat... advisory is fine), and should have no ability to appoint people to the board.

It may not have been an issue in this case, but if I could pick my friends to be the people who determine my pay, I'd be making a lot more than I do. Well, maybe not, but lots of people would.

 

[zsdersw]

It's not actually a complete fail. One of the issues that the OWS people (should) have is the issue of corporate governance. CEOs shouldn't be on the board of directors (at least, they shouldn't have a voting seat... advisory is fine), and should have no ability to appoint people to the board.

It may not have been an issue in this case, but if I could pick my friends to be the people who determine my pay, I'd be making a lot more than I do. Well, maybe not, but lots of people would.

That argument could also apply to unions in the sense that they provide their members with a lot of influence over their own pay.

 

[senseamp]

1%er apologists are out in force in this thread.

 

[zsdersw]

1%er apologists are out in force in this thread.

People who wrongly think they're entitled to other people's money are, too.

 

[micrometers]

People who wrongly think they're entitled to other people's money are, too.

Except if you pay attention, you will see that the executive team increased their compensation at the expense of the typical person on the workforce. This guy is hauling in $145 million but at the same time he ended the pension program for regular workers.

One point of progressive taxation is to make it more expensive for companies to pay one guy grossly more than the next guy.

 

[SamurAchzar]

1%er apologists are out in force in this thread.

I'd rather you call me "shareholders rights apologist".

 

[senseamp]

People who wrongly think they're entitled to other people's money are, too.

Shareholder money.

 

[Vic Vega]

1%er apologists are out in force in this thread.

I'm glad we have become a civilized society and keep barbarians like you at bay. If it weren't for the law and the police I have no doubt you would be physically robbing people daily, and probably think you were justified doing so.

 

[micrometers]

Shareholder money.

Yeah, the issue really is that shareholders really don't have the information to successfully police this shit. The CEO holds all of the info.

A founder/owner of a company wouldn't have a problem with this, since he would hold intimate info.