CEO Caps Salary, but not Shares of Stock

[ParanoiA]

Ok, our union here is posting up bulletins making a stink about our CEO capping his pay but not his 394,000 shares of stock.

 

I guess I'm confused, what exactly could the problem be here? I don't see how his shares of stock hurt the company, nor how selling them would somehow be a good signal to investors in a troubled economy. What is it that I don't understand about this?

[swansont]

Are these stock options or grants, or shares already held? Options or grants dilute the already-issued shares, since the value of the company is divided into more pieces. Options can be priced, so that they are given a value below the market selling price, allowing the person to make money even without an increase in share price. And there are (or have been) concerns about how companies account for this in their books.

[ParanoiA]

Hmm, I guess I don't know. Maybe that's the deal. I need to find that out.

 

Ok, then setting accounting aside for a moment, is there any other reason why stock options or grants would be bad?

[Pangloss]

Note also that company managers have a lot of restrictions on when they can sell their stock, and when they do it's a public transaction, so their profit-taking can depress the price.

 

I think stock options are a good idea for companies receiving bailout money. It gives the managers an incentive to get the company back on the right track, which is also what the taxpayer wants. It's a win-win.

[ParanoiA]

And that's precisely why I was asking. I was thinking of printing a little counter piece I could tack on to their bulletins pointing out that our CEO also froze the salaries of 120,000 managers and has foregone his 2008 bonus, which is supposed to make up about 1/4 of his earnings. It doesn't speak well of the union to answer to that by distributing a bulletin that points out he didn't cap his stock awards. Nothing is good enough, it seems.

[iNow]

Doesn't it cost the company money to purchase those stocks and gift them to the CEO? My thought is that it hits the balance sheet, taking away from their cash position, that purchasing the stock and signing them over to the CEO is another place where the company itself is losing money it could be spending on other things.

 

 

(btw - congrats on hitting 3K, para. You're a scientist now. )

[ParanoiA]

Well that's a good point. I guess I didn't see it as money actually going out the door.

 

I didn't notice my 3,000th. Thanks, but I'm no scientist.

[swansont]

Doesn't it cost the company money to purchase those stocks and gift them to the CEO? My thought is that it hits the balance sheet, taking away from their cash position, that purchasing the stock and signing them over to the CEO is another place where the company itself is losing money it could be spending on other things.

 

I don't recall what the rule is now — I think options are now expensed.

 

But the other issue is the option's price. If a stock is selling at $10 a share, and the options are priced at $5 a share, the person will make money without any improvement in the stock. The incentive is only there if the option is priced above the current price of the stock. It's possible that this is the objection.

[Pangloss]

Yeah that doesn't really work in both of those cases, I agree.

 

But I like the idea of performance incentives of some kind, based on the idea of getting the company off the public teat. It just needs to be carefully thought out.

[npts2020]

Stock options are simply a way of getting around the maximum pay rule. As I understand it, they are not reported as compensation (as of about 1996) and generally inflate the bottom line by whatever their value is by diluting all shares some corresponding amount. Furthermore, they are usually transferable any time after issue so if the exec thinks the company is not faring well he may cash them in (especially if the person is on the way out) upon recieving them. One proposed solution is to make recipients wait until the stock gets above a certain level before they are allowed to sell their shares. Personally I think if they just allow the executives to loot their companies, it will become apparent that much sooner that the "economic stimulus" will certainly stimulate somebodies economies, just not the ones it is advertised to stimulate.

[jackson33]

Ok, our union here is posting up bulletins making a stink about our CEO capping his pay but not his 394,000 shares of stock.

 

I guess I'm confused, what exactly could the problem be here? I don't see how his shares of stock hurt the company, nor how selling them would somehow be a good signal to investors in a troubled economy. What is it that I don't understand about this?

 

First sales of an equity (share of a stock) is taxed under 'Capital Gains', not subject to earnings. The person today pays 10% long term (held over one year) or 15% for short term (under one year). Thats from the first dollar, but is subject to other capital gains or losses, selling a home for instance. Income taxes on the other hand are taxed at 35% today, on adjusted incomes over $357,701. Much more in the last century and the reason pay packages often include stocks or options, in the first place.

 

I am assuming your CEO, holds shares or options on 394k shares of the company you work for, but it would surprise you how many of management buys stock in the company they feel will improve with their assistance. Anyway the option is usually a price set, for the employee to buy/sell a share and then with a holding period to maintain that share. If a simple grant, the employee is given a share and the tax value (gain/loss) is set on the price of that share the following trading day opening price. The company then can deduct that price, whether the stock was purchased or issued for that purpose.

 

Much of what Congressional Members and Unions are complaining about is this management of taxes, not the dollars involved. Since millions of people play the same game, day traders to selling property 1/1 opposed to 12/30, they can't address as they would like.

 

Many executives hire on to management for 1.00 per year, Lee Iaccoca (Chrysler Corp.) the most famous but far from the only, but received either stock or those options at greatly reduced prices. I might add, most of the larger Corporations, have employee (all) programs, where you can buy a share for less than the market value. This in part has been elevated by 401k's, where any eligible employee (union/management) contribution is added to in portions up to 50%, where their stock is involved.

[swansont]

First sales of an equity (share of a stock) is taxed under 'Capital Gains', not subject to earnings. The person today pays 10% long term (held over one year) or 15% for short term (under one year).

 

15% for long term in the upper tax brackets. Short-term CGs are taxed at the marginal rate.

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/2088.html