Forbes notes today that while Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein may have been paid an “obscene” $314,894 a (working) day in 2007, he actually took home less of the bank’s overall profits than most of his counterparts on the Street, who, how to put this, made their firm’s jack, and still proceeded to reward themselves handsomely for a job not so well done. Whereas LB’s compensation, which was about $74 million last year, represented 0.64% of Goldman’s FY07 profits of $11.6 billion, a big time fuck up like, for instance, James Cayne, got paid out 4.73% of Bear’s $233 million profit. Making the idea that GS shareholders should have a “say” on the little guy’s “pay” all the more ridiculous.
A $74 Million Bargain [Forbes]
Comments (3)
Leave a comment
You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.
The numbers on Jimmy Cayne’s pay are not reflective of what he was awarded for 2007 performance. As the post does note, Cayne took no bonus for fiscal year 2007. Bear Stearns’ 2007 fiscal year ran from November 1, 2006 to October 31, 2007, and reflects a $17M bonus payment made to him in December 2006, following a profitable 2006 fiscal year. I don’t know anything about the $21M “other long term comp” awarded. I don’t know when the $59M in stock was awarded, but Forbes noted it had not been exercised. When was it valued by Forbes for the purpose of this comparison? In early 2007, the stock was worth $170 a share. We all know Cayne sold all the stock he had in Bear Stearns in March 2008 for $10 a share.
Hey, I’m no fan of the last few years of Jimmy Cayne’s tenure, but there always seems to be a creep away from the facts when Bear Stearns is discussed.
I get the point, there’s not relationship between pay and performance. A company can be doing very badly and the CEO still gets very high compensation.
Well, if the facts wants us to stick to them, they should make a better effort to conform to the narrative…