Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:35:07 GMT <![CDATA[Our Greatest Asset]]> Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:35:07 GMT The New York Times brings the science.  Just like in pricing houses, what looks reasonable in CEO compensation depends upon with what one is comparing.  Here is some actual data showing that comp committees tend to chose the higher paying company for their peer group, other things being equal.  Nice confirmation of what anybody who's had to put together one of those spreadsheets knows. 

]]> <![CDATA[It's all about picking the right comps]]> Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:06:29 GMT FusionOne's sale for $75 million, $35M of which is in earn-out form, was announced earlier this week.  They'd reportedly raised $140M which would make this result less than stellar, but that $140 seems to have come from 2000.  And the current owners, who are presumably collecting that $75M aren't the ones who paid that $140M, it looks like they paid $6M.  That looks much more like a success.  Apparently when a new CEO, Mike Mullica came onboard in January of 2008, he was able to convince new investors that the previous investors money had built something that would someday be worth something. He followed that up by bringing in some coleagues from his days at Openwave and making it come true. 

Anyway, great news for them. 

]]> <![CDATA[Who's responsible for this?]]> Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:43:58 GMT Just a quick note to clarify what I now see is a bit of muddle in that last post.  I find that boards hiring CEOs frequently are happy to point out that we're in a new economy when discussing how little cash the CEO should be happy with.  My frustration is that these same board memebers seem to forget that we are in a new economy when it comes to CEO candidates consideration of the likelihood of wealth creation based on a massive exit.  Also problematic is the inclination to forget that these candidates frequently have other birds in their hands,

]]> <![CDATA[Clarification]]> Thu, 08 Jul 2010 03:29:53 GMT Via Ezra Klein I see this interesting addition, from Business Week, to the literature of CEO compensation coming from Japan.  It seems that Japanese CEOs make far less than those public company CEOs here do.  Useful data for shooting down the bogus rationalization that CEOs have to be paid 8 figures because of their uniquely rare skills, but not neccessarily relevant to the quesstion of what to pay a CEO here in a public company or, where I have more experience, in a startup.  The delicate dance of comp negotiations depends on a number of factors, but the obvious one that bears on this data is the question of what a candidate (or incumbent) thinks he or she is worth to other likely employers.  I would imagine that Japanese CEOs don't generally consider that running an american company is a high probablity option.  In other words the market for CEOs isn't really global.  For that matter theat current prices, thesupply of silicon valley startup CEOs is much more constrained than people generally imagine.  I've sat across from VC board members who were convinced that Public company CEOs who were taking home millions in cash salaries would be delighted to come work for their startups for $250K base and $100K bonus and 5% stake in owning something with a 10% chance of selling for megabucks in a few years.  Many investors will be happy to explain that it isn't 1999 anymore when it comes to valuation discussions but seem to forget that fact when it comes to finding a CEO. 

]]> <![CDATA[How much is that in dollars?]]> Wed, 07 Jul 2010 04:33:18 GMT Here is an executive hiring announcement to give hope to all those Philosophy majors out there.  Atheros has brought on Dan Rabinovitsj, who got a BA in Philosophy from the University of Texas at Austin, to run their networking business unit.  That choice of major did first lead him to grad school and several years of marketing jobs at AMD.  But now at least all you toilers in the Philosophy departments can point to this positive sign for your future prospects. 

]]> <![CDATA[What are you going to do with that Philosophy degree?]]> Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:52:33 GMT We have one fewer Gordon in a world leadership position after the British elections.  Although I think I can say without relying on mispalced pride of name that we can all be grateful that Gordon Brown was in charge over there during the recent finacial crisis unpleasantness. 

]]> <![CDATA[Gordons of the World]]> Mon, 10 May 2010 03:46:43 GMT I see that ImageSpan has just brought on Kurt Garbe as CEO.  His experience looks like a solid fit with what their trying to do.  I wonder though why his title at Adobe is given as EiR.  What is the resistance to mentioning that he was VP of platforms for most of his time there?  It seems weird to avoid describing the job he spent most of his time there on.  Especially to replace it with something as nebulous as EiR.  It might make sense to highlight some aspect of his experience that has particular relevance to ImageSpan, but EiR is fairly information free, so doesn't acomplish that.  Anyway, best of luck to Kurt and to ImageSpan for a better result than Asera and Movaris.  Onward and Upward.

]]> <![CDATA[New CEO]]> Fri, 30 Apr 2010 03:43:52 GMT turns out that you can keep people around for only a million dollars in salary.]]> <![CDATA[Cash Comp]]> Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:28:44 GMT Bart Gordon has announced his support for the Health Care Reform reconciliation bill before congress now. Go Gordon.]]> <![CDATA[Gordons of the world]]> Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:27:30 GMT Q-Cells CEO Resigns After Firm Posts $1.9 Billion Loss What a headline. Of course he's still advising them, but you can't have everything. Here I was thinking that it was only in smaller companies that taking responsibility was in fashion.]]> <![CDATA[Accountability? Wow.]]> Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:07:38 GMT