Meanwhile I'm sure the average line workers at IBM were told they had to share the pain. Of course, if the company does well again they won't be sharing in the gain. I'd love to know how anybody on a board of directors could do such a boneheaded move like rewarding for failure. If a CEO receives bonuses when profits are up, the reverse should be true as well. When the company is losing money, the bonus is negative and offsets the CEO's base salary. If the company does really poorly, the CEO should actually be in a position where they owe the company money.
Dammit jtr, there you go again using logic and reason. When will you ever learn.
Many of the people who make up the average board of directors are CEO of their own companies and don't want to start a trend of "punishing" CEOs, as they are CEOs themselves.
"Punishing" the CEO might be perceived as a lack of trust in their leadership, which could lead to drop in stock price, and shareholder lawsuits, etc, etc. Plus the board doesn't want to admit they made (and keep making apparently) a mistake.
The elite of the elite (1% of the 1%) don't live in reality anyways. The shit coming out of their mouths is poetry, their farts smell like roses, and they are the special "chosen" to run the world.
When a bunch of lawyers are in a room together do they tell CEO-Jokes?
The number seems a little misleading. If I understand the compensation correctly, it's options that have no value unless the stock goes up at least 5%. So, they *are* lining up compensation with the shareholder's interests.
Keep in mind, few people are buy and hold these days. I only hold one company's shares outright. The rest are through mutual funds and ETFs.
I held quite a few individual stocks along with ETFs through most of last year (actually managed a positive return in 2015, a hard thing to do. Thanks Amazon!), but sold out mid-December. I had a feeling it wouldn't be pretty, but I had no idea how bad it would get.