If someone were to hand us a bonus of $53.4 million ($27.3 million in cash, the rest in stock and options), chances are we probably wouldn't turn it down. You can buy a lot of things with 53.4 million dollars, and we're not saying the odds are high that something like that might happen in the next couple days but, for the purposes of this post, if it did, our response would probably be along the lines of, "Wow, that's fantastic, now we can finally buy all those Cramer bobble heads, our plane ticket to Mexico for the Oaxaca World Series of Cockfighting Championship Match, our all-access pass to the Andrew Ross Sorkin Pleasure Palace, that puppy our parents promised us if we stayed at summer camp the entire month that year we were 11 and really homesick, and a hodgepodge of other equally great things" and not-- "You know what? Thanks, but no thanks. Do you have any respect for us at all? Obviously not, or you wouldn't be trying to hand us a bonus that's missing about, and we're ball parking it here, 14.6 million dollars. We're so offended by this affront that you know what we're going to do? We're going to walk out that door and never come back." But we probably won't be in the position to offer either of those responses, any time soon. Probably. Lloyd Blankfein, on the other hand, is in that position, and Peter Cohan thinks he should go with the latter.
I think he should get $68 million. Goldman's net income rose 70% in the last year but Blankfein's compensation is only 46% higher than that of his predecessor who oversaw 23% net income growth. When his predecessor increased Goldman's 2005 net income 23% over the 2004 level, he got a 29% boost (6% above net income growth) in compensation over 2004. So I figure Blankfein should have gotten 76% more -- $68 million. In other words, Goldman stiffed Blankfein by 21%.
If Goldman's board underpays its CEO, how can shareholders be sure he'll stick around to boost the value of their investment in the future?
Goldman's grossly underpaid CEO [Blogging Stocks]